KISASI LIGGINS V. LE ROY BACA, No. 16-56124 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 5 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KISASI DAVID LIGGINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-56124 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-10982-CJC-SP v. MEMORANDUM* LEROY D. BACA, Sheriff, individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Kisasi David Liggins, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from his pretrial detention at L.A. County Men’s Central Jail (“MCJ”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review * 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). de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Liggins’s failureto-protect claim because Liggins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Prestwich made an intentional decision to reassign Liggins’s cell or caused Liggins’s injuries. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (setting forth elements of a pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Liggins’s claim against defendant Baca in his official capacity because Liggins failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether any policy or custom of MCJ caused Liggins to suffer constitutional injuries. See id. at 1073-76 (discussing requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)); see also Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n.55 (official capacity suits are “another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent”). We reject as without merit Liggins’s contentions that defendants failed to provide all relevant discovery. We do not consider issues not properly raised before the district court, or arguments not raised in the opening brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED. 2 16-56124

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.