HANK ZABALA V. MIKE HALEY, No. 15-16859 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HANK ZABALA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-16859 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00393-RFB-PAL v. MEMORANDUM* MIKE HALEY, Sheriff of Washoe County; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Richard F. Boulware, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 11, 2017** Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. Former detainee Hank Zabala appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his placement in administrative segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Zabala’s claims against Sheriff Haley because Zabala failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sheriff Haley personally participated in the alleged constitutional violations or whether there was a sufficient causal connection between Sheriff Haley’s conduct and the alleged constitutional violations. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth requirements for establishing supervisory liability under § 1983). We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Zabala’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint and granting summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants because Zabala failed to amend his notice of appeal or file a separate notice of appeal. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 15-16859

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.