### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-50965 Summary Calendar

RONALD WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. M. TRAVIS BRAGG, Warden, FCI La Tuna, Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:11-CV-475

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ronald Williams, federal prisoner # 10923-041, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil action u n d e r B i v e ns v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of N

arcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that Warden M. T ravis Bragg violated his rights u nder the First Amendment and t h e Religious Freedom Restoration Act (R FRA ) b y cancelling the regular weekly Muslim congregational prayer service on May 20, 2011, and on several o ther occasions. Williams argues that the Warden’s argu m e n t that the closure was due to security r easons is a U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D J uly29, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-50965 Document: 00512324013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2013No. 12-50965

“catch-all d efense” that could be u sed to justify any action, that the Warden did not s how a compelling state interest or a legitimate penological i nterest for the cancellations of the services, and that he could h ave rescheduled the memorial service f or the staff. He c ontends that the magistrate judge improperly made a credibility determination in favor of the Warden and should have accepted all of his allegations as tru e . Finally, he contends that the district court should not have granted the W arden’s m otion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment b efore allowing him to conduct discovery and that the Warden was not entitled to qualified immunity. We review the district court’s grant o f summary judgment d e n ovo. See United S tates v. Renda , 709 F.3d 472, 478 (5t h Cir. 2013). Contrary to Williams’s argument, the district court accepted his allegations as t r ue in determining whether the Warden h ad violated Williams’s constitutional rights. A prisoner’s constitutional right to freedom o f r e l igion is not violated by the

occ a sional inability to attend services. See Green v. McKaskle , 788 F.2d 1116, 1126 (5th Cir. 1 986). Thus, the distri c t c o u r t d i d not err in determining that Williams did not meet h is b urden of showing that the occasional cancellation of Muslim services violated his rights under the First Amendment or substantially burdened his right of free exercise in violation of the RFRA. See D iaz v. Collins , 114 F.3d 6 9 , 7 1 -72 (5th Cir. 1997); Green , 788 F.2d at 1126; White v . Labrado , 51 F. App’x 929, 929 (5th Cir. 2002). Because Williams failed to show that the Warden violated his clearly established rights under the F i r s t Amendment or the RFRA, it is unneces s a r y to address whether the district c ourt erred in determining that Warden Bragg was entitled to qualified i mmunity. See Bishop

v. Arcuri , 674 F .3d 456, 460 (5th Cir. 2 012). Williams’s argument that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint before allowing him to conduct discovery is without merit because until the “‘threshold i mmunity question is resolv e d , discovery should not be allowed.’” See Williamson v. U nited States

2 Case: 12-50965 Document: 00512324013 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2013No. 12-50965

Dep’t of Agriculture , 815 F.2d 368, 382 (5th Cir. 1 9 8 7 ) ( quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-50965 Document: 00512324013 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/29/2013