# Bronche Johnson v. California Department of Corrections

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 17, 2010 · 384 F. App'x 625

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/148852

## Case

- **Full name:** Bronche JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 17, 2010
- **Citations:** 384 F. App'x 625
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Canby, Thomas, Fletcher
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/148852

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law

## Opinion text

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRONCHE JOHNSON, No. 08-16466

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:04-CV-01783-FCD-
KJM
v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM *
CORRECTIONS; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010 **

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

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

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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, 129 S.Ct. 808, 822 (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.

2 08-16466

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/148852. Public record. Not legal advice.