Jason J. Lee Sutton v. Eldon Vail;

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). Accordingly, Sutton’s
request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASON J. LEE SUTTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ELDON VAIL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-35513
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-05023-JLQ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Jason J. Lee Sutton appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of
the right to practice his religion in violation of the First Amendment, the Religious
FILED
NOV 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-35513 2
Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act (“RLUIPA”), and the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sutton’s equal protection claim
because Sutton failed to allege facts showing that he was intentionally treated
differently from similarly situated inmates. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425
F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2005).
The district court properly dismissed Sutton’s First Amendment and
RLUIPA claims because Sutton failed to allege facts showing that defendants’
actions substantially burdened his ability to practice his religion. See Cruz v. Beto,
405 U.S. 319, 322 n.2 (1972) (per curiam) (“[A] place of worship need not be
provided for every faith regardless of size; nor must a chaplain, priest, or minister
be provided without regard to the extent of the demand.”).
Sutton’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --