Anthony Bernard Smith v. CONNIE GIPSON, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY BERNARD SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CONNIE GIPSON, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15069
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-01110-WHO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 6, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Bernard Smith, an inmate in the custody of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), appeals pro se the
district court’s summary judgment order in his action alleging claims under the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
§ 2000cc et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. Smith alleges that defendants unlawfully deprived
him of regularly available kosher meals during Ramadan and subjected him to a
dining hall policy that created a risk of cross-contamination between halal and
haram foods in violation of his sincere Muslim beliefs. 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 may affirm on any ground supported by the record, M&T Bank v.
SFR Invs. Poo1 1, LLC, 963 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Smith’s RLUIPA
claim for injunctive relief premised on the specific dining hall policy at Pelican
Bay State Prison because Smith’s transfer to another institution rendered the claim
moot. See Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining that
an inmate’s claim for injunctive relief would be moot following his transfer if he
“did not demonstrate a reasonable expectation that he [would be] . . . subjected
again to the” challenged policies) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Smith’s RLUIPA
claim for injunctive relief premised on the CDCR’s policy offering 2019 Ramadan
participants shelf-stable halal meals instead of perishable kosher meals when it
found the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the policy
imposed a substantial burden on his religious exercise. See id. at 1134 (“To state a

-- 2 of 3 --

3
claim under RLUIPA, a prisoner must show that . . . the State’s actions have
substantially burdened [his religious] exercise.”).
To the extent that Smith seeks damages on his RLUIPA claim, summary
judgment was proper because such relief is not available. See Al Saud v. Days, 50
F.4th 705, 709 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Only injunctive relief, not monetary damages, is
available pursuant to RLUIPA[.]”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Smith’s First
Amendment free exercise claim and his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection
claim because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the
CDCR’s policy was not “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Smith’s Eighth
Amendment claim because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to
whether any defendant was aware that he was refusing meals. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“We hold . . . that a prison official cannot be
found liable under the Eighth Amendment . . . unless the official knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety[.]”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --