NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM CURRY, Jr., No. 16-35188
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05876-RJB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ELENA M. LOPEZ, Psy.D; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Civil detainee William Curry, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims
related to his civil confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, 681 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2012),
*
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).
and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Enlow v. Salem-Keizer
Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
Summary judgment on Curry’s due process claim regarding his placement in
the intensive management unit was proper because Curry failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with an intent to punish
Curry or whether his placement was not reasonably related to a legitimate
governmental objective. 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 quotations marks omitted)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Curry’s equal
protection claim because Curry failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether he was intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated
without a rational basis, or was intentionally discriminated against based on his
membership in a protected class. See Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562,
564 (2000) (per curiam) (setting forth elements of equal protection “class of one”
claim); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)
2 16-35188
(setting forth elements of a § 1983 equal protection claim).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Curry’s access-to-
courts claim because Curry failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendants caused an actual injury to a non-frivolous claim. See Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49 (1996) (setting forth elements of an access-to-courts
claim and actual injury requirement).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Curry’s failure-to-
protect claim because Curry failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendants failed to take reasonable available measures to abate a
substantial risk of serious harm to Curry. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles,
833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (setting forth elements of
Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim by pretrial detainee).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Curry’s retaliation
claim because Curry failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants took an adverse action against Curry because of his protected conduct.
See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth
elements of retaliation claim in the prison context).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
3 16-35188
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.
4 16-35188