Opinion
21-16114
06-28-2022
DONALD LILLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT; SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 5:19-cv-07941-NC
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
The responses to the October 5, 2021 order demonstrate that this appeal involves non-frivolous issues. The order to show cause is therefore discharged, and Lilly's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 10) is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Clerk will amend the docket to reflect Lilly's in forma pauperis status, and will file the reply brief received on November 8, 2021 (Docket Entry No. 8).
Donald Lilly, a former civil detainee at Humboldt County Correctional Facility, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement. 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.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lilly failed to rebut defendants' evidence of legitimate, non-punitive reasons for the conditions that Lilly described. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536-37 (1979) (holding that the government may subject an inmate to the general conditions of the facility so long as those conditions do not amount to punishment or otherwise violate the Constitution); Jones, 393 F.3d at 932 (maintaining jail security and effective jail management are legitimate, non-punitive governmental interests).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).