Tutuila Tuvalu v. Jeanne Woodford , 389 F. App'x 735 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TUTUILA F. TUVALU, No. 08-16807
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:04-cv-01724-JAM-
KJM
v.
JEANNE S. WOODFORD; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2010 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Tutuila F. Tuvalu, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations
arising from the prison’s family visitation policy. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cir. 2002) (failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Arpin v. Santa Clara
Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001) (summary judgment).
We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tuvalu’s family
association claims because the challenged regulation precluding overnight family
visits to prisoners serving life sentences without parole dates is rationally related to
legitimate penological interests. See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 133-36
(2003).
The district court also properly granted summary judgment on Tuvalu’s
equal protection claim because, even assuming that Tuvalu raised a triable issue as
to whether the prison allows overnight visits to “informants,” it is not irrational for
prison officials to offer a special privilege to those who provide information about
threats to the security of the institution or other inmates. See Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78, 89 (1987).
The district court properly dismissed Tuvalu’s Eighth Amendment, see
Overton, 539 U.S. at 136-37, and Ex Post Facto Clause claims, see Seling v.
Young, 531 U.S. 250, 267 (2001).
2 08-16807
Tuvalu’s conspiracy claim fails because he did not establish an underlying
constitutional violation. See Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583, 592 (9th Cir. 2010).
Tuvalu’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Tuvalu’s motions to supplement the record are construed as requests for
judicial notice and so construed are granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 08-16807