Gregory Mitchell v. Jim Hamlet , 462 F. App'x 765 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY MITCHELL, No. 10-17308
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-03443-THE
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JIM HAMLET; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Thelton E. Henderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Mitchell, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad,
California, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for
defendants in his civil rights action. Mitchell alleged violations of his religious
rights as a Muslim under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, pursuant to 42
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1983, and under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
of 2000 (“RLUIPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
the summary judgment de novo, Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir.
2008), and we affirm.
The district court correctly determined that Mitchell did not present evidence
raising a genuine issue of material fact in opposition to summary judgment.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249–50 (1986). Although Mitchell
pointed to his complaint, to declarations submitted in support of his opposition,
and to voluminous attachments to those documents, as well as to a request for
judicial notice, none of these shows a substantial burden on Mitchell’s religious
practice that meets the standard of RLUIPA or raises constitutional concerns. See
Shakur, 514 F.3d at 885, 889, 891. To the extent that Mitchell’s opposition
accurately points to the record,1 the assertions therein are conclusory. See
Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167 n.4 (9th Cir. 2005). He did not
raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the asserted improper burdens on
his religious practice.
1
See Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996).
2
Mitchell’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. Because Mitchell did
not meet his burden in opposing summary judgment, the district court’s decision
should be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
3