Jackson v. Olivarez

Full title: Freddie B. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ana M. OLIVAREZ; W. Moors…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 2, 2001

4 F. App'x 321 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

4 Fed.Appx. 321 (9th Cir. 2001) Freddie B. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ana M. OLIVAREZ; W. Moors, Chaplain; George Dibble, Defendants-Appellees. No. 99-16857. D.C. No. CV-96-525-DFL. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 2, 2001

Submitted Jan. 8, 2001 ¹.

1 The 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)

California state inmate brought § 1983 action alleging violation of his equal protection rights and race discrimination. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, David F. Levi, J., granted summary judgment for defendants. Inmate appealed. The Court of Appeals held that limitations placed on California state inmate's access to prison chapel library were related to a legitimate penological interest, and thus, there was no violation of his equal protection rights or race discrimination.

Affirmed.

Page 322.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California David F. Levi, District Judge, Presiding.

Before BEEZER, O'SCANNLAIN, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ²

2 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Freddie B. Jackson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an equal protection violation and race discrimination. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's summary judgment, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

Because the limitations placed on Jackson's access to the prison chapel library were related to a legitimate penological interest and Jackson failed to present any evidence to the contrary, the district court's grant of summary judgment was proper. See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir.1997).

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jackson failed to present any evidence raising a triable issue that the defendants' actions were motivated by racially discriminatory animus. See Magana v. Commonwealth of N. Mariana Islands, 107 F.3d 1436, 1448 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that mere conclusory statements of discriminatory intent are insufficient to avert summary judgment).

We have considered Jackson's remaining contentions and they are not persuasive.

AFFIRMED.