Andrew Moret v. Poornima Ranganathan

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREW GUY MORET, No. 21-35424
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:18-cv-01105-MK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
POORNIMA RANGANATHAN; ANDREA
DAILEY,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
OREGON STATE HOSPITAL,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Andrew Guy Moret appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
*
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).
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising
from the involuntary administration of medication during his pretrial detention.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. JL Beverage
Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Moret’s due
process claims relating to the involuntary administration of medication after his
administrative hearing because Moret received all of the process he was due. See
Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 235 (1990) (holding that due process requires
an evidentiary hearing before an independent decisionmaker when a prisoner
challenges the involuntary administration of medication); U.S. v. Loughner, 672
F.3d 731, 752 (9th Cir. 2012) (Harper’s due process protections apply to pretrial
detainees).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Moret’s due
process claims related to the involuntary administration of medication before his
administrative hearing because it would not have been clear to every reasonable
official that the involuntary administration of medication before a hearing was
unlawful under the circumstances. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232
(2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a
clearly established constitutional right.”); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 815
2 21-35424
(9th Cir. 2009) (“A right is clearly established when its contours are sufficiently
defined, such that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing
violates that right.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moret’s motion to
reinstate his claims against defendants because Moret failed to demonstrate any
basis for such relief. See Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833
F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987) (requirements for relief from judgment under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2)).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 21-35424