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 pane l unani 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 ar 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 R AL P H C OU NT R YMAN , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. J A M E S B A C A ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 16314 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 0 5 2 - PM PR AM 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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da P hi l i p M . P r o, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B e f o r e : G O O D W I N , W A L L A C E , an dM c K E O W N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . N evada s t at e pri soner R alph C ou ntry m an appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s s um m aryj udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng de ni a l of the r i ghtt o pr a c t i c e hi s r e l i gi on i n vi ol a t i on of the F i r s tA m e ndm e nt , the R e l i gi ous L and U se and Inst i tut i on al i ze d P er son’ s A ct(“ R L U IP A ”) , and the E qu al 

# FI LED JAN 11 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 16314 2 P r ot e c t i on C l aus e of

the F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e nt . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , R e ne v . M GM G rand H

ote l , I nc . , 305 F . 3d 1 0 6 1 , 1 0 6 4 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( e n b an c ) , an dw e a f f i rm. T h e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly g ra n tedsu m m ary ju d g m en t o n C o u n trym an ’s cl ai m un der the F re e E xerc i se C l ause of the F i rs tA m endm entbecause C ou ntry m an f a i l e d t o r a i s e age nui ne di s put e of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o w he the rapr i s on r e gul a t i on th a t p r o h ib ite din m a te s f r o m p u r c h a s in g h ar db o u n db o o k s w a s u n r e a s o n ab ly r e l a t e d t o l e gi t i m a t e pe nol ogi c a l i nt e r e s t s i n s e c ur i ty , de ni e d hi m a l l r e l i gi ous e x p r e s s io n , c o u ldb e m a in ta in e dw h ile a c c o m m o d a tin g h is r e q u e s t a t d e m in im is c o s t, o rc o u ldb e s ub s titu te dw ith r e a d ya lte rn a tiv e s . See T urner v . Sa

f ley , 4 8 2 U . S. 7 8 , 8 9 - 9 1 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ; see a l so O ’L o n e v. Esta te o

f Sh a b azz , 482 U . S . 342, 351- 52 (198 7) (no F i rs tA m endm entvi ol at i on i f i nm at es un abl e t o att end cert ai n p raye r s e rv ic e s w e r e f

r e e to p artic ip a te in o th e rr e lig io u s c e r e m o n ie s an dp r a c tic e s ) . T h e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly g ra n tedsu m m ary ju d g m en t o n C o u n trym an ’s cl ai m un der R L U IP A because he f ai l ed t o rai se a tri abl e di sput e a s t o w hether b e in g d e n ie da c c e s s to ab o o kto s tu d yth e G r e e kN e w T e s ta m e n t f o r c e dh im to ab an d o n o rv io la te h is b e lie f s o rs ig n if

ic an 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 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 cc-1 (a) (n o g o v ern m en tm ay i m p o se a “ subst ant i albu rden” on rel i gi ou s e xerc i se of a per son i n an i nst i tut i on ); Sh akur v.10- 16314 3 Sch ri ro , 5 1 4 F .3 d8 7 8 , 8 8 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( s ub s tan tia l b u r d e n p r e s s u r e s in m a te to ab an d o n h is r e lig io u s p r e c e p ts ) ; W a rso ld i er v. W

o o d f o rd , 418 F . 3d 989, 995- 96 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( s ub s tan tia l b u r d e n c o e r c e s a d h e r e n t to v io la te h is f a ith ) ; Sa n Jo se Ch r is tia n C o ll. v . C ityo f Mo r g a n Hill , 360 F . 3d 1024, 1034- 35 ( 9th C i r . 2004) (s ub st ant i albu rden i m po se s s i gn i fi cantre stri ct i on on any e xerc i se of re l i gi on ). T h e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly g ra n tedsu m m ary ju d g m en t o n C o u n trym an ’s equal prot ec t i on cl ai m because he f ai l ed t o rai se a tri abl e di sput e a s t o w hether a re gu l at i on thatappl i ed t o al l i nm at es tre at ed hi m di ff er ent l y f rom si m i l ar l y s i tuat ed in m a te s w ith n o r a tio n a l b a s is o rd is c r im in a te da g a in s t h im b a s e do n h is r e lig io n . See V i l lag e of W i l low broo k v . O lec h , 5 2 8 U . S. 5 6 2 , 5 6 4 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) (st an d ardfo r eq u al p ro t ect i o n cl ai m b asedo n b ei n g treat edd i fferen t l y fro m th o se s im ilar lys itu a te d ) ; L ee v. C i t y of L os A ng eles , 250 F . 3d 668, 686 ( 9th C i r . 2001) (s t andard for equal prot ec t i on cl ai m base d o n m em bers hi p i n p rot ec t ed cl as s) . C ou ntry m an’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. A FFI R M ED .