N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DONALD HER

R IC K, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. M ARK STR ONG; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-35820 D.C . No. 3:15-c v-05779-R B L
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B
. Le ighton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d and Subm itte d De c e m

be r 7, 2018 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd M c KEOW

N an d C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s . Dona ld He rric k, a c ivil de ta ine e house d at a Spe c ia l C o m

m itm e nt C e nte r (“ SC C ” ) pe nding c ivil c o m m itm e nt a djudic at ion unde r W a shington’ s Se xua lly Viole n t Pre dat or Ac t, W a sh. R e v. C ode § 71.09.40, a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s



# FIL ED DEC 17 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.gran t of sum m ary judgm e n t in fa

vor of De fe nda

nts on his 42 U.S.C
. § 1983 a nd sta te la w c la im s. W e hav e jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . W e re vie w denov o a

distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt, J

one s v . Blanas , 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th C ir. 2004), a nd for a buse of disc re t ion a

distric t c ourt’ s orde r sta y ing disc ove ry . Lazar v . K ronc k e , 862 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th C ir. 2017). B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam i lia r with thehistory

of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . I The distric t c ourt prope rly a pplie d Turne r v . Safle

y , 482 U.S. 78 (1987) to He rric k’ s c la im s re ga

rding pe rsona l m a i l be c a

use the se c la i m s, like the m a i l c la im s
at issuein Turne r , a

re grounde d

in the First Am e ndm e nt. C ontra ry to He rric k’ s
a sse rtion, Youngbe rg v . Rome o , 457 U.S. 307 (1982), whic h involve d a

substa ntive due proc e ss c ha l le nge , is ina pposite . Whe re an Am e n dm e nt “provide s a n e xplic it te xtua l sourc e of c onstitutiona l prote c tion a ga i nst [a pa

rtic ula r sort of gove rnm e nt be havior] , tha

t Am e ndm e nt, not the m ore ge ne ra l iz e d notion of substa ntive due proc e s s, m

ust be the guide for ana ly z ing suc h a c l a im .” Graham v . C

onnor , 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989). The distric t c ourt a

p propria te ly e m pha s iz e d He rric k’ s sta

tus a s a de ta ine e unde r c ivil proc e ss, ra

the r tha n c rim ina l, whe n e va l uating a ll of his c la im s , noting

2that

any re stric tion on He rric k’ s rights c ould not bepunitive
. Se e J o ne s , 393 F.3d
at 932 (“ [A] n

individual de t a ine d unde r c i vil proc e s s— like an individual a c c use d but not c onvic te d of a

c rim e
— c annot be subje c te d to c onditions tha t ‘ am ount to punishm e nt.’ ” ). The distric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of Turne r

to He rric k’ s c la im s re ga rding pe rsona l m a i l is c onsiste nt with our pre c e de nt a na l y z ing the
c onstitutiona

l c la im s of pre tria l de ta ine e s. Se e , e .g. , Mangiarac ina v . Pe nzone , 849 F.3d 1191, 1197 (9th C ir. 2017) (a pply ing Turne r

to First Am e ndm e nt c ha l le nge of
m a il polic y

brought by

pre tria l de ta ine e s); Pie rc e v . C ty . of Orange , 526 F.3d 1190, 1209-13 (9th C ir. 2008) (a pply i ng Turne r

to First Am e ndm e nt c ha lle nge brought by pre tria l de ta ine e s). He rric k’ s re lia

n c e on Houghton v . South , 965 F.2d 1532 (9th C ir. 1992) is sim ila rly m ispla c e d. Houghton he ld tha t a dire c tor of sta

te institutions fa

ile d to
m e e t his burde n on qua lifie d im m unity be c a use he did not provide

e vide nc e of his profe s siona l qua lific ations or a ny ba sis for his tre atm e nt-re late d de c ision. Id. at 1537. This wa s a stra ightforwa rd a pplic ation of Youngbe rg , whic h e sta blishe d the burde n tha t “ [l] ong-te rm

tre atm e nt de c isions norma lly should bem a de by pe rsons with de gre e s in m e dic ine or nursing, or with a ppropria te tra ining in a

re a s suc h a s psy c hology .” Id. at 1537 (c iting Youngbe rg , 457 U.S. a t 323 n.30). Howev e r, Youngbe rg e xpre ssly

a c knowle dge d tha

t “ d ay -to-da

y de c i sions” m a de by
3e m

ploy e e s, like SC C m a i l room sta ff, are not subje c t to the se sa m e sta nda rds. 457 U.S. at 323 n.30. The Houghton rationa le doe s not a pply to the da y -to-da y sorting
and de live ry

de c isions m a de by

SC C sta ff m e m

be rs working in the

m a il room
. In sum , the distric t c ourt prope rly ana ly z e d a

nd a pplie d the Turne r

fa c tors in gran ting sum

m ary judgm e nt on He rric k’ s First Am e ndm e nt c la im s re ga rding
a lle ge d inte rfe re nc e with m a il. II The M a gistra

te Judge ’ s de c ision to gra nt De fe n da

nts’ m otion to sta

y wa s not
an a b use of disc re tion. Although sum m ary judgm e nt ge ne ra lly should not be gran te d be fore the c om

ple tion of disc ove ry , se e e . g., K linge lev . Eik

e nbe rry , 849 F.2d 409, 412 (9th C ir. 1988), a sta y of disc o ve ry

wa s a ppropria te he re be c a

use qua lifie d im

m unity ’ s de te rm inative im

pa c t c o nstitute s m ore tha

n just a de fe nse to lia bility

— it is im m unity from suit a ltoge t

he r. Pe arson v . C

allahan , 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (Qua lifie d im m un ity is “ a n im m unity from suit ra

the r tha n a m e re de fe nse to lia

bility .” (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d)). Additionally , “ [a ] distric t c ourt is ve ste d with broa d disc re tion to perm it or de ny disc ove ry , a

nd a de c i sion ‘ to de ny

disc ove ry

will not be

disturbe d e xc e pt upon thec le a

re st showing tha

t the de nia l of disc ove ry

re sults in a c tua l a

nd substa ntia l pre j udic e to the c om

pla ining litiga

nt.’ ” Laub v . U.S. De

p’t of Inte rior , 4342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th C ir. 2003). He rric k fa ils to e sta blish tha t he suffe re d a

ny pre j udic e be c a

use of the disc ove ry

sta y e spe c ia l ly

c onside ring the distric t c ourt gave him the option to a sk for a dditiona l disc ove ry if he ne e de d

it, but hene ve r took a dva nta ge of tha

t opportunity
. III The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on there m a inde r of He rric k’ s m

ultiplec la im s for the re a sons provide d in thethorough M a gistra te Judge ’ s R e port a

nd R e c om

m e ndation da

te d August 22, 2016.

AFFIRM E D.

5