NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRE ALMOND DENNISON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CHARLES L. RYAN, named as Charles 

Ryan, Director of Prison Operations at AZ 

Dept of Corrections; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 15-16856 

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01925-SPL 

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017**

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Andre Almond Dennison, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the 

district court’s summary judgment in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the 

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) alleging claims 

 

* 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

FEB 23 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-16856 

in connection with the prison’s religious meal policy. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th 

Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dennison’s 

RLUIPA claim for injunctive relief. Dennison failed to raise a genuine dispute of 

material fact as to whether the vegan meal plan was not the least restrictive means

to achieve a compelling governmental interest. See id. at 888 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 

2000cc-1(a)).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dennison’s claim 

for money damages under RLUIPA. See Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277, 280 

(2011) (RLUIPA does not authorize money damages against state officials sued in 

their official capacities); Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 904 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(RLUIPA does not authorize lawsuits against government employees in an 

individual capacity).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dennison’s First 

Amendment free exercise claim. Dennison failed to raise a genuine dispute of 

material fact as to whether the prison’s vegan meal policy was not reasonably 

related to legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91

(1987) (noting the four factors to be balanced in determining the reasonableness of 

a prison regulation).
3 15-16856 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dennison’s 

Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim. Dennison failed to raise a genuine 

dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Ryan acted with discriminatory 

intent in creating the vegan meal policy. See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 

737 (9th Cir. 1997) (under § 1983, plaintiff must show that officials intentionally 

acted in a discriminatory manner to establish an equal protection claim), abrogated 

on other grounds as recognized by Shakur, 514 F.3d at 884-85.

The district court properly dismissed Dennison’s claims against defendants 

Canteen Correctional Services and Trinity Correctional Services. They did not 

participate in creating the vegan meal policy. See Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 

1024 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth standard of review); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 

930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (liability under § 1983 requires personal participation by 

the defendant).

The district court did not clearly err by granting a protective order. 

Defendant Ryan demonstrated good cause that the Arizona Department of 

Corrections would be harmed by disclosure of propriety information produced in 

discovery. See Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(setting forth standard of review and good cause standard for a protective order).

We reject as without merit Dennison’s contentions that the district court 

improperly denied his requests for sanctions and for a telephonic discovery 
4 15-16856 

conference, and that the district court should have assisted him with drafting a Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(d) motion.

AFFIRMED.