Smith v. County of Washoe

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT LONNELL SMITH, No. 23-3056 D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00123-ART-CSD Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF WASHOE; DARIN BALAAM; MOSLEY, Lieutenant; RICE; BARRETT-VENN; VENN; GERMAN; OBRITSCH, CIV-Deputy; LITTLEFIELD, Sergeant; SEWELL, Sergeant; STEWART, Sergeant; KLEIN, Deputy; HJERMSTAD; GARZA, Representative of Washoe Legal Services; JETER, Deputy; JOHNSON, Representative of Washoe Legal Services; JENKINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Anne R. Traum, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2025** Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. * 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).  Nevada state prisoner Robert Lonnell Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 759 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Smith’s Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement claim because Smith failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the amount of time he was allowed out of his cell amounted to punishment. See Norbert v. City & County of San Francisco, 10 F.4th 918, 933 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that governmental action constitutes punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when it causes the detainee to suffer a harm or disability and is intended to punish); id. at 929-30 (explaining that “the constitutionality of conditions for inmate exercise must be evaluated based on the full extent of the available recreational opportunities”); Lockett v. County of Los Angeles, 977 F.3d 737, 741 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that municipal liability claims under § 1983 require a plaintiff to show an underlying constitutional violation). We reject as unsupported by the record Smith’s contentions that the district court improperly entertained a successive motion for summary judgment, failed to apply correctly the relevant legal standard, or engaged in improper ex parte 2 23-3056 communications with defendants. AFFIRMED. 3 23-3056