From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Baca

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 27, 2018
No. 17-15960 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2018)

Opinion

No. 17-15960

03-27-2018

TANIKO C. SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ISIDRO BACA, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00456-MMD-WGC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Nevada state prisoner Taniko C. Smith appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action at screening alleging various constitutional claims relating to the denial of visitation with his fiancé, a former staff member at Smith's prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We reverse and remand.

The district court dismissed Smith's equal protection claim because the decision to deny Smith's request for visitation was discretionary. However, Smith alleged that by denying his fiancé visitation because she was a former prison employee, prison authorities treated him differently than other similarly situated inmates, and did so without a legitimate penological justification. See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564-65 (2000) (elements of "class of one" equal protection claim); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487 n.11 (1995) (Equal Protection Clause protects prisoners from arbitrary state action); McElyea v. Babbit, 833 F.2d 196, 197-98 (9th Cir. 1987) (prison policy that impinges on prisoner's constitutional rights must be reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest). We reverse the dismissal of Smith's equal protection claim and remand for defendants to respond to the complaint.

We do not consider documents or facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.").

REVERSED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

Smith v. Baca

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 27, 2018
No. 17-15960 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2018)
Case details for

Smith v. Baca

Case Details

Full title:TANIKO C. SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ISIDRO BACA, Warden; et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 27, 2018

Citations

No. 17-15960 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2018)

Citing Cases

Tripp v. Nev. State Parole Bd.

The Ninth Circuit, in unpublished decisions, has applied the class of one theory in cases where the decision…