N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R IC HARD H. WARREN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ADELAIDE O. HOR

N E, He a lth Se rvic e Provide r, M o nroe C orre c tiona l C o m ple x - Twin Rive rs Unit; B ELINDA STEWAR T; M IC HAEL S. HATHAW AY, C PM , M onroe C orre c t iona l C om p l e x - Twin R ive rs Unit; M AR

Y A. GUM B O, He a lth Se rvic e Provide r, M onroe C orre c tiona l C om ple x- Twin Rive rs Unit; JEFFER Y E. FLIC K, C US (D-Unit), M o nroe C orre c tiona l C om

ple x - Twin Rive rs Unit; STEVEN M . SAGER , C o unse lor (D-Unit), M onroe C orre c t iona l C om p l e x - Twin R ive rs Unit; SAR

AH E. LANDIS, He a l th Se rvic e Provide r, C oy ote R i dge C orre c tions C e n te r,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-35865 D.C . No. 2:19-c v-01413-R SL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt S. La snik, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# F IL ED NOV 18 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

n d is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Subm itte d Nove m b e r 16, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s . W a shington prisone

r R ic ha rd H. W arre n a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t
c ourt’ s judgm e nt in fa

vor of W a shington Sta

te De p artm e nt of C orre c tions (“ DOC ” ) m e dic a l profe ssiona ls a nd offic ia ls on W arre n’ s 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c la im s
and its de c ision not to exe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r his sta te la w c la im s. W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt for the DOC M e dic a l Profe ssiona ls (de fe nda

nts Horne , Gum

bo, a nd La ndis) on W arre n’ s Eighth Am e ndm e nt de libe ra t e indiffe re nc e c la i m s. Se e Este llev . Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 104–05, 97 S. C t . 285, 291, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976); Toguc hi v . C h u ng , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056–57 (9th C ir. 2004). There c ord doe s not re ve a l a ny undue de la

y in W arre n’ s re c e ipt of tre atm e nt for his ba c k proble m s; m ore ove r, the tre atm e nt he
re c e ive d wa s m e dic a lly

a c c e p ta ble unde r the c irc um sta

nc e s. Se e C

le me nt v
. Gome z , 298 F.3d 898, 904 (9th C ir. 2002); Toguc hi , 391 F.3d a t 1058; se e also Shaple y v . N e v . Bd. of State Prison C

omm’rs , 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th C i r. 1985)

* * The pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 2(pe r c uriam ). Thus, W arre n ha s not shown tha t the DOC M e dic a l Profe ssiona ls’
a c tions pose d a

substa ntia l risk to his he a l th a

n d sa fe ty , or tha

t those a c tions we re take n in c onsc ious disre ga rd of suc h a

risk. Se e Toguc hi , 391 F.3d a t 1057. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt for the DOC Offic ia ls (de fe nda nts Ste wart, Flic k, Sa ge r, and Ha tha way ) on W arre n’ s First Am e ndm e nt fre e e xe rc ise of re ligion c l a im and his Re ligious La

nd Use and Institutiona

liz e d Pe rsons Ac t of 2000, 42 U.S.C . §§ 2000c c –2000c c -5, c l a im . W arre n fa ile d to show pe rsona l pa

rtic ipation by

any of the DOC offic ia ls, m u c h le ss proxim ate
c a use , be c a use none wa s re sponsiblefor re ligious progra m m ing a t C oy o te R idge C orre c tions C e nte r. S

e e Tay lor v . List , 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th C i r. 1989). Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s a lso prope r in fa vor of the DOC Offic ia ls a s to W arre n’ s re ta lia

tion c la i m be c a use he m a de no showing tha t his re fusa l to pa rtic i pate in the Se x Offe nde r Tre atm e nt a nd Asse ssm e nt Progra

m is prote c te d by the First Am e ndm e nt. Se e Rhode s v . Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th C ir. 2005). M ore ove r, his tra

nsfe r a dva

nc e d a le gitim ate c o rre c t iona l goa l. Mc K unev . Lile , 536 U.S. 24, 37–38, 122 S. Ct. 2017, 2027, 153 L. Ed. 2d 47 (2002) (plura lity opinion); se e also Rhode

s , 408 F.3d a

t 567–68. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting sum m a ry judgm e nt a s to W arre n’ s Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt e qua l prote c tion c la i m s. Nothing in the re c ord sugge sts
3that

W arre n wa s tra

nsfe rre d be c a

use the DOC Offic ia ls inte n de d to disc rim inate
a ga inst him

be c a use of his re ligion. Se e Thornton v . C ity of St. He le ns , 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th C ir. 2005). Additiona lly , W arre n fa i ls to show tha t the DOC M e d ic a l Profe s siona ls tre ate d him diffe re n tly

from othe rs sim ila

rly situa te d. Se e N . Pac ific a LLC

v . C i ty of Pac i fic a , 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th C ir. 2008). Fina lly , the distric t c ourt prope rly gran te d sum

m ary judgm e nt for the DOC Offic i a ls a

nd M e dic a l Profe ssiona ls a s to W arre n’ s c onspira c y c la im be c a use his
c onc lusory

a lle gations a

re insuffic ie nt to sustain a c la im , m uc h le ss to e sta

b lish a ge nuine i ssue of m ate ria l fa c t for purpose s of sum m a ry judgm e nt. Burns v . C

ounty of K ing , 883 F.2d 819, 821 (9th C ir. 1989) (pe r c uriam ). B e c a use sum m ary judgm e nt on W arre n’ s fe de ra l c la im s wa s prope r, the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in de c lining to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r his sta

te la wc la im s. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 1367(c ); se e also C a rlsbad Te c h., Inc . v . HIF Bio, Inc
. , 556 U.S. 635, 639–41, 129 S. C t. 1862, 1866–67, 173 L. Ed. 2d 843 (2009); C

arne gie -Me llon Univ . v . C

o h ill , 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7, 108 S. C t. 614, 619 n.7, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988). AFFIRM E D.

4