Opinion
20-16309
08-06-2021
ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NDUBUISI OBIOHA, Psychiatric Technician; RUBEN CASANOVA, Psychiatric Technician; ROBERT CHASE, Psychiatric Technician, Defendants-Appellees, JASON MONTIJO, Psychiatric Technician, Defendant-Appellee, and COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL; GERARDO ALCALA, Defendants, STEPHEN GARZA; WILLIAM MCGHEE, Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted August 4, 2021 San Francisco, California
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Robert Williams appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. Reviewing de novo, we affirm. Wilk v. Neven, 956 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2020).
Williams alleged that defendants-psychiatric technicians at Coalinga State Hospital-violated the due process clause by failing to protect him from another civil detainee, Corey Bell. Summary judgment was properly granted because the undisputed evidence shows that the defendants neither assigned Williams to the unit where the incident occurred nor had reason to perceive an unreasonable risk from Bell. See Castro v. Cty. of L.A., 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that a failure to protect claim requires, among other things, an intentional decision by a defendant to put a plaintiff in conditions that pose a substantial risk of serious harm.).
Williams also alleged equal protection and conditions of confinement claims and appeals the district court's dismissal of these claims for failure to state a claim. They were properly dismissed, however, because Williams pleaded no facts that he was either intentionally discriminated against or subject to punitive detention conditions. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. &Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013) (equal protection claim requires intentional discrimination); King v. Cty. of L.A., 885 F.3d 548, 556-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (civilly detained individuals may not be subjected to conditions that constitute punishment).
AFFIRMED.