N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LA C UNA DE AZTLAN SAC R ED SITES PR OTEC TION C IR C LE ADVISOR Y C OM M ITTEE; C ALIFOR N IANS FOR R ENEWAB L E ENER GY; ALFR EDO AC OSTA FIGUER OA; PHILLIP SM ITH; PATR IC IA FIGUER O A; R ONALD VAN FLEET; C ATHERINE OHR IN-GR EIPP; R UDY M A R T INEZ M AC IAS; GILB ER T LEIVAS, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. UNITED STATES DEPARTM ENT OF THE INTERIOR , e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-56799 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-00400-DM G-DTB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dolly M
. Ge e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 10, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# F IL ED
MAY19 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B e fore : KLEINFELD, B ENAVIDES, ** and C L IFTON, C irc uit Judge s.

Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts La C una De Az t la n Sa c re d Site s Prote c tion C irc le Advisory C om m itte e , C Alifornia

ns for R e n e wa

ble Ene rgy , Alfre do Ac osta Figue roa , Patric ia

Figue roa , Phillip Smith, R ona l d Va n Fle e t, C athe rine OhrinGre ipp, R udy M artine z M a c ia s (now de c e a se d), a nd Gilbe rt Le iva s brought this suit a ga inst theU.S. De pa rtm e nt of the Inte rior, a s we ll a s Sola r Partne rs I, LLC ; Sola r Partne rs II, LLC ; Sola

r Partne rs VIII, LLC ; a

nd B rightSourc e Ene rgy , Inc
. The insta nt a ppe a l a rise s from a de nia l of Pla intiffs’ m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt
and gra nt of De fe n da

nts’ m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w a gran t of sum

m ary judgm e nt denov o and we

“ de te rm ine whe the r, vie wing the e vide n c e in the light m ost fa v o ra ble to the
nonm o ving pa

rty , the re are any

ge nuine issue s of m ate ria l fa c t a nd whe the r the distric t c o urt c orre c tly a

p p lie d the re le v an t substa ntive la w.” Lope z v . Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th C ir. 2000); se e F E D . R
. C I V . P. 56(a ). While the initia l suit inc lude d num e rous c l a im s, the only c la im on a ppe a l is unde r the R e ligious Fre e dom R e stora tion Ac t (“ RFR

A” ). To e sta

blish a prima fac i e R FR A c la im , a

pla i ntiff m

ust a lle ge two e l e m e nts: “ First, the a c t ivitie s the pla i ntiff c la im s are burde n e d by the gove rnm e nt a c tion m ust be an ‘ e xe rc ise of

** The Honora

ble Fortuna

to P. B e nav ide s, Se nior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Fifth C i rc uit, sitting by de s igna tion.re ligion.’ . . . Se c ond, the gove rnm e nt a c tion m u s t ‘ substa

ntia lly burde n’ the pla i ntiff’ s e xe rc ise of re ligion.” N av ajo N ation v . U.S. Fore

st Se rv . , 535 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba n c ) (inte rna l c i tation omitte d). This a ppe a l hinge s on the s e c ond e l e m e nt, a

nd spe c ific a lly

whe t he r de nia l of Pla intiffs’ a c c e ss to the Ivan pa h Sola r Ele c tric Ge ne ra ting Sy ste m (“ Iva npa h Proje c t” ) site im

pose s a substa ntia l burde n on the e x e rc ise of re ligion within the m e aning of R

FR A . If a prima fac ie c la im ha s be e n e sta blishe d, the “ G ove rnm e n t m ay substa ntia lly burde n
a pe rson’ s e xe rc i se of re ligion only if it de m onstra

t e s tha t a pplic ation of theburde n to the pe rson[] (1) is in furthe ranc e of a c om p e l ling gove rnm e n ta l inte re st; a nd (2) is the le a st re stric tive m e ans of furthe ring tha t c om pe lling gove rnm e nta l inte re st.” 42 U.S.C . § 2000bb-1(b). The distric t c ourt did not rule on the c o m

pe lling intere st pa rt of the te st, a

nd we de c line to do so a s we ll. This a ppe a l hinge s on whe the r Pla i ntiffs ha

ve m e t the substa

ntia l burde n re quire m e nt. W e c onc lude tha

t the re c ord, whic h inc lude s de c la rations subm

itte d by the Pla i ntiffs tha

t provide littlem ore tha

n c onc lusory sta

te m e nts a nd whic h ha

ve not shown whe re the a l le ge d sa c re d site s a re loc ate d at

the Ivanpa

h Proje c t site , is insuffic ie nt to support Pla intiffs’ c la im

tha t the loss of a c c e s s to the lim ite d a re a take n by the Ivanpa

h Proje c t im

pose s a substa ntia l burde n. Vie wing the e v ide nc e in the light m ost fa

vora ble to the Pla intiffs, thePla intiffs ha ve not shown tha

t the y
are e ithe r “ forc e d to c hoose be twe e n following the te n e ts of the ir re ligion a ndre c e iving a

gove rnm e nta l be ne fit,” or “ c oe rc e d to a c t c ontra ry to the ir re l igious be lie fs by the thre a t of c ivil or c rim ina l sa

n c tions” a s this c ourt re q

uire s to
e sta blish a substa

n tia l burde n unde r RFR

A. N av ajo N a tion , 535 F.3d a

t 1069-70. AFFIRM E D.