Shawn Goff v. Anthony Coleman ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 10 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SHAWN CHARLES GOFF,                             No.    22-16176
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01557-DLR
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ANTHONY COLEMAN, Deputy Warden;
    THOMPSON, Unknown: replaced with
    Gerald Thompson as listed in the first
    amended complaint (doc. 11); KIMBLE,
    Unknown : current Warden; RYAN
    THORNELL, Director; MORRIS, Unknown;
    CO IV, Grievance Coordinator; GERALD
    THOMPSON, former Warden; CHARLES
    RYAN,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 18, 2023**
    Before:      SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
    *
    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).
    Arizona state prisoner Shawn Charles Goff appeals pro se from the district
    court’s summary judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging constitutional
    claims. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo. Jones
    v. Slade, 
    23 F.4th 1124
    , 1133 (9th Cir. 2022). We affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Goff’s First
    Amendment free exercise claim because Goff failed to raise a genuine dispute of
    material fact as to whether the exclusion of his sexually and/or violently explicit
    Wiccan religious items was reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.
    See Turner v. Safley, 
    482 U.S. 78
    , 89 (1987) (“[W]hen a prison regulation
    impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably
    related to legitimate penological interests.”).
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Goff’s Fourteenth
    Amendment equal protection claim because Goff failed to raise a genuine dispute
    of material fact as to whether he was discriminated against on the basis of his
    religion. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. & Rehab., 
    707 F.3d 1114
    , 1123
    (9th Cir. 2013) (requirements for an equal protection claim).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Goff’s request for
    entry of default because defendant did not fail to plead or otherwise defend. See
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (providing for entry of default when a defendant “has failed
    2                                    22-16176
    to plead or otherwise defend”); Speiser, Krause & Madole P.C. v. Ortiz, 
    271 F.3d 884
    , 886 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Goff’s motions for
    discovery sanctions. See Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 
    921 F.3d 803
    , 808, 821 (9th Cir. 2019) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that
    a district court has wide latitude regarding discovery sanctions).
    Contrary to Goff’s contention, the district court did not fail to consider
    Goff’s claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
    because no such claim was clearly alleged in the operative complaint.
    The unopposed motion to substitute party (Docket Entry No. 26) is granted.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                    22-16176
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-16176

Filed Date: 8/10/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/10/2023