Case ID: f-appx_430/html/0617-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Scott Eric CONNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James E. TILTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-17851.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed May 3, 2011.
    Scott Eric Conner, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
    Timothy J. McDonough, Deputy Attorney General, Dept, of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Scott Eric Con-nor appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he has been denied the right to practice his religion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on Connor’s First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) claims alleging the denial of access to group worship, clergy, religious literature, and a special diet because Connor failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his beliefs are religious in nature. See Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994-95 (9th Cir.2005) (setting forth elements of RLUIPA claim); Alvarado v. City of San Jose, 94 F.3d 1223, 1229 (9th Cir.1996) (setting forth test to determine whether a belief or movement invokes constitutionally cognizable religious interests).

The district court properly dismissed Connor’s claim regarding religious adornment because it was unripe. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1122 (9th Cir.2009).

Connor’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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