Leslie Grey Vanaman v. MOLINAR; J. T. SHARTLE, Warden; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; R. L. RHODES

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LESLIE GREY VANAMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MOLINAR; J. T. SHARTLE, Warden;
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; R. L.
RHODES,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15260
D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00222-JCH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John Charles Hinderaker, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 13, 2022 **
Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges
Leslie Vanaman, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary Tucson, appeals
from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the
FILED
JUL 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

defendants in his action arising out of the prison’s rejection of an issue of a
magazine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012), and affirm.
Vanaman’s facial challenges to Complex Supplement TCX 5324.10B are
moot. Vanaman only sought to enjoin rejection of future publications pursuant to
the supplement, which is no longer in effect. See Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 697 F.3d
1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 2012) (a case becomes moot when “no effective relief remains
available”).
Summary judgment was proper for the defendants on the First Amendment
and equal protection claims because the rejection of the magazine was reasonably
or rationally related to legitimate penological interests of security and
rehabilitation. The defendants made an individualized assessment that the
magazine was risk-relevant to Vanaman’s convictions and could hinder his
rehabilitation. In addition, it could be traded or sold, interfering with the
rehabilitation of other inmates and causing security risks. See Thornburgh v.
Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989) (setting forth the standard to assess incoming
publications); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822-23 (1974) (legitimate
penological interests include deterrence of crime, rehabilitation, and internal
security); United States v. Whitlock, 639 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011) (“neither
2

-- 2 of 3 --

prisoners nor ‘persons convicted of crimes’ constitute a suspect class for equal
protection purposes”); Webber v. Crabtree, 158 F.3d 460, 461 (9th Cir. 1998)
(setting forth the equal protection standard). Moreover, Vanaman failed to
establish that he was treated differently from other similarly-situated prisoners.
See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1168 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Evidence
of different treatment of unlike groups does not support an equal protection
claim.”).
Appellant’s “Motion to Take Judicial Notice” [Dkt. Entry No. 15] and
“Motion to Supplement and Supplement to the Requested Relief” [Dkt. Entry No.
18] are DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --