FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARRY LOUIS LAMON, No. 11-16844
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00829-DGC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Barry Louis Lamon appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights
violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both
*
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).
a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th
Cir. 2000), and summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lamon’s retaliation claims at screening
because the third amended complaint failed to allege facts suggesting that the
defendants retaliated against Lamon for exercising a constitutionally protected
right or that the actions they took did not reasonably advance a legitimate
correctional goal. See Resnick, 213 F.3d at 449 (setting forth standard).
The district court also properly dismissed Lamon’s claim under the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act because Lamon’s conclusory
allegations failed to identify the specific conduct by defendants that purportedly
violated Lamon’s rights under the Act. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007) (“requiring enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lamon’s Eighth
Amendment claims because Lamon failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether defendants tainted or reduced his food portions. See Soremekun
v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (order) (“Conclusory,
2 11-16844
speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise
genuine issues of fact . . . .”).
The district court also properly granted summary judgment on Lamon’s
claims that his First Amendment and Equal Protection rights were violated when
defendant Zirkland canceled his religious diet ostensibly for having thrown the
meals at staff because Lamon did not raise a triable dispute that his removal from
the kosher meal program did not serve a legitimate correctional goal. See Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545-46 (1979) (“[M]aintaining institutional security and
preserving internal order and discipline are essential goals that may require
limitation or retraction of the retained constitutional rights of both convicted
prisoners and pretrial detainees.”).
Lamon’s remaining contentions, including his contention that the district
court abused its discretion in denying his motion to file a fourth amended
complaint, are unavailing.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-16844