Case Name: Robert Earl JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold CLARK, DOC Secretary; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-28
Citations: 324 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 07-35597
Parties: Robert Earl JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold CLARK, DOC Secretary; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
Robert Earl JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold CLARK, DOC Secretary; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-35597.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2009.
Filed April 28, 2009.
Robert Earl Johnson, Steilacoom, WA, pro se.
Jason M. Howell, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Allison Margaret Stanhope, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Social & Health Services, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Washington state prisoner Robert Earl Johnson appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his equal protection rights by denying him extended family visitation with his wife based on racial discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Beene v. Terhune, 380 F.3d 1149, 1150 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson's equal protection claim because he failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants "acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against [him] based upon membership in a protected class." Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir.2005). Further, Johnson failed to raise a triable issue as to whether he was similarly situated to European-American inmates who received extended family visits. See id. at 1168 ("Different treatment of unlike groups does not support an equal protection claim.").
Johnson's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.