Case Name: Curlin PENNICK, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe WILLIAMSON, Cook, Stafford Creek Correctional Center, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-29
Citations: 576 F. App'x 672
Docket Number: No. 13-35120
Parties: Curlin PENNICK, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe WILLIAMSON, Cook, Stafford Creek Correctional Center, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 576
Pages: 672–673

Head Matter:
Curlin PENNICK, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe WILLIAMSON, Cook, Stafford Creek Correctional Center, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-35120.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 29, 2014.
Curlin Pennick, III, Aberdeen, WA, pro se.
Brian James Considine, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Olympia, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Washington state prisoner Curlin Pen-nick, III, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the denial of kosher meals for over two days during Passover violated his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Garcia v. County of Merced, 639 F.3d 1206, 1208 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Williamson reasonably relied on the Passover meals-list which mistakenly omitted Pennick. See Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that a prison official may be entitled to qualified immunity where he has a reasonable, but mistaken, belief about the facts or about what the law requires in a given situation); see also Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 229, 112 S.Ct. 534, 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991) (per curiam) ("The qualified immunity standard 'gives ample room for mistaken judgments' by protecting 'all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " (citation omitted)).
Pennick's motion to supplement the record on appeal, filed on June 10, 2013, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.