NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 25 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CURTIS BOYD, No. 17-16750
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01966-LJO-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
C. ETCHEBEHERE, Associate Warden; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 23, 2018**
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Curtis Boyd appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment free
exercise of religion claim arising from a prison policy regarding the observation of
Ramadan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review summary
*
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).
judgment rulings de novo, Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015),
and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Boyd failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ Ramadan meal
policy substantially burdened his religious practice. See id. at 1031-32 (free
exercise claim requires showing that government action substantially burdens the
practice of plaintiff’s religion).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Boyd’s motion to
amend because Boyd failed to establish any grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist.
No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Boyd’s discovery
and sanctions motions because defendants produced all documents responsive to
Boyd’s discovery requests that existed or could be located. See Hallett v. Morgan,
296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002); Ingham v. United States, 167 F.3d 1240, 1246
(9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-16750