FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 4 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIDNEY D. JENKINS, III, No. 13-35803
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05053-EFS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MICHAEL MEYERS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 26, 2014**
Before: THOMAS, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Sidney D. Jenkins, III, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal
and state law claims arising out of defendant’s rejection of a package containing
religious prayer oil. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
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).
novo, Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jenkins’ First
Amendment claims regarding the prison’s practice of returning packages from
unapproved religious vendors, without providing prisoners with an opportunity to
select the method of disposal. The district court properly concluded the practice
was a reasonable restriction on his free exercise rights. 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.”); O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 350-53 (1987)
(prison’s regulation prohibiting return of prisoners to the prison during the day was
a reasonable restriction under Turner and did not violate Muslim prisoners’ free
exercise rights, despite the fact they were prevented from attending a weekly
religious service).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jenkins’ equal
protection claim because Jenkins failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether
Meyer acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him on the basis of
his race or religion. See Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013)
(“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the defendants
2 13-35803
acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon
membership in a protected class.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-35803