Douglas Clark v. Ron Davis ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS DANIEL CLARK, No. 16-15992
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:14-cv-02637-YGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RON DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge,
Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
*
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
Before:SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD,
Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Douglas Daniel
Clark appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment in his action brought under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”)
alleging that defendant interfered with the
practice of his religion. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 16-15992
district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de
novo. ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R. Co., 765
F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Clark’s
claims seeking injunctive and declaratory relief
because defendant voluntarily changed the
allegedly infringing policy, rendering his claims
moot. See Rosebrock v. Mathis, 745 F.3d 963,
972 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth factors for
evaluating whether defendant’s voluntary
cessation of behavior has rendered a case moot);
Native Vill. of Noatak v. Blatchford, 38 F.3d
3 16-15992
1505, 1514 (9th Cir. 1994) (declaratory relief
not appropriate for moot claims).
The district court properly dismissed Clark’s
claims seeking monetary damages as barred by
the Eleventh Amendment. See Holley v. Cal.
Dep’t. Corr., 599 F.3d 1108, 1111, 1114 (9th
Cir. 2010) (state officials acting in their official
capacity are immune from suit under the
Eleventh Amendment, and “[t]he Eleventh
Amendment bars [an inmate’s] suit for official-
capacity damages under RLUIPA”).
We reject as without merit Clark’s
4 16-15992
contentions regarding judicial misconduct.
Clark’s motion for oral argument (Docket
Entry No. 28) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
5 16-15992