Sheldon B. Walker v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHELDON B. WALKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16120
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02554-DJH-JZB
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
FEB 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

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 of 3 --

3
interests”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --