Barry Patterson v. Unknown Moore

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 3 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARRY NORTHCROSS PATTERSON, No. 12-16327
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01159-RCB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNKNOWN MOORE; et al.,
Defendants,
and
G. BRODERICK, Chaplain; WAYNE F.
MASON, Chaplain,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Arizona state prisoner Barry Northcross Patterson appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his
right to free exercise of his religious beliefs under the First Amendment and the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698
F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir. 2008) (summary
judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Patterson’s First
Amendment claim because Patterson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether the combination vegetarian/kosher diet burdened the religious
expression of his faith. See Shakur, 514 F.3d at 884-85 (Free Exercise Clause is
only implicated when a prison practice burdens a prisoner’s sincerely-held
religious beliefs).
The district court properly dismissed Patterson’s RLUIPA claim for
monetary relief because such a claim may proceed only for injunctive relief against
defendants acting within their official capacities. See Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d
899, 904 (9th Cir. 2014) (RLUIPA does not contemplate liability of government
employees in individual capacity); see also Holley v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 599 F.3d
2 12-16327
1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars [the plaintiff’s] suit
for official-capacity damages under RLUIPA.”).
The district court properly concluded that Patterson’s RLUIPA claim for
injunctive relief was moot because after bringing this action, prison officials
provided Patterson the meat kosher meals that he requested. See Johnson v.
Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
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 12-16327