David Michael Younger v. G. WIELENGA, Captain for S.B. County Sheriffs Dept., in his/her individual capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID MICHAEL YOUNGER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
G. WIELENGA, Captain for S.B. County
Sheriffs Dept., in his/her individual capacity;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-55948
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-01964-SVW-JC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
David Michael Younger, a federal prisoner and former pretrial detainee,
appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his civil rights action
brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
* 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).
FILED
JUN 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-55948
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that defendants’ surveillance policy
violated his rights to bodily privacy and religious freedom. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d
1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
To the extent that a Bivens remedy exists for Younger’s Fourteenth
Amendment right to bodily privacy claim and First Amendment free exercise
claim, the district court properly granted summary judgment because Younger
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ policy
was not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Turner v.
Safley, 428 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987) (stating that a regulation impinging on First
Amendment rights is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests and articulating the factors for determining whether a prison regulation is
reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest); Byrd v. Maricopa Cty. Bd.
of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir. 2017) (applying Turner rational
relationship test to pretrial detainee’s right to bodily privacy claim, and explaining
that prison policy that allows for infrequent, irregular, or from a distance
observation may not constitute a constitutional violation); see also Ziglar v. Abassi,
137 S. Ct. 1843, 1857 (2017) (cautioning against further extensions of Bivens to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-55948
“new” contexts and requiring a special factors analysis before extending the Bivens
remedy).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --