NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES E. WHITE, No. 19-15793

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00917-BAM

v.

MEMORANDUM*

MARK N. PAZIN, Sheriff/Coroner (Sheriff Administration); et al.,

Defendants,

and

COUNTY OF MERCED,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted August 5, 2020***

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). James E. White appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that, while he was a pretrial detainee in the

Merced County jail, the jail’s policy of denying visitation with children under the

age of 12 years old violated the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam

Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because White failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the jail’s policy was not

reasonably related to the legitimate penological interest of the safety of the

children and the jail. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987) (stating that

a prison regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological

interests and articulating the factors for determining the reasonableness of the

prison regulation at issue); Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1209 (9th

Cir. 2008) (applying the Turner factors to pretrial detainees).

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).

White’s request for sanctions, set forth in the reply brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 19-15793