
    Hank ZABALA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mike HALEY, Sheriff of Washoe County; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16859
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Hank Zabala, Pro Se
    Herbert Kaplan, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, Reno, NY, for Defendants-Appel-lees
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Former detainee Hank- Zabala appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his placement in administrative segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Zabala’s claims against Sheriff Haley because Zabala failed' to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sheriff Haley personally participated in the alleged constitutional violations or whether there was a sufficient causal connection between Sheriff Haley’s conduct and the alleged constitutional violations. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth requirements for establishing supervisory liability under § 1983).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Zabala’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint and granting summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants because Zabala failed to amend his notice of appeal or file a separate notice of appeal. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     