FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DWIGHT DWAYNE GRANDBERRY, No. 13-15334
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:10-cv-04698-SBA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
G. D. LEWIS, Chief Deputy Warden; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Dwight Dwayne Grandberry appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendants violated his equal protection rights by implementing a race-based
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
prison lockdown of Black inmates following an inmate assault and subsequent
discovery of an inmate-made weapon. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City
Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 733 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm in part, reverse in
part, and remand.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Grandberry’s
equal protection claim as to defendants Lewis and Meza because they were not
responsible for the prison lockdown to which Grandberry was subjected. See Leer
v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633-34 (9th Cir. 1988) (requiring an individualized
inquiry into who caused an individual’s alleged constitutional deprivation).
With respect to defendant Mantel, however, Grandberry raised a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether the race-based lockdown was narrowly
tailored to address the compelling government interest of prison security. See
Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 509-15 (2005) (applying strict scrutiny to
racial classifications in prison context); see also Richardson v. Runnels, 594 F.3d
666, 671-72 (9th Cir. 2010) (prison officials must provide evidence “concerning
the basis for regarding all African-Americans as [] security risk[s] when one or a
few African-American inmates are responsible for an assault”). Viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to Grandberry, as we are required to do, see
2 13-15334
San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n, 568 F.3d at 733, a triable dispute remains as to
“the necessity of [the] racial classification in response to [the] prison disturbance[]
and [whether] the racial classification was the least restrictive alternative.”
Richardson, 594 F.3d at 671 (citing Johnson, 543 U.S. at 505).
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.
3 13-15334