SHELDON WALKER V. CHARLES RYAN, No. 18-16120 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 25 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHELDON B. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-16120 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02554-DJH-JZB v. MEMORANDUM* CHARLES L. RYAN, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Sheldon B. Walker appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Walker’s RLUIPA claim based on the denial of a kemetic diet because Walker failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether providing him with a vegan rather than kemetic diet was not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. See Greene v. Solano Cty. Jail, 513 F.3d 982, 986-90 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth RLUIPA standard and explaining that defendants must show that less restrictive measures were actually considered); see also Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 723 (2005) (acknowledging prison administrators’ interest in “maintain[ing] good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and limited resources” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Walker’s First Amendment free exercise claim based on the denial of a kemetic diet because Walker failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether such denial was not reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987) (a prison regulation that “impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights” is valid “if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological 2 interests”). AFFIRMED. 3

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.