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 G AR R E T T T UR AY , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. K E L L Y C U N N I N G H A M , S up e r in te n d e n t; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 35469 D. C . No . 3 : 1 0 - c v - 0 5 4 9 3 - B HS 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 orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on B e nj a m i n H . S e tt l e , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , M U R G U IA , an dW A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R ich ar dG arre ttT u ra y, an in v o lu n tarily co m m ittedre sid en t o f W as h in g to n ’s S p ec ial C o m m itm en t C en ter ( “S C C ”) , ap p ea ls p ro se fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s su m m ary j u d g m en ti n h i s 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 act i o n al l eg i n g v i o l at i o n s o f th e F i rst 

# FI LED OC T 17 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 35469 2 A m e ndm e nt , E i ghth A m e ndm e nt , F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e nt , a nd the U ni t e d N a t i ons C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e . 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 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , D i etri ch v. John A sc ua ga ’s N ug get , 54 8 F . 3d 89 2, 89 6 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) , a n dw e a f

f i rm. T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y g ran t edsu m m ary j u d g m en to n T u ray’ s F i rst A m e ndm e ntr e t a l i a t i on c l a i m be c aus e T ur ayf a i l e d t o r a i s e age nui ne di s put e of m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rd e f

e n d an ts ’ c o n du c t w a s b a s e do n ar e ta lia to rym o tiv e . Se e R hodes v . R obi ns on , 4 0 8 F . 3 d5 5 9 , 5 6 7 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( p l ai n t i ffs m u st es t abl i sh thatan advers e a ct i on w as t aken “ because of” thei r prot ec t ed cond uct ). T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enton T uray ’ s e qu al prot ec t i on cl ai m because T urayfa i l ed t o rai se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i alfa ctas to w h e th e rh e w a s tr e a te dd if f e r e n tlyf r o m o th e rs im ilar lys itu a te din d iv idu a ls . See T hornton v . C i t

yof St. H e le ns , 425 F . 3d 1158, 1167 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( di f f e r e nt tre atm entof un l i ke i nd i vi du al s does notsupp ortan equal prot ec t i on cl ai m ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyg r an te ds u m m aryju d g m e n t o n T u r ay ’s E ig h th A m endm entcl ai m because T urayfa i l ed t o rai se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i alfa ct a s to w h e th e rd e f

e n d a n ts a c te dw ith d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e to h is m e n ta l h e a lth . Se e T oguc hiv . Chung , 3 9 1 F .3 d1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( d e f e n d an t a c ts w ith d e lib e r a te in d if

f e r e n c e o n lyif

h e k n o w s o f

a n dd is r e g ar d s a n e x c e s s iv e r is kto11- 35469 3 p la in tif f’s h e a lth a n ds a f

e ty ) ; s e e al

s o Shar p v . W es ton , 2 3 3 F .3 d1 1 6 6 , 1 1 7 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( r e q u ir in g d e f e r e n c e to th e “p r o f

e s s io n a l ju d g m e n t” o f

o f f ic ia ls in s ta te i ns t i tut i ons e xc e ptw he r e the de c i s i on i s “ ‘ s uc h as ubs t ant i a l de partur e f r om a c c e pt e d pr of

e s s i ona l j udgm e nt , pr a c t i c e , ors t anda r ds a s t o de m ons tr a t e tha tthe p er so n re sp o n sib le ac tu ally d idn o t b as e th e d ec isio n o n su ch a ju d g m en t. ’” ( quot i ng Y

ou ng berg v. R om eo , 45 7 U . S . 30 7, 32 2 (19 82 )) ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyg r an te ds u m m aryju d g m e n t o n T u r ay ’s c la im u n d e rth e U n ite dN a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e b e c au s e th e s ta tu te i m pl e m e nt i ng the C onve nt i on doe s note xt e nd t o a l l e ge d t ortuous a c t s w i thi n the U n ite dS ta te s . See 18 U . S . C . § 2 34 0A (a ) ( “ W ho ever ou t side t h e U n ited S tates c om m i t s ora tt e m pt s t o c om m i tt ortur e s ha l lbe f i ne d unde rthi s t i t l e or i m pri soned . . . . ” ( em ph as i s a dd ed)) . T ur a y ’ s m ot i on t o c onduc tde novo r e vi e w , s ubm i tt e d on S e pt e m be r20, 2 0 1 1 , i s d en i edas u n n ecessary. AF F I RME D.