Court Opinion

ID: 9400819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 16:00:57.203206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.356144
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 9 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL MUTHEE MUNYWE,                          No.    22-35511

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-05218-BJR

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

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   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 appeals 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).
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 handcuffed 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. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018);

see also Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 398 (2015) (“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.”).

                                            2
      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 had a legitimate law enforcement purpose for doing so: The

alleged assailant was reported 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 defendants 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 also fail, because Munywe 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.

                                           3