Case ID: f-appx_446/html/0892-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jeffrey Allen WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. BELTRAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-56381.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 11, 2011.
    
      Jeffrey Allen Williams, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Leena M. Sheet, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jeffrey Allen Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for money damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a judgment on the pleadings and an order of dismissal under Rules 12(c) and 12(b)(6), respectively, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Berg v. Popham, 412 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action alleging that in 2003 prison officials improperly required that he shave his beard, in contravention of the tenets of his Muslim faith. Defendants in their official capacities were immune from suit because California did not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit for money damages under RLUI-PA. See Sossamon v. Texas, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1651, 1663, 179 L.Ed.2d 700 (2011); Holley v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 599 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir.2010). Defendants in their individual capacities were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because it was not clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct that it violated RLUIPA. See Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 997 n. 7 (9th Cir.2005) (“There exists little Ninth Circuit authority construing RLUIPA.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.