936 F2d 581 Wolff v. Hatcher Sncc
936 F.2d 581
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Ronald Dennis WOLFF, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Sherman HATCHER, Warden, SNCC, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-16304.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 13, 1991.*
Decided June 24, 1991.
Before HUG, SCHROEDER and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
Appellant Ronald Dennis Wolff, a prisoner at the Southern Nevada Correctional Center ("SNCC"), contends that his constitutional rights were violated by the present and former wardens of SNCC. The essence of Wolff's pro se claim is that, due to his convictions for child molestation offenses, he is entitled to a single cell to avoid abuse by other prisoners, in addition to psychological counseling for rehabilitative purposes.
The district court, after a bench trial where Wolff was provided an opportunity to present his case, granted the Government's motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) on the grounds that Wolff had failed to establish a violation of the United States Constitution. In dismissing the claim, the district court noted, with some sympathy for Wolff's grievances, that some of his complaints did merit attention which, under ideal conditions, should be rectified. The issue to be addressed in federal court, however, is whether the conditions amount to a constitutional violation. We conclude that they do not, and therefore affirm the decision of the district court.
The district judge properly concluded that, under the conditions existing at SNCC, Wolff was not constitutionally entitled to a single cell. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348 (1981). The court also properly found that the failure to afford Wolff further psychological counseling did not amount to the "deliberate indifference" required to constitute a constitutional violation. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). Although rehabilitative services are desirable, a prisoner incarcerated for criminal offenses has no constitutional right to such services. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1255 (9th Cir.1982). Notwithstanding Wolff's life sentence and psychological infirmities, he is serving a criminal sentence rather than a term of commitment for mental incapacity. Wolff's reliance on Ohlinger v. Watson, 652 F.2d 775 (9th Cir.1981), is therefore misplaced. See Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1255 n. 8.
After a thorough review of the briefs and the record in this case, we find no merit in Wolff's other contentions raised on appeal.
AFFIRMED.