FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 11 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN SMITH, No. 10-56113
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-05440-RGK-
JEM
v.
JOHN MARSHALL, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner John Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(“RLUIPA”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of
*
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).
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Smith’s First Amendment free exercise
and RLUIPA claims because the prison’s restrictions on third-party purchases of
prayer oil did not substantially burden Smith’s ability to practice his religion. See
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir.
2008).
We do not consider contentions raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith
v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-56113