Opinion

Jeffrey Williams v. R. Beltran

  • 446 F. App'x 892
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Aug 11, 2011
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Rymer, Ikuta, Smith
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 44.5%

The opinion

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 11 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY ALLEN WILLIAMS, No. 08-56381

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:03-cv-07394-GHK-

MLG

v.

R. BELTRAN; et al., MEMORANDUM *

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. King, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 2, 2011 **

Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jeffrey Allen Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his action for money damages under the

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a judgment on the

*

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).

pleadings and an order of dismissal under Rules 12(c) and 12(b)(6), respectively,

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Berg v. Popham, 412 F.3d 1122, 1125

(9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action alleging that in 2003

prison officials improperly required that he shave his beard, in contravention of the

tenets of his Muslim faith. Defendants in their official capacities were immune

from suit because California did not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity to

suit for money damages under RLUIPA. See Sossamon v. Texas, __ U.S. __, 131

S. Ct. 1651, 1663 (2011); Holley v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 599 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th

Cir. 2010). Defendants in their individual capacities were entitled to qualified

immunity from suit because it was not clearly established at the time of the alleged

conduct that it violated RLUIPA. See Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 997

n.7 (9th Cir. 2005) (“There exists little Ninth Circuit authority construing

RLUIPA.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 08-56381

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.