Raymond Roles v. Jay Christensen
Raymond Roles v. Jay Christensen
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAYMOND A. ROLES, No. 20-35071
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00292-DCN v.
MEMORANDUM* JAY CHRISTENSEN, ISCC Warden; RHONDA OWENS, ISCC, ASM,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Idaho state prisoner Raymond A. Roles appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 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. Watison v. Carter, 668
*
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 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Roles’s action because Roles failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants’ conduct placed a substantial burden on his religious exercise. See Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of § 1983 free exercise claim); Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1134 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of a RLUIPA claim); San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004) (under RLUIPA, to constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise, a regulation “must impose a significantly great restriction or onus upon such exercise”).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-35071
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished