Eric Jason Fuller v. MATTHEW CATE; M. MARTEL, Warden

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC JASON FULLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MATTHEW CATE; M. MARTEL,
Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16006
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01139-JAM-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Eric Jason Fuller appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging denial of the right to a valid
FILED
SEP 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16006 2
Islamic marriage in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and may affirm
on any ground supported by the record, Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir.
2001). We affirm.
Dismissal of Fuller’s action was proper because the attachments to Fuller’s
complaint show that the prison’s prohibition on conjugal visits for inmates serving
life sentences without parole did not substantially burden his ability to enter into a
valid Islamic marriage. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2); Warsoldier v.
Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2005) (under RLUIPA, prisoner has initial
burden to demonstrate that prison policies constitute a substantial burden on the
exercise of his religious beliefs); see also Durning v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d
1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987) (the court is not limited by the allegations contained in
the complaint when a complaint is accompanied by attached documents, but rather
may consider those documents in determining whether the plaintiff has stated a
claim).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --