Unpublished Disposition, 928 F.2d 1138 (9th Cir. 1991)

Nos. 90-15730, 90-15849.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

On Appeal From the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, No. CV-89-645 RMB; Richard M. Bilby, Chief Judge, Presiding.

D. Ariz.

AFFIRMED.

Before BEEZER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON,^**  District Judge.

MEMORANDUM^*** 

On two separate occasions Valenzuela was denied entry into the prison dining hall on the ground that he was unshaven and therefore in noncompliance with a policy of the Arizona Department of Corrections. Valenzuela claims he then requested that prison officials supply him with a razor and that when they refused, he was unable to receive a meal. Defendants claim that Valenzuela was not prevented from eating, as he could have returned after complying with the policy by shaving.

Valenzuela brought a separate section 1983 action with regard to each incident, claiming violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in the first action, noting that under Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981), " [p]rison conditions are only unconstitutional if they deprive inmates of the 'minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.' " The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second suit. Valenzuela appeals these orders and we affirm.

The policy requiring inmates to be clean-shaven in order to enter the dining area does not deprive inmates of food. Valenzuela presents no evidence that he had no means of complying with the policy.¹  Furthermore, "correctional authorities have wide discretion in matters of internal prison administration and ... reasonable action within the scope of this discretion does not violate a prisoner's constitutional rights." Smith v. Schneckloth, 414 F.2d 680, 681 (9th Cir. 1969); see also Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491, 493 (9th Cir. 1985) (" [T]he adoption and execution of policies and practices by prison administrators is to be accorded deference by the judiciary.").

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment and dismissing Valenzuela's suits. The orders of the district court are AFFIRMED. Appellees' request for attorneys' fees on appeal is DENIED.