FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT ERIC CONNER, No. 09-17851
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-04965-MMC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JAMES E. TILTON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Scott Eric Connor appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he has been
denied the right to practice his religion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on
Connor’s First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act (“RLUIPA”) claims alleging the denial of access to group worship, clergy,
religious literature, and a special diet because Connor failed to raise a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether his beliefs are religious in nature. See
Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994-95 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth
elements of RLUIPA claim); Alvarado v. City of San Jose, 94 F.3d 1223, 1229 (9th
Cir. 1996) (setting forth test to determine whether a belief or movement invokes
constitutionally cognizable religious interests).
The district court properly dismissed Connor’s claim regarding religious
adornment because it was unripe. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109,
1122 (9th Cir. 2009).
Connor’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-17851