Case Name: Bronche JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-17
Citations: 384 F. App'x 625
Docket Number: No. 08-16466
Parties: Bronche JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 625–626

Head Matter:
Bronche JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-16466.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 17, 2010.
Bronche Johnson, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Vickie P. Whitney, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bronche Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his rights by disciplining him for refusing to comply with prison hair grooming regulations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly entered summary judgment on Johnson's claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") based on qualified immunity because the pertinent law was not clearly established in 2003 and 2004, at the time the alleged violations occurred. See Pearson v. Callahan, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 808, 822, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (holding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); see also Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 997 n. 7 (9th Cir.2005) ("There exists little Ninth Circuit authority construing RLUIPA.").
We do not consider arguments not raised in the opening brief, or raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).
Johnson's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.