NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEOFFREY ROBERT LAWSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BRENT CARNEY; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35832 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00184-RMP 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 3, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Geoffrey Robert Lawson appeals pro se from the 

district court’s summary judgment in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the 

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jones v. Williams, 791 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 5 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-35832 

F.3d 1023, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lawson’s

RLUIPA claims for damages because RLUIPA does not allow for damages against 

state officials sued in their official or individual capacities. See id. at 1031 

(recognizing that RLUIPA does not authorize suits for money damages against 

state officials in their official or individual capacities).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lawson’s free 

exercise claim because Lawson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as 

to whether defendants engaged in any conduct that caused a deprivation of his free 

exercise rights. See id. at 1031-32 (elements of a § 1983 free exercise claim); Starr 

v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements for supervisory liability 

under § 1983).

The district court properly determined that Lawson’s claims for injunctive 

relief stemming from the temporary suspension of his kosher diet are moot because 

there is no dispute that the correctional facility reinstated Lawson’s kosher diet, 

and there is no reasonable expectation that defendants will discontinue access to 

the diet in the future. See Jones, 791 F.3d at 1031 (a case is moot when there is no 

longer a live controversy as to which relief can be granted). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lawson additional 

opportunities to conduct discovery because Lawson failed to show that he 
3 17-35832 

diligently pursued his previous opportunities or that additional discovery would 

have precluded summary judgment. See Qualls ex rel. Qualls v. Blue Cross of 

Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994) (district court abuses its discretion by 

denying additional discovery only when movant diligently pursued previous 

opportunities and shows that additional discovery would preclude summary 

judgment); see also Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 

2003) (“A district court is vested with broad discretion to permit or deny 

discovery, and a decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the 

clearest showing that the denial of discovery results in actual and substantial 

prejudice to the complaining litigant.” (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted)).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, or 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); see also Ninth Cir. R. 28-1(b)

(“Parties must not append or incorporate by reference briefs submitted to the 

district court . . . or refer this Court to such briefs for the arguments on the merits 

of the appeal.”).

Lawson’s motion for leave to file a late reply brief (Docket Entry No. 34) is 

granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 33.

Lawson’s motions for an extension of time to file a substitute reply brief, a 
4 17-35832 

temporary injunction, and appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 34) are 

denied.

AFFIRMED.