(order) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. Gamez’s equal protection “class of one” claims were properly dismissed because prison administrators have a rational basis for segregating validated gang associates from the general prison population, and Gamez’s assertion that he was the only prisoner required to debrief in order to be released from the SHU is facially implausible. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (claim must be “plausible on its face”); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-22, 106
holding that the state law violated equal protection principles holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection recognizing class of one equal protection claim where ordinance targeted a single individual on basis that state action was irrational and arbitrary holding that an equal protection claim was no more than a first amendment claim dressed in equal protection clothing and was thus subsumed by and coextensive with the first amendment claim holding that montana constitutions equal protection clause protects against arbitrary and discriminate state action 