David King v. T. M. Pebler

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).
tk/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID KING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
T. M. PEBLER,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-17527
D.C. No. 2:07-CV-02787-FCD-
CMK
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
David King, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a prison
FILED
JAN 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

tk/Research 08-17527 2
guard violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by
directing him to cut his hair. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Sacks v. Office of Foreign Assets Control, 466 F.3d 764, 770 (9th
Cir. 2006). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Dittman v.
California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1027 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed King’s equal protection claim because
he failed to allege facts showing that he was treated differently from other inmates
who were similarly situated and that there was no rational basis for the difference
in treatment. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167-68 (9th Cir.
2005) (stating that different treatment of unlike individuals does not support an
equal protection claim).
We have carefully considered King’s remaining contentions and conclude
they are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --