NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, No. 20-16309
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00917-JLT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NDUBUISI OBIOHA, Psychiatric
Technician; RUBEN CASANOVA,
Psychiatric Technician; ROBERT CHASE,
Psychiatric Technician,
Defendants-Appellees,
JASON MONTIJO, Psychiatric Technician,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL;
GERARDO ALCALA,
Defendants,
STEPHEN GARZA; WILLIAM MCGHEE,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Jennifer L. Thurston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit
Judges.
Robert Williams appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for
defendants. Reviewing de novo, we affirm. Wilk v. Neven, 956 F.3d 1143, 1147
(9th Cir. 2020).
Williams alleged that defendants—psychiatric technicians at Coalinga State
Hospital—violated the due process clause by failing to protect him from another
civil detainee, Corey Bell. Summary judgment was properly granted because the
undisputed evidence shows that the defendants neither assigned Williams to the
unit where the incident occurred nor had reason to perceive an unreasonable risk
from Bell. See Castro v. Cty. of L.A., 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding
that a failure to protect claim requires, among other things, an intentional decision
by a defendant to put a plaintiff in conditions that pose a substantial risk of serious
harm.).
Williams also alleged equal protection and conditions of confinement claims
and appeals the district court’s dismissal of these claims for failure to state a claim.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
They were properly dismissed, however, because Williams pleaded no facts that he
was either intentionally discriminated against or subject to punitive detention
conditions. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123
(9th Cir. 2013) (equal protection claim requires intentional discrimination); King v.
Cty. of L.A., 885 F.3d 548, 556–57 (9th Cir. 2018) (civilly detained individuals
may not be subjected to conditions that constitute punishment).
AFFIRMED.
3