Hill

Jackson v. Hill

Good Law
128 F. App'x 595
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 11, 2005No. 04-35070California432 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Lowell Edward Jackson, an Oregon state prisoner and a member of the Nation of Islam, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in Jackson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the officials violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to provide him with a proper Halal diet, and retaliated against him when he requested a Halal diet. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review summary judgment de novo, Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

Jackson contends that defendants violated equal protection guarantees by providing meat to Jewish inmates receiving a Kosher diet, but providing only a vegetarian Halal diet. This contention lacks merit because defendants offered evidence that the Kosher diet does not contain meat and Jackson failed to “introduce some significant probative evidence tending to support [his] complaint.” Bahrampour, 356 F.3d at 974 (internal quotation omitted). Jackson’s other equal protection contentions lack merit because he failed to present evidence either of discriminatory intent, see Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-40 , 96 S.Ct. 2040…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.