NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIEL ECKARD, No. 20-35267
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00104-RSM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PATRICIA THOMAS, Deputy, Snohomish
County Jail; CLINTON MOLL, Deputy,
Snohomish County Jail,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
JAMIE KANE, Deputy, Snohomish County
Jail,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Washington state prisoner Gabriel Eckard appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
violations arising from his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on 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 defendants
because Eckard failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants’ use of a restraint chair was not reasonably related to the legitimate
objectives of maintaining jail safety and security. 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.” (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or 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.
2 20-35267