T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A R T H U R P A RN E L L , II I, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. A . T U C K E R , A s s o c ia te W a r d e n ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 16044 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 6 - c v - 0 7 6 6 2 - SBA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S aundr aB r ow n A rm s tr ong, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , W . F L E T C H E R , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner A rthu r P arnel l , II I, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s or de rof

di s m i s s a l a nd s um m a ryj udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on al l eg i n g d en i al o f th e ri g h tt o p ract i ce h i s Isl am i c fai th i n v i o l at i o n o f th e F i rst A m endm entand the R el i gi ou s L and U se and Inst i tut i on al i ze d P er son’ s A ct 

# FI LED OC T 13 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 16044 2 ( “ R L U I P A ” ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo b o th th e d is m is s a l o f

c la im s f o rf a ilu r e to e x h au s t, W

y at t v . T e rhune , 315 F . 3d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n dth e g r a n t o f s u m m a ryju d g m e n t, R e n e v . MGM G r and H ote l , I nc . , 3 0 5 F. 3 d1 0 6 1 , 1 0 6 4 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( e n b a n c ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyc o n c lu d e dth a t P a rn e ll f a ile dto e x h au s t h is a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s a s t o c l a i m s a ga i ns tde f e nda nt s B i ne ke l e a nd B e guhl f or the i ra l l e ge d r e f

us a l t o a l l ow hi m t o c ongr e ga t e w i th othe rM us l i m i nm a t e s i n the p r is o n y a r df

o rF r id a yp r a y e r s . Se e W oodf ord v . N go , 548 U . S . 81, 93 ( 2006) ( the P ri son L i t i gat i on R ef

orm A ctre qu i re s “ prop er ” e xh aust i on ). N o tw ith s ta n d in g h is m i st aken bel i ef

thati tw ou l d b e dup l i ca t i ve t o fi l e an app ea l af t ergri evi ng a s i m i l ar p r io rin c id e n t, P a rn e ll f a ile dg iv e p r is o n o f

f ic ia ls r e q u is ite n o tic e o f th e s e c la im s . Se e Mo r to n v . H

a ll , 59 9 F . 3d 94 2, 94 5 (9th C i r. 20 10 ) ( no exhaust i on i f gri evance i s i nsuffi ci entt o p utoffi ci al s on n ot i ce of i nm at e’ s c om pl ai nt ). T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y g ran t ed su m m ary j u d g m en to n P arn el l ’ s F i rst A m e ndm e ntc l a i m a ga i ns tde f e nda nt s T uc ke ra nd T hom a s ba s e d on the f our - f a c t or te s t in T urner v . Sa

f ley , 4 8 2 U .S . 7 8 , 8 9 - 9 1 ( 1 9 8 7 ) . P a rn e ll d idn o t r a is e atr iab le di sput e a s t o w hether defe nd ant s’ fa i l ure t o al l ow P arnel l t o att end cert ai n p raye r s e rv ic e s d u r in g R a m a d a n w a s r e a s o n ab lyr e la te dto le g itim a te p e n o lo g ic a l in te r e s ts i n sec uri ty, deni ed hi m al l re l i gi ou s e xp re ss i on , coul d b e a cc om m od at ed w i tho uta10- 16044 3 s e v e r e b u r d e n o n p r is o n r e s o u r c e s , o rc o u ldb e r e a d ilys u b s titu te dw ith a lte rn a tiv e s . Se e id .; see a l

so O ’L o n e v. Esta te o

f Sh a b a zz , 482 U . S . 342, 350- 53 ( 1987) (uph ol di ng pri son w ork ass i gn m ent s und er T urnertha tke ptM us l i m i nm a t e s f r om F r id a yp r a y e r s b u t d idn o t p r e c lu d e th e m f r o m o th e rr e lig io u s a c tiv itie s ) . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yg r a n t e ds u mma ryj u d g me n to n Pa rn e l l ’ s RLU I PA cl ai m agai nstdefe nd ant s T ucker and T ho m as because P arnel l fa i l ed t o rai se a tr i abl e di s put e a s t o w he the rbe i ng pr e c l ude d f r om c e rt a i n pr a y e rs e rvi c e s dur i ng R a m a d a n s ig n if

ic a n tlyr e s tr ic te dh is ab ilityto e n g a g e in o th e rr e lig io u s a c tiv ity . See 42 U . S . C . § 2000c c - 1( a ) ( no gove rnm e ntm a yi m pos e a“ s ubs t a nt i a l bur de n” o n r e lig io u s e x e r c is e o f

ap e r s o n in a n in s titu tio n ) ; Sa n J o s e Ch r is tia n C o ll. v . C ity o f Mo r g a n Hill , 36 0 F . 3d 10 24 , 10 34 -35 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( go vernm entpo l i cy i m pos e s a“ s ubs t a nt i a l bur de n” i f i tc ons t i tut e s a“ s i gni f

i c a nt l ygr e a tr e s tr i c t i on or o n u s o n a n ye x e r c is e o f r e lig io n ” ( c ita tio n s a n din te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ) . P arnel l ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.