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 pane l unani 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).

r gs / R es ear ch 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 DA VI D WAY NE WI L S ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. J O H N D O V E Y ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 16019 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 6 - CV - 0 2 5 5 3 - J K SEFB 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 E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J am e s K . S i ngl e t on, J r . , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e bruary16, 2010 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D avi d W ay ne W i l s 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 j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng w i th pr e j udi c e hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on



# FI LED MA R 05 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSr g s / Res ea r ch 08- 16019 2 c l a i m i ng vi ol a t i ons of

the E i ghth and F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e nt s due t o l a c k of pri vacyi n h i s m edi ca l care and m edi ca l i nform at i on . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l of ac om pl a i nt f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A , R es ni ck v. H ayes , 213 F . 3d 4 4 3 , 4 4 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) , an dw e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dW ils o n ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c la im b e c au s e h e f

a ile dto a lle g e th a t d e f

e n d an ts w e r e d e lib e r a te lyin d if f e r e n t to h is se ri ou s m edi ca l needs und er Farm e rv . B r e nnan , 51 1 U . S . 82 5, 83 4 (19 94 ). W ils o n ’s c la im th a t n o m e d ic a l o rs e c u r ityp e r s o n n e l s h o u ldb e p r e s e n t a t h is p s y c h ia tr ic ap p o in tm e n ts am o u n ts to ad is a g r e e m e n t w ith th e w ayth a t tr e a tm e n t is p r o v id e d , w h ic h is in s u f f ic ie n t to a s s e rt ac la im o f d e lib e r a te in d if

f e r e n c e . See T oguc hiv . Chung , 3 9 1 F .3 d1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . M o r e o v e r , W ils o n f a ils to a lle g e an yp h y s ic a l s y m p to m s o rth e typ e o f h arm r e qu ir e df

o rad e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e c la im u n d e rth e P r is o n L itig a tio n R e f o rm A c t, 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e ( e ) . See O l i ver v. Kel ler, 28 9 F . 3d62 3, 62 7-28 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). T he di s tr i c tc ourta l s o pr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d W i l s on’ s F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e nt cl ai m because the pres ence of nu rs es , psyc hi atri c t ec hn i ci ans, and correc t i on al offi ce rs du ri ng W i l son’ s m edi ca l appo i ntm ent s s erved l egi t i m at e penol og i ca l in te r e s ts in m a in ta in in g o r d e ran dp r o v id in g s e c u r ity . See P rocuni erv. M art i nez ,r g s / Res ea r ch 08- 16019 3 4 1 6 U .S . 3 9 6 , 4 1 2 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , overruled i n p art on other groun ds by T

ho rnbu rgh v. A b b o tt , 4 9 0 U .S . 4 0 1 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ; se e al so T urner v . Sa

f ley , 482 U . S . 78, 89 ( 1987) ( e s tab lis h in g f

o u r - f a c to rte s t to an a ly z e p r is o n e r s ’ c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s ) . W i l son’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are no tpers uasi ve. A FFI R M ED .