FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DORIAN DAVIS, No. 11-15296
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01197-JTM-
JMA
v.
E. G. FLORES; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Dorian Davis appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of the right to
practice his religion in violation of the First Amendment, the Religious Land Use
*
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).
and Institutionalized Person’s Act (“RLUIPA”), and the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo both a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order),
and the district court’s summary judgment, Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900
(9 th Cir. 2001). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Davis’s equal protection claim because
he failed to allege facts showing he was intentionally treated differently from
similarly situated inmates. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158,
1166-67 (9th Cir. 2005).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Davis’s First
Amendment claims premised on the seven-month prohibition against using prayer
oil in cells because Davis failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether the prohibition was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987); see also O’Lone v. Estate of
Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 351-52 (1987) (no First Amendment violation if inmates
unable to attend certain prayer services were free to participate in other religious
ceremonies and practices).
2 11-15296
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Davis’s RLUIPA
claim premised on the temporary suspension of in-cell use of prayer oil because
Davis did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the suspension
failed to further “a compelling governmental interest” or was not “the least
restrictive means” of preventing further smuggling of contraband. 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc-1(a); see Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725 n.13 (2005) (“[P]rison
security is a compelling state interest, and . . . deference is due to institutional
officials’ expertise in this area.”).
The district court failed to address Davis’s First Amendment and RLUIPA
claims premised on a prison prohibition of unsupervised inmate-led religious
services. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment as to these claims and remand for
further proceedings.
Davis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED.
3 11-15296