Court Opinion

ID: 9410845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-24 19:00:58.428173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.620225
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW GUY MORET,                               No. 21-35886

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00096-MK

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
PAT GARRETT; M LLOYD; S. HOPSON;
B. CONDON; H. SMITH; S. SIEMILLER;
A. ASHENFELTER; R. BOSE; J. SHULZ;
GODFRIED; BRANFORD; T. MILLSAP;
WASHINGTON COUNTY JAIL,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Oregon
                   Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted July 18, 2023**

Before:      SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      Oregon state prisoner Andrew Guy Moret appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional

      *
             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).
claims arising from his pre-trial detention at Washington County Jail. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guatay Christian

Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-

motions for summary judgment); May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 561 (9th Cir.

1997) (district court’s decision on qualified immunity). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment on Moret’s claim

regarding temporary deprivation of clothing and bedding because Moret failed to

raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the confiscation of these

items was not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest. See Bell v.

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539 (1979) (for the purpose of due process, “if a particular

condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate

governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to ‘punishment’”).

      The district court properly granted summary judgment on Moret’s claim

regarding deprivation of a mattress and blanket because he failed to allege facts or

provide evidence that Officer Millsap was involved in this decision. See Taylor v.

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Liability under section 1983 arises only

upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant.”).

      Contrary to Moret’s contentions, following remand from this court, the

district court properly limited this action to Moret’s claims concerning the

temporary deprivation of a mattress, blanket, and clothing. See Hall v. City of Los

                                           2                                     21-35886
Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2012) (reviewing de novo the district

court’s compliance with an appellate court’s mandate, and finding that “a district

court is limited by [an appellate court’s] remand when the scope of the remand is

clear”); see also Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568, 578-579 (9th Cir. 2012)

(continuing violation doctrine does not apply if a claim is “based on an

independently wrongful, discrete act”).

      We reject as meritless Moret’s contentions that Judge McShane, Magistrate

Judge Kasubhai, and the United States District Court for the District of Oregon

engaged in retaliation against Moret or are prejudiced against pro se litigants.

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      All pending motions and requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                       21-35886