Robert Billie v. County of Santa Barbara

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 11, 2020
• Docket: 19-55004
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT LEE BILLIE, No. 19-55004

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-08751-SK

v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Steve Kim, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted March 3, 2020***

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Robert Lee Billie appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from his

pretrial detention at Santa Barbara County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th

Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v.

Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Billie’s

substantive and procedural due process claims because Billie failed to raise a

genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any alleged conditions of his

confinement amounted to punishment or were not reasonably related to a

legitimate governmental objective. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538-39

(1979) (“Absent a showing of an expressed intent to punish on the part of detention

facility officials . . . if a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is

reasonably related to a legitimate government objective, it does not, without more,

amount to ‘punishment.’” (internal citations omitted)); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d

517, 523-24 (9th Cir. 1996) (elements for a procedural due process claim in the

pretrial detainee context).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Billie’s equal

protection claim because Billie failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether he was

intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated, and whether there

was no rational basis for the different treatment. See Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech,

528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per curiam) (elements of an equal protection “class of

one” claim); Serrano, 345 F.3d at 1082 (requirements for equal protection claim

2 19-55004 based on membership in a protected class).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Billie’s municipal

liability claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658

(1978), and conspiracy claim, because Billie failed to raise a triable dispute as to

whether defendants violated or conspired to violate his constitutional rights. See

City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (a Monell claim cannot

survive in the absence of an underlying constitutional violation); Burns v. County

of King, 883 F.2d 819, 821 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming summary judgment where

plaintiff failed to state specific facts to support existence of claimed conspiracy to

violate constitutional rights under § 1983).

Denial of Billie’s motion to modify the scheduling order was not an abuse of

discretion because Billie failed to establish “good cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b)(4) (schedule may be modified only for good cause); Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of

review and required showing for good cause).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

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

AFFIRMED.

3 19-55004