Keith W. Ramsdell v. DOUGLAS A. DUCEY, Arizona Governor

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEITH W. RAMSDELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DOUGLAS A. DUCEY, Arizona Governor;
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General,
Attorney General; HEIDI H PAAKKONEN,
Executive Director, State of Arizona Board
of Psychologist Examiners; JENNIFER
MICHAELSEN, Deputy Director, State of
Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16757
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00151-ROS-JZB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Keith Ramsdell, who is civilly committed as a sexually violent person,
* 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
JAN 23 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-16757
appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging equal protection violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004).
We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ramsdell’s equal
protection claim alleging discrimination on the basis of sex offender status because
Ramsdell failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Arizona
Revised Statutes section 32-2081(B) is not rationally related to legitimate
government interests. See United States v. Juv. Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1009 (9th Cir.
2012) (“Government actions that do not . . . involve suspect classifications will be
upheld if [they] are rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” (alteration in
original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. LeMay,
260 F.3d 1018, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Sex offenders are not a suspect class.”).
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).
Ramsdell’s opposed motion to submit new evidence (Docket Entry No. 18)
is denied. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990)
(“Documents . . . not presented to the district court are not part of the record on
appeal.”). We express no opinion whether in light of the proffered evidence,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-16757
Ramsdell may now file an administrative or other claim.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --