J ohn Gleeson, of the United States District Court for the Easter n District of Ne w York, * sitti ngby desig nation. 09- 436 5-p r Wal ter v. Fi sch er

UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUM M AR

Y O RD ER RU LIN G S BYSUM M AR Y O RD ER

DO NO T HA VE P RE CE DE NTIA L EF F EC T. CI TA TIO N T O ASUM M AR Y O RD ER

F ILED ON OR

AF TER JA NU AR

Y 1, 20 07 , IS P ERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F EDERAL RULE OF AP P ELL ATE PR OCEDURE 32 .1 AN D T HIS CO UR T’ S LOC AL RU LE 3 2. 1. 1. WHE N C ITI NG A SU M M AR

Y O RD ER IN A D OC UM EN T F ILED W IT H TH IS C OU RT , AP AR TYM UST CI TE EI THER THE F ED ER AL AP P EN DI X O R A N E LEC TR ON IC DA TA BA SE ( WI TH TH E N OTATI ON “ S UM MA RY O RD E R” ). A P ARTY CITING A SUMMA RY ORDER M UST S ERVE A COPY OF IT O N A NYP AR TYNO T REP RE SEN TED BYCO UN SEL. At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 9 day

of September , two thousand ten. th PRES ENT: ROBERT A. K ATZ MANN, P E T E R W
. H A LL, Circuit Judges , J OHN GL EESON, *

District Judge.

__________________________________________________ L awr ence J . Walter, Plaintif f-Appellant ,

v. 09-4365-pr Br ian Fisc her, Commissioner, Depa rtment of Corre ctional Service s, J ohn H. Nutall, Deputy Commi ssioner for

Prog ram Service s, Dwig ht Bra dford, Dir ector of Substance A

buse, S. Spurge on, Senior Correc tions Couns elor, De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lle e s.

__________________________________________________2

FOR PLAI

NTI FF -APPEL L ANT: Walter J . L awr ence , pro se, Marc y , N.Y. FOR DEF ENDAN TS-APPEL L EES: Andre w B . Ay ers, Ne w York State A ttorney Gene ral, Alba

ny , N.Y.
UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is h ere by ORDERED, ADJUDG ED, AND DECREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. Plaintiff-Appellant Walter J. L awr ence , pr o s e , appea ls from the judg ment of the United States District Court for the Nor thern District of N ew Yor k (Mordue , C. J. ), dismissing Appellant’s c omplaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

. We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ fa mil iari ty wi th the fa cts and proc edura l history
. We review de novo a district cour t’s decision to dismiss a complaint for fa ilure to state a
c la im, takin g a ll f

a c tua l a lle g atio ns in t

he c omp la int

a s tr ue and c on str uin g a ll r e a so na

ble infere nces in fa

vor of the pla intiff. See Chambers v. Time W arner, Inc

. , 282 F.3d 147, 152 ( 2d Cir. 2002). Havingconducte d an indepe ndent and de novo revie w, we f ind, for substantially

the
same re a so ns a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt , th at App e lla nt f a ile d to e sta

bli shthat he ha d a

pr ote c te d li be rt

y interest in not participating in an a lcohol treatment prog ram, g iven that his participation re lated to a leg itimate penolog ical objec tive and this Court ge nera lly aff ords discre tion to prison administration. Se e O’

Lon e v . E sta teof S ha ba zz , 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987) (“ The limitations on the e xer c ise of

c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts ari se fr om t he fa c t of inc arc e ra tio n a nd fr om v a lid penolog ical objec tives—including de terre nce of crime, r ehabilitation of prisoner s, and ins tit uti on a l se c ur ity .” ); Mc

Kun e v . Li le , 536 U.S. 24, 36-38 (2002) ( explaining that a “ prison clinical re habilitation prog ram” bear s “a r ational re lation to a leg itimate penolog ical objec tive”);
se e als o Turner v. Safley , 4 82 U. S. 7 8, 84 -8 5 ( 19 87 ) ( statin g that c ourt s mu st e xer c ise re str a int in
su pe rv isi ngpr iso n a dmi nis tr atio n, and , “ [w]he re a state pe na l sy ste m is inv olv e d, fe de ra l c ourt s have . . . a dditional reason to ac cord de fer ence to the appropr iate prison author ities”). Finally , we f

ind, for substantially

the same r easons a s the district court, that Appe llant fa ile d to e sta

bli shan e qu a l pr ote c tio n c la im, be c a us e a c lin ic a l r e ha

bil itatio n p ro g ra

m se rv e s a leg itimate penolog ical intere st, and, thus, a rational basis exi sts for the policy
. See McKune , 5363

U. S. at 36 -3 8; see also Shaw v. Murphy , 5 32 U. S. 2 23 , 2 32 (2 00 1) (e xpla ini ngthat an inmate must demonstrate that his treatment was not “re asonably related to [any ] l eg itimate penolog ical interests.”) . Additionally , as the policy was a pplicable to all inmates with a history of alc ohol and drugabuse, A

ppellant has fa iled to alleg e how he was tre ated diff ere ntly than others simil arly situated to him. See Phillips v. Girdich , 408 F.3d 124, 129 ( stating that to articulate a n equal pr otection claim an inmate “must demonstrate that he was tre ated diff ere ntly than others simil arly situated as a r esult of intentional or purpose ful discrimination.”). Insofar as Appe llant argues on appe al that the district cour t misapplied the leg al standar d for a motion to di smiss, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), we find his argument is without merit. In ruling on a Rule 12(b) (6) motion, a cour t is required to a cce pt the materia l fac ts alleg ed in the complaint as true. See Coh e n v . Ko e nig , 2 5 F .3 d 1 16 8, 11 71 -7 2 ( 2d Cir .1 99 4) . T he ta sk of a c ourt in ruling on a

Rule 12(b)(6) motion “is merely to assess the leg al fe asibility of the complaint, not to assay

the weig ht of the evide nce which might be offe red in support ther eof.” Cooper v. Parsky , 140 F.3d 433, 440 ( 2d Cir. 1998). Her e, the district cour t expl icitly

stated that it acce pted the fa ctual alleg ations set forth in Appellant’ s complaint as true a nd proper ly

assessed the leg al fe asibility

of Appe llant’s claims. We find nothing in the r ecor d to sugg est that the district court improper ly

relied on a

ny evidenc e outside of the ple ading s, as a r eview of the
re c or d in dic ate s th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt re lie d s ole ly

on Ap pe lla nt’ s c omp la int

and re le va nt c a se law. Ac cording ly , it cannot be sa id that the district court misapplied the Rule 12(b) (6) standa rd. F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
.
F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk