FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 3 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARRY NORTHCROSS PATTERSON, No. 13-16315
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01571-PGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
M. LINDERMAN, Head of Pastoral
Services; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Barry Northcross Patterson appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and various other
*
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).
constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir. 2008)
(summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Patterson’s First
Amendment claim because Patterson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether defendants Lee and Becker violated his First Amendment rights
by suspending his kosher meal privileges after Patterson violated the terms of his
meal plan by sharing or trading food with other inmates. See O’Lone v. Estate of
Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 350-52 (1987) (restraint on inmate’s ability to exercise his
religion does not violate the First Amendment if it is reasonably related to a
legitimate penological interest).
The district court properly dismissed Patterson’s claims against the
remaining defendants because Patterson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief under any viable legal theory. See Starr v. Baca, 652
F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining supervisory liability under § 1983);
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings
2 13-16315
are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff still must present factual allegations
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-16315