The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONATHAN CRAIG ELFAND, No. 12-17729
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-05692-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF SONOMA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jonathan Craig Elfand, a former Sonoma County pretrial detainee, appeals
pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
a district court’s summary judgment and finding of qualified immunity, May v.
Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants
Tannehill and Cogbill on the basis of qualified immunity because their conduct did
not violate clearly established law. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, 2023
(2014) (officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they
violated a right that was clearly established; “a defendant cannot be said to have
violated a clearly established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently
definite that any reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have
understood that he was violating it”); Resnick v. Adams, 348 F.3d 763, 771 n.8 (9th
Cir. 2003) (even if a constitutional violation had been established, summary
judgment would have been proper on the basis of qualified immunity because it
was reasonable for officials to believe that requiring prisoner to file application for
religious diet was lawful); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir.
2011) (discussing the requirements for establishing supervisory liability).
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendant County
of Sonoma because Elfand failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether the County’s actions amounted to a policy of deliberate indifference to
constitutional or statutory rights. See Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. # 40 Cnty. of Yamhill,
2 12-17729
130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997) (setting forth requirements for municipal
liability under § 1983).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-17729