SIDNEY JENKINS, III V. MICHAEL MEYERS, No. 13-35803 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 4 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SIDNEY D. JENKINS, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-35803 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05053-EFS v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL MEYERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 26, 2014** Before: THOMAS, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Washington state prisoner Sidney D. Jenkins, III, appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of defendant s rejection of a package containing religious prayer oil. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de * 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). novo, Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jenkins First Amendment claims regarding the prison s practice of returning packages from unapproved religious vendors, without providing prisoners with an opportunity to select the method of disposal. The district court properly concluded the practice was a reasonable restriction on his free exercise rights. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987) ( [W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. ); O Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 350-53 (1987) (prison s regulation prohibiting return of prisoners to the prison during the day was a reasonable restriction under Turner and did not violate Muslim prisoners free exercise rights, despite the fact they were prevented from attending a weekly religious service). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jenkins equal protection claim because Jenkins failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether Meyer acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him on the basis of his race or religion. See Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013) ( To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the defendants 2 13-35803 acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 3 13-35803
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
