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. KEVIN QUIGLEY; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-35042 D.C . No. 3:15-c v-05016-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 Argue d an d Subm i tte 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 K EOW

N an d C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s . Dona ld He rric k, a pre -a djudic ation c ivil de ta ine e at the W a shington Sta te Spe c ia l C om

m itm e nt C e n te r (“ SC C ” ), file d this pro sea c tion pursua

nt to 42 U.S.C
. § 1983 a lle ging tha

t se ve ra l of the SC C ’ s polic ie s viola te his First a

nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt rights. The

distric t c ourt gra

nte d sum m ary judgm e n t in fa

vor of a ll 

# FIL ED FEB 12 2019 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.de fe nda

n ts on a ll of He rric k’ s c la im s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 1 1. He rric k’ s First Am e ndm e nt C la im s. He rric k is a wa iting a he aring to de te rm i ne whe t

h e r he will be de e m e d a

se xua lly viole nt pre dator, a nd he is de ta ine d in a

“ t ota l c onfine m e n t fa c ility [.] ” W a sh. R e v. C o de 71.09.040(4). W e
a pply the fam ilia

r fra m e work outline d in Turne r v . Safle y , 482 U.S. 78 (1987), to his First Am e ndm e nt c la im s. Our a pplic ation of Turne r , howe ve r, is c o m plic ate d by the spa rse re c ord. W

hile we a pply “ the re quire m e n ts of the sum m ary judgm e nt rule with le ss tha

n stric t lite ra lne ss” whe n e v a luating a pro se prisone r’ s c l a im s, J ac obse n v . Fille r , 790 F.2d 1362, 1365 n.4 (9th C ir. 1986) (inte rna l quota t ion
m arks om itte d), we c annot stitc h toge the r He rric k’ s a rgum e nts from

whole c loth. It is diffic ult to e va luate whe the r the inte rne t polic y or the Alde r Unit c om

pute r ban

1 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t s a

nd a rgum e n ts on a ppe a l, we re c i te the m

only a s ne c e ssa

ry . 2are re a sona

bly re late d to He rric k’ s tre atm e nt pla n be c a use the re c ord only

inc lude s what a ppe ar to be two a d de n d a

to his tre atm e nt pla

n. 2 Ne ve rthe le s s, we c onc lude tha t the first Turne r

fa c tor— whe the r the re is a

“ ‘ va lid, ra tiona l c onne c tion’ be twe e n the prison re gula tion a nd the le gitim ate gove rnm e nta l inte re st put forwa rd to justify

it”

— we i ghs in theState ’ s favor. Turne r , 482 U.S. a

t 89 (quoting Bloc k

v . Ruthe rford

, 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984)). The State ha s va lid se c urity inte re sts in m a

n a g ing inte rne t a

nd c om pute r a c c e ss for de ta ine e s in a

tota l c onfine m e nt fa c ility of this na ture , and the c ha lle nge d

polic ie s
are re a sona

bly re late d to tha

t inte re st. He rric k ha s not shown tha t the re m a ining Turne r fa c tors we igh in his fa vor. Se e C

e lote x C orp. v . C atre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (sum

m a ry judgm e nt is a

ppropria te “ a ga inst a

pa rty who fa ils to m ake a showing suffic ie nt to e s ta blish thee xiste nc e of a

n e le m e nt e sse n tia l to tha t pa rty ’ s c a se , a nd on whic h tha

t pa rty will be ar the burde n of proof a t tria l.” ). In sum , we

2 To the e xte nt tha

t He rric k a sse rts a

fa c ia l c ha lle nge to the SC C ’ s polic ie s, we find his a

rgum e nt e ve n le s s pe rsua s ive be c a u se the SC C c l e arly

ha s va lid the ra

pe utic re a sons for de ny ing inte rne t a n d c om pute r a c c e ss to de ta ine e s on the b a sis of the ir tre atm e nt re q u ire m e nts. To pre va il in a fa c ia l c ha lle nge ba se d on the First Am e ndm e nt, a

pla intiff m

ust e ithe r de m onstra

te that “ no se t of c irc um s ta nc e s e xists under whic h [the re gula tion] would be va lid,” or tha t “ a substa ntia l num be r of its a

pplic ations a

re unc onstitutiona

l, judge d in re lation to the sta tute ’ s pla inly

le gitim ate swe e p.” Unite d State s v . Ste v e ns , 559 U.S. 460, 472–73 (2010) (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). He rric k ha s not sa tisfie d e ithe r te st. 3c onc lude tha t the distric t

c ourt did not err whe n it gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt on He rric k’ s First Am e ndm e nt c l a im s. 2. He rric k’ s Substa

ntive Due Proc e ss C l a im s. Although we ordina rily are

“ re luc ta nt to e xpa nd the c onc e pt of substa

n tive due proc e ss” whe re a te xtua l
c onstitutiona

l provision provide s a m ore spe c ific ba sis for re lie f, C t y . of Sac rame nto v . Le w i

s , 523 U.S. 833, 842 (1998) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d),
a c ivil de ta ine e ’ s right to be fre e from c o nditions tha

t am o unt to punishm

e nt is a
we ll-e sta blishe d right prote c te d by the substa

ntive due proc e ss gua

ran te e . Se e

, e .g. , J one s v . Blanas , 393 F.3d 918, 932 (2004). Assum ing tha t the c irc um sta

nc e s he re give rise to First Am e ndm e nt c la im s a s we ll a s substa ntive due proc e ss c la im s c ha lle nging He rric k’ s c onditions of c onfine m e nt, the distric t c ourt did not err by gran ting sum

m ary judgm e nt in de fe n da

nts’ favor on He rric k ’ s c la i m s a rising from the SC C inte rne t

ba n a nd the Alde r Unit c om

p ute r ban. “ [P] unitivec onditions may be shown . . . where the c h a lle nge d re stric tions se rve [a ] non-punitive purpose but
are n one t he le ss ‘ e xc e ssive in re lation to [tha t] purpose [.] ’ ” Id. (quoting D e me ry v . Arpaio , 378 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th C ir. 2004)). W he n “ a SVP[] de ta ine e is c onfine d in c o nditions ide

ntic a l to, simila

r to, or m ore re stric tive tha n, those in whic h his
c rim ina l c ounte rparts a

re he ld, we pre sum e tha

t the de ta i ne e is be ing subje c te d to

‘ p unishm e nt.’ ” Id. Sim ila rly , “ whe n

an individual a

wa iting SVP[] a djudic ation is
4de ta ine d unde r c onditions m ore re s tric tive tha

n those the individual would fa c e following SVP[] c om

m itm e nt, we pre sum e the tre atm e n t is punitive
. ” Id. at 933. The se pre sum

ptions, howe ve r, ha

ve littleutility for pre se nt purpose s. The re c ord doe s not show tha

t p re -tria l c rim ina l de ta ine e s in W a shington ha ve a c c e ss to pe rsona l c om

pute rs or the inte rne t, or tha t He rric k would ha

v e suc h a c c e ss a fte r
a djudic ation. Ultimat e ly , we are not pe rsua de d tha t the SC C ’ s polic ie s a

re

“ e x c e ssive in re lation” to the pla inly non-punitive purpose s of pre se rving institutiona

l se c urity and the the ra

pe utic e nvironm e nt. Id. at 932. 3. He rric k’ s Proc e dura l Due Proc e ss C l a im . The distric t c o urt c onc lude d tha t He rric k la c ke d a

prote c te d inte re st in the pe rsona l c om pute r he purc ha se d a fte r
m oving off Alde r Unit. W e a gre e with thedistric t c ourt’ s a lte rnative ruling:
a ssum ing He rric k ha d a

prote c te d libe rty

or prope rty

inte re st in his persona l
c om pute r, he re c e ive d a ll the proc e ss he wa s due
. Apply ing Mathe w s v . Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 (1976), we

are p a rtic ula rly m indful of thegove rnm e nt’ s inte re st in quic kly ide ntify i ng ille g a l or ina

ppropria te use of te c hnology

and pre ve nting its furthe r a buse in a fa c ility

of this na ture . This inte re st, we ighe d a ga inst He rric k’ s ne c e ssa rily c irc um sc ribe d inte re st in his persona l prope rty within the

SC C ’ s institutiona

l se tting, supports the

a de qua c y of the proc e s s he re . He rric k wa s provide d with a

n opportunity

to he ar the a lle gations a g a i nst him , to a ppe ar in
5pe rson a

t a he aring, a

nd to pre se nt his ve rsion of e ve nts. The C o nstitution doe s not de m and m ore . AFFIRM E D.

6