Ramiro Camacho, Jr. v. Shields, C/o;

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).
PDM/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMIRO CAMACHO, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SHIELDS, C/O; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15156
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00090-KJD-
GWF
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ramiro Camacho, Jr., a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgement dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
FILED
MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

PDM/Research 09-15156 2
constitutional violations in connection with the interruption of his prayers on one
occasion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Jacobson v. AEG Capital Corp., 50 F.3d 1493, 1496 (9th Cir. 1995), and we
affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Camacho failed to establish a
prima facie claim that his religious beliefs were substantially burdened. See 42
U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(b) (requiring that a plaintiff must produce “prima facie evidence
to support a claim alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause or a violation of
the [Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act]”); Canell v. Lightner,
143 F.3d 1210, 1215 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that “‘relatively short-term and
sporadic’” intrusions on an inmate’s prayer activities did not constitute a
substantial burden on inmate’s free exercise of his religion).
The district court properly determined that Camacho failed to produce any
evidence creating an issue of fact pertaining to the alleged violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991) (holding that
prisoner must show prison officials were deliberately indifferent to prison
conditions to establish an Eighth Amendment violation); see also Jacobson, 50
F.3d at 1496 (affirming dismissal as a valid grant of summary judgment where

-- 2 of 3 --

PDM/Research 09-15156 3
district court considered matters outside the pleadings and plaintiffs were given an
opportunity to brief the issues and submit evidence in support of their position).
The district court properly determined that Camacho’s claim under the
Fourteenth Amendment fails because the punishment stemming from the incident
in his complaint did not implicate a protected liberty interest. See Serrano v.
Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that the procedural
protections afforded in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), adhere only
when a disciplinary action implicates a protected liberty interest); see also
Jacobson, 50 F.3d at 1496.
Camacho’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --