T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R I C HA R D E UG E NE C HA MP I ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. M U R P H Y , D e n tis t, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 55651 D . C . N o. 2: 07 -c v-06 98 9-JF W -E ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn F . W a l t e r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t10, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , H A W K IN S , an dIK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R i c ha r d E uge ne C ha m pi on, aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ryj udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng v io la tio n o f

h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 

# FI LED AU G 27 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 55651 2 W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , T

oguc hiv . Chung , 391 F . 3d 1051, 1056 ( 9th C i r . 2004) , a nd w e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyg r a n te ds u m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th e d e lib e r a te i nd i ff er ence cl ai m because C ham pi on fa i l ed t o rai se a tri abl e i ss ue as t o w hether d e f e n d a n t w a s d e lib e r ate lyin d if f e r e n t to C h a m p io n ’s d e n ta l n e e d s . Se e i d. a t1057 ( e x p l a i n i n g th a tap r i s o n o f f i c i a l a c t s wi th d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e o n l yi f

h e k n o ws o f a n dd is r e g a r d s a n e x c e s s iv e r is kto a n in m a te ’s h e a lth a n ds a f e ty ) ; Frankl i n v. O r ., Sta te W

e lfa r e D iv . , 662 F . 2d 1337, 1344 ( 9th C i r . 1981) ( “ A di f f e r e nc e of opi ni on be tw e e n apr i s one r - pa t i e nta nd pr i s on m e di c a l author i t i e s r e ga r di ng tre atm entdo es no tgi ve ri se t o a § 1 98 3 cl ai m . ”) . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enton the ra ce di sc ri m i nat i on cl ai m because C ham pi on fa i l ed t o rai se a tri abl e i ss ue as t o w hether d e f e n d a n t a c te dw ith d is c r im in a to ryin te n t. Se e W a s h in g to n v . D a v is , 4 2 6 U . S. 2 2 9 , 2 3 8 - 4 0 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t ap la in tif f m u s t s h o w d is c r im in a to ryin te n t to e s tab lis h a n e q u a l p r o te c tio n c la im ) ; A rpi n v. Sa nta C lara V al leyT ransp. A gency , 2 6 1 F .3 d9 1 2 , 9 2 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t c o n c lu s o rys ta te m e n ts un supp ort ed by fa ct s are i nsuffi ci entt o d ef eata m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ygr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e nton the r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m be c aus e C ha m pi on f a i l e d t o r a i s e atr i abl e i s s ue a s t o w he the rde f e nda nt09- 55651 3 e nga ge d i n a nya dve r s e a c t i on be c aus e of C ha m pi on’ s pr i s on gr i e va nc e s or com pl ai nt s t o the P ri son L aw O ff i ce . Se e R hodes v . R obi ns on , 408 F . 3d 559, 56 7-68 (9th C i r. 20 05 ) ( l i st i ng el em ent s of are t al i at i on cl ai m ). T o the e xt e ntC ha m pi on r a i s e s a ddi t i ona l c l a i m s on appe a l , w e do not c o n s id e rth e m b e c au s e th e yw e r e n o t a d e q u a te lyr a is e din th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. See B aldw i n v . T

rai le rI nns , I nc ., 2 6 6 F .3 d1 1 0 4 , 1 1 1 1 n .2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . C ham pi on ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.