Curry
Curry v. Hernan
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Richard Curry, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that officials at California State Prison, Solano unconstitutionally prohibited him from viewing certain movies. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo both dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and summary judgment. Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). We affirm.
Because the prison’s Operational Plan # 21 is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Curry’s claim that Operational Plan #21 is unconstitutional on its face. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987).
Because defendants submitted evidence that the decision not to show the movie Jungle Fever was reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest, and Curry failed to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, the district court properly granted summary judgment on this claim. See id.; Stefanow v. McFadden, 103 F.3d 1466, 1472-75 (9th Cir.1996).