Rose

MEMORANDUM

Steven Rose, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison grooming regulations violated his civil rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . *467 We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on Rose’s First Amendment and substantive due process claims because Rose failed to present any evidence that the grooming regulations are not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Patel v. Penman, 103 F.3d 868, 874 (9th Cir.1996) (substantive due process); Friedman v. Arizona, 912 F.2d 328, 331 (9th Cir.1990) (First Amendment).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rose’s equal protection claim because Rose failed to present any evidence that the grooming regulations do not bear a rational relation to a legitimate prison objective. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987).

Because Rose failed to demonstrate that the prison regulations deprived…