Dale R. Mitchell v. Spencer Fox;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DALE R. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SPENCER FOX; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-35099
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05150-RMP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Dale R. Mitchell, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
prison officials destroyed and confiscated his religious property in violation of the
First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
FILED
DEC 5 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

(“RLUIPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Mitchell
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ actions
substantially burdened his ability to exercise his religion. See Hernandez v.
Comm’r, 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989) (in order to establish a First Amendment free
exercise violation, plaintiff must show that defendants substantially burdened the
practice of his religion); Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir.
2005) (under RLUIPA, prisoner has the initial burden to demonstrate a prima facie
claim that prison policies constitute a substantial burden on the exercise of his
religious beliefs); see also Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 1997)
(to be constitutionally significant, the burden placed on free exercise “must be
more than an inconvenience”), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in
Shakur, 514 F.3d at 884-85.
Mitchell’s motion, filed June 27, 2014, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
14-35099 2

-- 2 of 2 --