Opinion
19-35190
05-12-2022
PARAMJIT SINGH BASRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD MORGAN, DOC Acting Secretary; ROBERT HERZOG, Deputy Director; RON HAYNES, CBCC Superintendent; DORINDA WALL, CBCC Visit Sgt; LAURA ALLISON, CBCC Classification Counselor; MIKE OBENLAND, Supt of Monroe Correctional Complex; SGT. NICHOLAS, (FNU); SGT. HOWELL, (FNU); SGT. HEIMBIGNER; C/O NAME UNKNOWN; C. APLIN, C/O; R. DREYER, Sgt.; DONALD DUNCAN, Chaplain; BELINDA D. STEWART, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted May 11, 2022 [**] San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 3:16-cv-06005-RBL for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Washington prisoner Paramjit Singh Basra appeals pro se from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants in his action alleging that his equal protection rights were violated by the denial of dairy food items he believes are required by his Sikh religion. Reviewing de novo, we affirm.
Although Basra's action alleged various claims against a number of prison personnel, only his equal protection claim arising from the diet policy is at issue on appeal. That claim was made against defendants Aplin, Dreyer, Duncan, Haynes, and Stewart.
See U.S. Const. amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir. 2008).
In order to avoid summary judgment on that claim, Basra had to do more than simply show that he was a member of a protected class and was treated differently from others similarly-situated; rather, he had to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact that any disparate treatment arising from the prison diet policy was not reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. See Shakur, 514 F.3d at 891. The record supports the district court's conclusion that he failed to do so, and that as to Basra, the prison's policy of replacing a variety of diet plans with one vegan diet was reasonably related to the prison's legitimate penological interest in an efficient and simplified meal service. See id.; Ward v. Walsh, 1 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2261-62, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). Moreover, the standards applicable to statutory RLUIPA claims do not apply to his equal protection constitutional claim. See Shakur, 514 F.3d at 888, 891; see also Greene v. Solano Cnty. Jail, 513 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2008).
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc-2000cc-5 (RLUIPA).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).