
    William Jackson KITCHENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret MIMS, Asst. Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-15230
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 13, 2016
    
    Filed September 22, 2016
    William Jackson Kitchens, Pro Se.
    James J. Arendt, Esquire, Rosemary T. McGuire, Esquire, Roy C. Santos, Attorneys, Weakley & Arendt LLP, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William Jackson Kitchens, a civil detainee, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from his detention in Fresno County jail pending adjudication of his civil commitment under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Mims because Kitchens failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Mims was personally involved in or caused a constitutional violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation or there is a “sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Red man v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1449 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (summary judgment was proper where law enforcement officer was not responsible for developing or promulgating facility policies, or otherwise directly involved in the constitutional violation).

We do not consider Kitchens’s claims regarding a strip search or claims against any other defendant because a prior decision of this Court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment on those claims. See Kitchens v. Pierce, 584 Fed.Appx. 302 (9th Cir. 2014); Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (under the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court panel will not reconsider questions that another panel has previously decided in the same case).

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