Michael Munywe v. Julie Dier ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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