Ronald Williams v. M. Bragg

Case: 12-50965 Document: 00512324013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2013

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 29, 2013

No. 12-50965

Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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 under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that Warden M. Travis Bragg

violated his rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act (RFRA) by cancelling the regular weekly Muslim congregational

prayer service on May 20, 2011, and on several other occasions. Williams argues

that the Warden’s argument that the closure was due to security reasons is a

*

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 12-50965 Document: 00512324013 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2013

No. 12-50965

“catch-all defense” that could be used to justify any action, that the Warden did

not show a compelling state interest or a legitimate penological interest for the

cancellations of the services, and that he could have rescheduled the memorial

service for the staff. He contends that the magistrate judge improperly made a

credibility determination in favor of the Warden and should have accepted all of

his allegations as true. Finally, he contends that the district court should not

have granted the Warden’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary

judgment before allowing him to conduct discovery and that the Warden was not

entitled to qualified immunity.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See

United States v. Renda, 709 F.3d 472, 478 (5th Cir. 2013). Contrary to

Williams’s argument, the district court accepted his allegations as true in

determining whether the Warden had violated Williams’s constitutional rights.

A prisoner’s constitutional right to freedom of religion is not violated by the

occasional inability to attend services. See Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116,

1126 (5th Cir. 1986). Thus, the district court did not err in determining that

Williams did not meet his burden 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 Diaz v. Collins,

114 F.3d 69, 71-72 (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 First Amendment or

the RFRA, it is unnecessary to address whether the district court erred in

determining that Warden Bragg was entitled to qualified immunity. See Bishop

v. Arcuri, 674 F.3d 456, 460 (5th Cir. 2012). 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 immunity question is

resolved, discovery should not be allowed.’” See Williamson v. United States

2

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

No. 12-50965

Dep’t of Agriculture, 815 F.2d 368, 382 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Harlow v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)).

AFFIRMED.

3