Barry Patterson v. M. Linderman , 591 F. App'x 627 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FEB 3 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BARRY NORTHCROSS PATTERSON,                      No. 13-16315
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01571-PGR
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    M. LINDERMAN, Head of Pastoral
    Services; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted January 21, 2015**
    Before:        CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Arizona state prisoner Barry Northcross Patterson appeals pro se from the
    district court’s judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that defendants
    violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and various other
    *
    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).
    constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 
    630 F.3d 889
    , 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal
    under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Shakur v. Schriro, 
    514 F.3d 878
    , 883 (9th Cir. 2008)
    (summary judgment). We affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Patterson’s First
    Amendment claim because Patterson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
    fact as to whether defendants Lee and Becker violated his First Amendment rights
    by suspending his kosher meal privileges after Patterson violated the terms of his
    meal plan by sharing or trading food with other inmates. See O’Lone v. Estate of
    Shabazz, 
    482 U.S. 342
    , 350-52 (1987) (restraint on inmate’s ability to exercise his
    religion does not violate the First Amendment if it is reasonably related to a
    legitimate penological interest).
    The district court properly dismissed Patterson’s claims against the
    remaining defendants because Patterson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a
    plausible claim for relief under any viable legal theory. See Starr v. Baca, 
    652 F.3d 1202
    , 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining supervisory liability under § 1983);
    Hebbe v. Pliler, 
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings
    2                                      13-16315
    are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff still must present factual allegations
    sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                      13-16315
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-16315

Citation Numbers: 591 F. App'x 627

Filed Date: 2/3/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023