Opinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
State prisoner filed § 1983 action alleging that prison regulation requiring him to cut his hair violated his First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Garland E. Burrell, Jr., J., entered summary judgment in favor of state, and prisoner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that regulation was constitutionally valid.
Affirmed.
Page 818.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.
Before KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Leroy A. Andreozzi, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant in his 42 U.S. C.§ 1983 action, which alleged that a prison regulation which requires him to cut his hair violates his First Amendment right to freedom of religion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the prison's grooming policy violated Andreozzi's First Amendment right to freedom of religion, Friedman v. Arizona, 912 F.2d 328, 331 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because the grooming policy Andreozzi challenges is constitutionally valid as it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See id. at 331-333.
Andreozzi's remaining contentions lack merit.
Andreozzi's objection filed on May 12, 2000, to the telephonic extension of time for filing the answering brief granted to appellees is denied.
AFFIRMED.