Shawn Charles Goff v. ANTHONY COLEMAN, Deputy Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAWN CHARLES GOFF,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY COLEMAN, Deputy Warden;
THOMPSON, Unknown: replaced with
Gerald Thompson as listed in the first
amended complaint (doc. 11); KIMBLE,
Unknown : current Warden; RYAN
THORNELL, Director; MORRIS, Unknown;
CO IV, Grievance Coordinator; GERALD
THOMPSON, former Warden; CHARLES
RYAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16176
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01557-DLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-16176
Arizona state prisoner Shawn Charles Goff appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jones
v. Slade, 23 F.4th 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2022). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Goff’s First
Amendment free exercise claim because Goff failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether the exclusion of his sexually and/or violently explicit
Wiccan religious items was reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.
See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987) (“[W]hen a prison regulation
impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably
related to legitimate penological interests.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Goff’s Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection claim because Goff failed to raise a genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether he was discriminated against on the basis of his
religion. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123
(9th Cir. 2013) (requirements for an equal protection claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Goff’s request for
entry of default because defendant did not fail to plead or otherwise defend. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (providing for entry of default when a defendant “has failed

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-16176
to plead or otherwise defend”); Speiser, Krause & Madole P.C. v. Ortiz, 271 F.3d
884, 886 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Goff’s motions for
discovery sanctions. See Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 921 F.3d
803, 808, 821 (9th Cir. 2019) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that
a district court has wide latitude regarding discovery sanctions).
Contrary to Goff’s contention, the district court did not fail to consider
Goff’s claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
because no such claim was clearly alleged in the operative complaint.
The unopposed motion to substitute party (Docket Entry No. 26) is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --