Clarence Boyce v. Alejandro Mayorkas

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 27, 2024
• Docket: 23-55020
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 27 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLARENCE ETHAN BOYCE, No. 23-55020

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:18-cv-01576-CBM-SHK v.

ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, United MEMORANDUM* States Secretary of Homeland Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2024**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Clarence Boyce appeals the district court’s judgment following a bench trial

on his Title VII retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1291. We review the findings of fact for clear error and the conclusions of law de

* 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). novo. Langer v. Kiser, 57 F.4th 1085, 1100 (9th Cir. 2023). The district court’s

adverse credibility finding is entitled to special deference. Allen v. Iranon, 283

F.3d 1070, 1078 n.8 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court’s findings that: (1) Boyce was scheduled to work a ten-

hour shift, with the last two hours of the day as overtime; (2) Boyce’s supervisors

told him to remain in the field until his overtime; and (3) Boyce’s early return to

the station from the field violated supervisors’ orders are well-supported by

testimony and documents in the record. Contrary to the supervisors’ testimony,

Boyce testified that his supervisors did not tell him to remain in the field. The

district court found Boyce’s testimony not credible, and that finding is supported

by the record. None of the arguments made by Boyce undermine the district

court’s findings.

Nor did the district court err in holding that Boyce failed to establish

retaliation. See Kama v. Mayorkas, 107 F.4th 1054, 1059 (9th Cir. 2024) (setting

forth the standard).

We decline to consider arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief.

See Loomis v. Cornish, 836 F.3d 991, 998 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (arguments not

raised in the opening brief are waived).

AFFIRMED.