Jesse Brittain v. Sheriff of Riverside County

MEMORANDUM

Jesse Brien Brittain appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action challenging his conditions of confinement at the Riverside County Jail while awaiting commitment hearings pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (“SVP Act”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendant Laus because Brittain failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Laus was personally involved with, or promulgated a specific policy that led to, the alleged constitutional violations. See Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.1981) (to bring section 1983 claim, plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights).

The district court granted summary judgment to defendant Doyle because it concluded that the policies he instituted were constitutional. However, in opposition to summary judgment, Brittain submitted evidence…