Court Opinion

ID: 4641792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-12-10 21:00:28.483455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:00:25.270507
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 10 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAYMOND A. ROLES,                               No. 20-35071

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00292-DCN

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JAY CHRISTENSEN, ISCC Warden;
RHONDA OWENS, ISCC, ASM,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Idaho
                     David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 2, 2020**

Before:      WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Idaho state prisoner Raymond A. Roles appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his action brought 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. Watison v. Carter, 668

      *
             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).
F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii));

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Roles’s action because Roles failed to

allege facts sufficient to show that defendants’ conduct placed a substantial burden

on his religious exercise. See Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031-32 (9th Cir.

2015) (elements of § 1983 free exercise claim); Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125,

1134 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of a RLUIPA claim); San Jose Christian Coll. v.

City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004) (under RLUIPA, to

constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise, a regulation “must impose a

significantly great restriction or onus upon such exercise”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                  20-35071