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

ZAI, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OUNTY OF OR

A N GE, a Gove rnm e nt e ntity ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-55537 D.C . No. 8:17-c v-01884-JLS-AGR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Andre w J. Guilford, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 6, 2021 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , WATFORD, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. In a c ivil e nforc e m e nt a c tion, a C a lifornia

c ourt orde re d Zulm a i Na z arz a i to turn ove r m one y

and fina nc i a l re c ords. Afte r Na z arz a i fa ile d to c om ply with the
c ourt’ s turn-ove r orde r, the c ourt found him to be in c onte m pt. Pursua

nt to the 

# FIL ED APR 16 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).sta

te c o urt’ s c ivil c onte m

pt orde r, Na z arz a i wa s de ta ine d for six y e ars in the Orange C ounty

ja il. Following his re le a s e , M r. Na z arz a i file d this a c tion a lle ging viola tions of 42 U.S.C . §§ 1983 a nd 2000c c . Afte r a

be nc h tria l, the distric t c ourt found tha t Na z arz a i wa s not e ntitle d to m one y dam a ge s from

any De fe nda nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. Na z arz a i a

rgue s tha t he suffic ie ntly

sta t e d a Se c t ion 1983 c la im
. 1 In support of tha

t c la im , he argue s tha

t his prolonge d de te ntion viola te d the Fourth, Eighth, a nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt. He m a i nta i ns tha t C a lifornia Pe na l C o de § 19.2 limite d his c i vil c onfine m e nt to a y e ar, and tha

t She riff-C orone r San dra Hutc he ns (in he r individual c a pa c ity ) and the Orange C ounty She riff-C orone r De pa rtm e nt (“ OC SD” ) de t a ine d him unc onstitutiona

lly
. The c la im a ga inst She riff Hutc he ns fa ils be c a u se “ prison offic ia ls c ha

rge d with e xe c uting fa c ia lly va l id c ourt orde rs e njoy a bsolute im

m unity from § 1983 lia bility for c o nduc t pre sc ribe d by those orde rs.” S

e e Enge b re tson v . Mahone y , 724 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th C ir. 2013). The c la im a ga inst OC SD a lso fa i ls. Eve n a ssum ing tha t a c ounty c an be he ld lia ble unde r Mone ll v . De

p artme nt of Soc ial Se rv ic e s , 436 U.S. 658 (1987),

1 Na z arz a i doe s not ra ise a Se c tion 2000c c c la i m

on a ppe a l, a nd the re fore we ne e d not a ddre ss it. Se e N at’l Fam. Farm C

oal. v . U.S. E.P.A. , 966 F.3d 893, 916 (9th C ir. 2020). 2(1) for viola

tions of sta

te la wm a de (2) while obe y i ng a fa c ia lly va lid sta te c ourt orde r, Pe na l C ode § 19.2 did not lim it his C a lifornia

C ode of C ivil Proc e dure § 1219 c onfine m e nt to a

y e ar. Se e In reN

o l an W
. , 203 P.3d 454, 466 (C a l. 2009) (inte rpre ting § 1219 a s a

uthoriz ing a

n inde finite pe riod of inc arc e ration to c oe rc e c om plia nc e with a

c ourt orde r). 2. Na z arz a i a lso a

rgue s tha t the c o nditions of his c o nfine m e nt viola te d his
c onstitutiona

l rights. Hec onte nds tha

t he wa s de nie d the right to fre e ly pra c tic e his
re ligion, his right to pa

rtic ipat e in phy sic a l e xe rc ise , a nd his right to a

c c e ss the da

y room .

“ [R ] e a sona

ble opportunitie s m

ust be a fforde d

to a ll prisone rs to e xe rc ise the
re ligious fre e dom gua

ra nte e d by the First a

nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nts.” C ruz v . Be to , 405 U.S. 319, 322 n.2 (1972). But, Naz arz a i wa s provide d a c c e ss to
re ligious servic e s a

nd a re l igious a dvisor; hewa s a lso a ble to pra y da ily
. C f. Pie rc e v . C

nty . of Orange , 526 F.3d 1190, 1210 (9th C ir. 2008) (finding c onsiste nt de nia l of a c c e ss to c ha

p e l a nd re ligious a dvisors support finding of c onstitutiona l viola tion). The Fourte e nth Am e n dm e nt re quire s tha t pre -tria l de ta ine e s (an d by
e xte nsion c ivil de ta ine e s ) not be de nie d a de quate opportunitie s for e xe rc ise without le gitim ate gove rnm e nta l obje c tive s. Se e Pie rc e , 526 F.3d a t 1211–12. The

re c ord,
3howe v e r, shows tha t Na z arz a i’ s la c k of phy sic a l e xe rc ise wa s se lf-im p ose d. This
c la im the re fore fa i ls. Naz a

rz a i’ s own te stim ony

re v e a ls tha

t he ty pic a lly got da ily
a c c e ss to theda

y room . This c la im

the re fore fa ils a s we ll. 3. Na z arz a i la st a

rgue s tha t De fe nda nt Ga rc ia use d “ thre ats a

nd intimidation” to re stric t his right to spe e c h a nd right to file

grie v anc e s. “ It is we lle sta blishe d tha

t , am ong the rights the y

re ta i n, prisone rs ha

ve a First Am e ndm e nt right to fileprison grie va

nc e s.” Brodhe im v . C

ry , 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th C ir. 2009). B ut, Naz arz a i fa ile d to show tha t a pe rson of ordina

ry firm ne ss would ha

ve be e n sile n c e d by

Ga rc ia ’ s a c tions, a

nd ha s a lso fa ile d

to c arry his burde n

of

“ ple a ding a

nd proving the

a bse nc e of le gitim at e c o rre c tiona l goa ls for the c onduc t of whic h he c om

pla i ns.” Id. at 1271; Pratt v . Row l and, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th C ir. 1995). AFFIRM E D. 2

2 C ounty De fe nda nts’ m otion to a

m e n d the c a

ption is GR

ANTED. (DE 7). 4