NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL MUTHEE MUNYWE,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. JULIE DIER, Detective, Tacoma Police Department; JEFFREY THIRY, Police Officer; BRIAN SHE, Police Officer; WILLIAM MUSE, Detective, Tacoma Police Department,
Defendants

- Appellees. No. 22

- 35511
D.C. No. 3:21

- cv - 05218

- BJR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 7, 2023 * *

Before: WALLACE , O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Michael Muthee Munywe app eals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in Munywe’s action alleging constitutional violations in

* 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). 

# FILED

JUN 9 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, see Mendiola

- Martinez v. Arpaio , 836 F. 3d 1239, 1247 (9th Cir. 2016), and
we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Munywe’s Eighth Amendment claims. Munywe alleged mistreatment as a pretrial detainee, and his claims accordingly
arose under the Fourteenth Amendment. See id

. at 1246 n. 5 ( “[P] retrial detainees are entitled to the potentially more expansive protections of the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment .” )

. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Munywe’s
Fourteenth Amendment claims that he was handcuffe d too tightly for over seven hours ; held in a room with toxic fumes; and denied water and an opportunity to use the bathroom. Munywe failed to produce any objective medical evidence in support of his injury claims

. See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency , 261 F.3d 912, 922 (9th Cir. 2001). Munywe also failed to raise a triable issue about whether the defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for confining Munywe
as he claims. See Gordon v. C nty. of Orange , 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) ; see also Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 398 (20 15) ( “A pretrial detainee can prevail by providing only objective evidence that the challenged governmental action is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective or that it is excessive in relation to that purpose .” )

.3 The district court properly granted summary judgment on Munywe’s equal protection claims. Munywe alleged that defendants questioned him about his accent, but the officers ha d a legitimate law enforcement purpose for doing so : The alleged assailant was rep orted to have spoken with an accent; and the detectives were attempting to verify that Munywe was capable of being interviewed without an interpreter

. See, e .g., Furnace v. Sullivan , 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013) ( “[A] plaintiff must show that the d efendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class .” ) , quoting Barren v. Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) . Munywe’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a lso fail, because Mun ywe did not allege any impairment protected by the statute. Lastly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Munywe’s discovery motion because Munywe failed to comply with meet and confer requirements under local rules. See, e.g., Tri

- Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (denial of motion for failure to comply with local rules is well within a district court’s discretion)

. AFFIRMED.