928 F2d 1138 Valenzuela v. Camarillo Valenzuela

928 F.2d 1138

Unpublished Disposition

Paul Osorio VALENZUELA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Victor CAMARILLO, Sergeant, Michael Gregory, Officer,
Paul Osorio VALENZUELA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
J. SMALE, Victor Camarillo, Sergeant, Michael Gregory,
Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

view counter

Nos. 90-15730, 90-15849.


United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 14, 1991.*
Decided March 20, 1991.


On Appeal From the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, No. CV-89-645 RMB; Richard M. Bilby, Chief Judge, Presiding.






Before BEEZER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON,** District Judge.



view counter

On two separate occasions Valenzuela was denied entry into the prison dining hall on the ground that he was unshaven and therefore in noncompliance with a policy of the Arizona Department of Corrections. Valenzuela claims he then requested that prison officials supply him with a razor and that when they refused, he was unable to receive a meal. Defendants claim that Valenzuela was not prevented from eating, as he could have returned after complying with the policy by shaving.


Valenzuela brought a separate section 1983 action with regard to each incident, claiming violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in the first action, noting that under Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981), "[p]rison conditions are only unconstitutional if they deprive inmates of the 'minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.' " The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second suit. Valenzuela appeals these orders and we affirm.


The policy requiring inmates to be clean-shaven in order to enter the dining area does not deprive inmates of food. Valenzuela presents no evidence that he had no means of complying with the policy.1 Furthermore, "correctional authorities have wide discretion in matters of internal prison administration and ... reasonable action within the scope of this discretion does not violate a prisoner's constitutional rights." Smith v. Schneckloth, 414 F.2d 680, 681 (9th Cir.1969); see also Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491, 493 (9th Cir.1985) ("[T]he adoption and execution of policies and practices by prison administrators is to be accorded deference by the judiciary.").


The district court did not err in granting summary judgment and dismissing Valenzuela's suits. The orders of the district court are AFFIRMED. Appellees' request for attorneys' fees on appeal is DENIED.


The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4


The Honorable James K. Singleton, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation


This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3


Valenzuela does not suggest that he was denied entry to the dining hall on days other than the two indicated in these suits. Presumably, therefore, means were available by which he could become clean-shaven