to produce direct evidence of discrimination or to allege facts showing that he was treated differently than other similarly-situated prisoners, he cannot establish a claim of race-based discrimination in violation of his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Umani’s race-based equal protection claim. 3. Class-of-One Claim The magistrate judge also analyzed Umani’s claim under the theory that Umani was treated differently as a “class of one” without rational basis. Although recognizing that the “class-of-one” theory is generally not used in employment contexts due to the subjective nature of employment decisions, see Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 594, 606-608, 128 S.Ct. 2146, 170 L.Ed.2d 975 (2008)(<HOLDING>), the magistrate judge nonetheless found that
holding that the classofone equal protection theory has no place in the public employment context holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection holding that segregation in public education is a denial of equal protection of the laws holding that the concept of separate but equal has no place in public education