NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 29 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY PAYNE, No. 22-35506
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05950-RJB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES, a subdivision of the
State of Washington; SPECIAL
COMMITMENT CENTER, an agency of
DSHS; HENRY RICHARDS; WILLIAM
VAN HOOK; SJAN TALBOT; DAVID
FLYNN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Civil detainee Jeffrey Payne appeals pro se from the district court’s
*
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).
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an equal protection
claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby v.
Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
because Payne failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether civil
detainees housed in a total confinement facility, like Payne, were similarly situated
to civil detainees housed in transitional facilities. See Furnace v. Sullivan, 705
F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth elements of a class-based
discrimination equal protection claim).
Contrary to Payne’s contention, the district court did not err in allowing
defendants to clarify the signatory of the DeVos declaration following Payne’s
objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3)
(requiring the district judge to “determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to” and allowing the district
judge to “receive further evidence”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Payne’s contention that the district
court provided him insufficient time to reply to defendants’ response to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
AFFIRMED.
2 22-35506