United States v. 2020-04-21 | 19-15241 | VENCIL GREEN V. JOE LIZARRAGA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VENCIL GREEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15241

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00614-KJM-CKD

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Vencil Green appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an equal
protection claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes,

*
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

APR 21 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-15241
213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Green’s action because Green failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that he was intentionally treated differently from
others similarly situated, or that there was no rational basis for the different
treatment. See Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per
curiam) (elements of an equal protection “class of one” claim); Block v.
Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586-87 (1984) (explaining rational connection between
restrictions on contact visits and prison security interests).
AFFIRMED.