Miller v. Woofter

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 1 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN O. MILLER, No. 25-2995 D.C. No.

Plaintiff - Appellant, 6:23-cv-00075-DWM v.

MEMORANDUM*

MELISSA WOOFTER; BOWMAN SMELKO; STEFFANI TURNER; CYNTHIA WOLKEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 25, 2026** Before: SILVERMAN, N.R. SMITH, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Montana state prisoner John O. Miller appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jones v.

*

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

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Slade, 23 F.4th 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2022). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Miller’s free exercise claim because Miller failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the prison’s group cognitive behavioral therapy rules were not reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987) (“[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Miller’s equal protection claim because Miller failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was intentionally treated differently from similarly situated inmates based on his religion. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 2005) (“An equal protection claim will not lie by conflating all persons not injured into a preferred class receiving better treatment than the plaintiff.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Miller’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-2995