McGary v. Cunningham, 040318 FED9, 15-35178
|Party Name:||DARNELL OTIS MCGARY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KELLY CUNNINGHAM, Superintendent; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||April 03, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted March 30, 2018 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 3:13-cv-05130-RBL for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Darnell Otis McGary appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment and dismissal for failure to state a claim in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his civil commitment in the Special Commitment Center ("SCC") as a sexually violent predator. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001) (summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claims against Governor Inslee because McGary failed to allege facts showing Inslee's personal involvement in any constitutional violation or a causal connection between Inslee's conduct and any such violation. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a plaintiff must allege facts that "allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged"); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) ("A defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 if there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed the claims against Assistant Attorney General Buder because Buder is absolutely immune from liability for his role "in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case, " Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976), and because the claims would be barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP