Shawn Goff v. Trinity Services Group

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 12, 2024
• Docket: 23-15929
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 12 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHAWN CHARLES GOFF, No. 23-15929

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01288-DLR

v. MEMORANDUM* TRINITY SERVICES GROUP; KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK LLC; THOMPSON, Unknown; Warden; PAM SMITH, Food Service Liason; UNKNOWN PARTIES, Complex Food Service Staff Director; Inspection Team; Unit Manager; Dietician; Office Representative; UNKNOWN PARTY, Department Religious and Volunteer Services Administrator; UNKNOWN PARTY, Division Director for Prison Operations; KIMBLE, Unknown; Complex Warden; KINGSLAND, Senior Chaplain: Unknown; WILLIAM R. THOMAS, Senior Chaplain; CHARLES L RYAN, Previous Director; DAVID SHINN, Director, Current Director,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 12, 2024** San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Shawn Charles Goff, an inmate at Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis

(ASPC-Lewis), appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action arising from his prison diet. Goff appeals the district court’s finding

after a bench trial that Trinity Services Group (Trinity) served nutritionally

adequate meals in compliance with the Eighth Amendment. See U.S. Const.

amend. VIII. Goff also appeals the district court’s dismissal at the screening stage

of his First Amendment claim that meal plans available to prisoners at ASPC-

Lewis fail to satisfy the requirements of his Wiccan faith and the district court’s

dismissal at the screening stage of David Shinn, the Director of the Arizona

Department of Corrections (ADOC). See U.S. Const. amend. I. Reviewing de

novo,1 we affirm.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 ASARCO LLC v. Atl. Richfield Co., LLC, 975 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir. 2020); Mangiaracina v. Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2017). 2 The district court properly ruled that Trinity did not violate Goff’s Eighth

Amendment rights. See Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991).

At trial, Goff failed to establish the two elements of an Eighth Amendment claim:

(1) a deprivation sufficiently serious to constitute cruel and unusual punishment

and (2) that the officials perpetrating the deprivation acted with “deliberate

indifference” to his unconstitutional conditions. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S.

294, 297, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 2323, 111 L. Ed. 271 (1991); see also LeMaire v.

Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1451 (9th Cir. 1993). On appeal, Goff reiterates the

argument that the Common Fare diet Trinity designed is unconstitutional because it

does not contain sufficient vitamins and minerals to adequately maintain his health,

but the district court correctly found that Goff failed to show any negative health

consequences as a result of the Common Fare diet.2 Further, even if Goff had

shown that the Common Fare diet was inadequate to maintain his health, he

provided no evidence that Trinity acted with deliberate indifference to his

constitutional rights. Thus, the district court correctly found that Goff failed to

prove Trinity violated his Eighth Amendment rights.

The district court also properly dismissed Goff’s First Amendment claim.

Goff failed to state a free exercise claim because he did not allege that the

2 LeMaire, 12 F.3d at 1456. 3 Common Fare diet substantially burdened his religious practice. See Jones v.

Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031–32 (9th Cir. 2015). While Goff may prefer an ovo-

lacto diet, he did not allege that the Common Fare diet substantially pressures him

to violate his Wiccan beliefs. See id. at 1031–32, 1035.

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or 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) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.