eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2022-03

Anthony Merrick v. Charles Ryan ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY JAMES MERRICK,                          No. 20-17504
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05494-SPL-MTM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES L. RYAN, Arizona Department
of Corrections; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before:      SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Anthony James Merrick 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”). We have
jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391
*
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 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment); Resnick v. Hayes,
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
Kidwell and Shinn because Merrick failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether Kidwell was sufficiently involved in the decision to deny
Merrick’s request to change his religious preference, or whether Merrick suffered a
constitutional injury by virtue of any prison policy. See Cruz v. Beto,
    405 U.S. 319
    , 322 (1972) (prisoners are entitled to reasonable opportunities to exercise their
religious freedom under the Fourteenth Amendment); Jones v. Williams,
    297 F.3d 930
    , 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (liability under § 1983 requires showing of personal
participation in the alleged rights deprivation).
The district court properly dismissed Merrick’s claims against defendants
Ryan, Shinn, and Herman because Merrick failed to allege facts sufficient to state
any plausible claims. See Jones v. Williams,
    791 F.3d 1023
    , 1031-32 (9th Cir.
2015) (a free exercise claim in the prison context requires a plausible allegation
that a government action substantially burdens plaintiff’s practice of his religion);
Furnace v. Sullivan,
    705 F.3d 1021
    , 1030 (9th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff alleging an
equal protection claim must show that defendants acted with an intent or purpose
to discriminate based upon plaintiff's membership in a protected class); San Jose
Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill,
    360 F.3d 1024
    , 1034 (9th Cir. 2004) (under
2                                   20-17504
RLUIPA, to constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise, a regulation
“must impose a significantly great restriction or onus upon such exercise”); Jones,
    297 F.3d at 934
    .
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3                                       20-17504