Shawn Goff v. Anthony Coleman

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 10, 2023
• Docket: 22-16176
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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