Bronche Johnson v. California Department of Corrections , 384 F. App'x 625 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 17 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BRONCHE JOHNSON,                                  No. 08-16466
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:04-CV-01783-FCD-
    KJM
    v.
    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF                          MEMORANDUM *
    CORRECTIONS; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Bronche Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
    court’s summary judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging prison officials
    *
    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).
    violated his rights by disciplining him for refusing to comply with prison hair
    grooming regulations. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review
    de novo, Sorrels v. McKee, 
    290 F.3d 965
    , 969 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
    The district court properly entered summary judgment on Johnson’s claims
    under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) based
    on qualified immunity because the pertinent law was not clearly established in
    2003 and 2004, at the time the alleged violations occurred. See Pearson v.
    Callahan, 
    129 S.Ct. 808
    , 822 (2009) (holding that state officers were entitled to
    qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law);
    see also Warsoldier v. Woodford, 
    418 F.3d 989
    , 997 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2005) (“There
    exists little Ninth Circuit authority construing RLUIPA.”).
    We do not consider arguments not raised in the opening brief, or raised for
    the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 
    194 F.3d 1045
    , 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
    Johnson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   08-16466