22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4b2,MEMORANDUM 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 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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4e4,

MEMORANDUM

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 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.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.