Court Opinion

ID: 9917053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 16:01:17.548633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:55:09.224997
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-5102                                                September Term, 2023
                                                                       1:21-cv-02512-RC
                                                      Filed On: January 11, 2024
Jacob N. Ferguson,

             Appellant

      v.

Robbin M. Owen,

             Appellee

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

      BEFORE:        Henderson, Childs, and Pan, Circuit Judges

                                    JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

       ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed July 8, 2022,
and March 6, 2023, be affirmed. The district court did not err in dismissing appellant’s
Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted because he has not alleged that the government substantially
burdened his religious exercise within the meaning of that Act. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000bb-1; Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669, 677 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Appellant has
not shown that the district court erred by inquiring, as part of its assessment of whether
a substantial burden existed, into the importance of appellant’s proposed religious
exercise to his religious belief. See Henderson v. Kennedy, 253 F.3d 12, 16-17 (D.C.
Cir. 2001). Appellant also has not established that appellee’s permitting decision
imposed a substantial burden on his religious exercise because he has not shown that
the decision prevented conduct required by his religion or placed substantial pressure
on him to violate his beliefs. See Kaemmerling, 553 F.3d at 678 (citing Thomas v.
Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981)); Henderson, 253 F.3d at 16. Nor has he shown
that the challenged decision was more than a restriction on one of a multitude of means
by which he could engage in his desired religious exercise. See Mahoney v. Doe, 642
F.3d 1112, 1121 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Henderson, 253 F.3d at 17. Appellant’s other
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-5102                                                September Term, 2023

arguments likewise do not show any error in the district court’s dismissal of his claim or
the denial of reconsideration.

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                                         FOR THE COURT:
                                                         Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                                 BY:     /s/
                                                         Daniel J. Reidy
                                                         Deputy Clerk

                                          Page 2