Dorian Davis v. E. Flores ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DORIAN DAVIS, No. 13-15516
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01197-JTM-
JMA
v.
E. G. FLORES; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted January 21, 2015***
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Dorian Davis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his action 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Jeffrey T. Miller, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(“RLUIPA”) and the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo, and may affirm on any basis supported by the record.
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
Summary judgment on Davis’s claims for damages under RLUIPA was
proper because RLUIPA does not allow for damages against individuals sued in
their official or individual capacities. See Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 901 (9th
Cir. 2014) (a RLUIPA claim for damages against prison officials in their individual
capacities “may not be maintained”); Holley v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 599 F.3d 1108,
1114 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars [the plaintiff’s] suit for
official-capacity damages under RLUIPA.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Davis’s First
Amendment claim premised on a prison prohibition of unsupervised inmate-led
religious services because Davis failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether the prohibition was reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987); see also O’Lone v.
Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 351-52 (1987) (no First Amendment violation
where inmates were unable to attend Jumu’ah services, but were free to participate
in other religious ceremonies and practices).
2 13-15516
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15516