NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
WILLIAM LYONS, No. 09-15359
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00339-LRH-
VPC
v.
HOWARD SKOLNIK, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
William Lyons, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging a ban on the
personal possession of typewriters by inmates in the custody of the Nevada
*
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).
Department of Corrections (“NDOC”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v.
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We may affirm on any ground
supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.
2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lyons’s First Amendment claim
because the NDOC ban on typewriters was enacted to reasonably advance a
legitimate correctional goal of institutional safety. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.
78, 89 (1987) (a regulation that impinges on First Amendment rights “is valid if it
is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests”); Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v.
Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the NDOC
typewriter ban did not infringe upon inmate First Amendment rights because it was
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests).
Dismissal of Lyons’s Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claim was
proper because the NDOC ban on typewriters was enacted to reasonably advance a
legitimate correctional goal. See Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190,
1216-17 (9th Cir. 2008) (rights guaranteed under the ADA must be analyzed under
Turner factors).
2 09-15359
The district court properly dismissed Lyons’s Fourteenth Amendment claim
because Lyons failed to allege facts sufficient to show a due process violation. See
Nev. Dep’t of Corr., 648 F.3d at 1019 (NDOC notified inmates of the change in
regulations and gave adequate opportunity to comply, and this “is all the process
that is due”).
Dismissal of Lyons’s Eighth Amendment claim was proper because Lyons
failed to allege that defendant had a sufficiently culpable state of mind. See
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (elements of an Eighth Amendment
claim).
Dismissal of Lyons’s Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(“RLUIPA”) claim was proper because Lyons failed to allege that the typewriter
ban placed “a substantial burden” on his religious exercise. 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc(a)(1)(A)-(B).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 09-15359