FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 16 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARLEN LEE LOPEZ, No. 10-35257
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00992-RSL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SKAGIT COUNTY JAIL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 11, 2011 **
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Arlen Lee Lopez, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional violations in connection with his placement in administrative
segregation while a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291. We review de novo, Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175,
1180 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lopez’s claim that
his placement in administrative segregation violated his constitutional rights
because defendants expressed legitimate security needs and Lopez has not adduced
any evidence indicating an intent to punish him. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,
538-39 (1979) (“Absent a showing of an expressed intent to punish on the part of
detention facility officials . . . if a particular condition or restriction of pretrial
detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not,
without more, amount to ‘punishment.’” (internal citations omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Lopez’s claim alleging denial of access
to the courts because a judgment in Lopez’s favor would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his conviction. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
Lopez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Lopez’s motion to expedite is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-35257