Laurie Evelyn Smith, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Tana Wood; al Scamahorn; Tom Rolfs; Steve Rawlings;chase Riveland, Defendants-appellees, 122 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Laurie Evelyn Smith appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated her right to equal protection by terminating extended family visits with her incarcerated husband pursuant to Washington Division of Prisons Directive 590.100. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.

Smith contends the district court erred by granting summary judgment on her equal protection claim. We disagree. Where, as here, a plaintiff does not allege a violation of a fundamental right or the existence of a suspect classification, prison officials need only show that their policies bear a rational relation to a legitimate penological interest in order to satisfy the equal protection clause. See Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218, 1221-22 (9th Cir. 1989). In this case, the institution has a legitimate penological interest in ensuring the safety of prison inmates, staff and visitors, see Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984), and restricting extended family visitation privileges to inmates without documented histories of domestic violence is reasonably related to this interest. See id. at 586-87. Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment on Smith's equal protection claim.

Smith contends the district court erred by denying her motion to compel answers to her interrogatories. We disagree. The district court properly reasoned that, even if Smith were able to show that other similarly-situated prisoners have maintained their extended family visitation privileges, a mere showing of inequality does not establish an equal protection violation. See McQueary v. Blodgett, 924 F.2d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 1991).¹ 

AFFIRMED.