# Jeffrey Williams v. R. Beltran

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 11, 2011 · 446 F. App'x 892

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/223032

## Case

- **Full name:** Jeffrey Allen WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. BELTRAN; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 11, 2011
- **Citations:** 446 F. App'x 892
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Rymer, Ikuta, Smith
- **Cited by:** 1 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/223032

## Opinion text

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 11 2011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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/223032. Public record. Not legal advice.