Quincy Sims v. M. D. BITER, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QUINCY SIMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. D. BITER, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-15895
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00131-AWI-
DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Quincy Sims appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant violated
his First Amendment rights by denying his request for a religious name change.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
FILED
MAR 23 2016
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 --

dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893
(9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sims’ action for damages on the basis
of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable
official that refusing a prisoner’s request for a religious legal name change was
unlawful, where the inmate is a sex offender who must comply with registration
and notification requirements upon release. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct.
2074, 2080, 2083 (2011) (discussing qualified immunity and noting that a right is
clearly established only if “every reasonable official would have understood that
what he is doing violates that right” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Because we affirm the dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity, we do
not address the parties’ arguments regarding whether Sims pled facts sufficient to
state a First Amendment claim.
We do not consider issues or arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We treat Sims’ motion to deny Biter’s Answering Brief, filed on September
21, 2015, as a motion to strike, and deny the motion.
AFFIRMED.
15-15895 2

-- 2 of 2 --