FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS FLORER, No. 11-35004
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-05561-RJB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CHERYL BALES-JOHNSON, Food
Program Manager; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Dennis Florer, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants’
provision of meals violated his right to practice his religion and violated his
*
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).
constitutional rights. 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 we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Florer’s First
Amendment free exercise and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act (“RLUIPA”) claims because he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact that the defendants’ provision of meals had substantially burdened his ability
to exercise his religion. See Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir.
2005) (under RLUIPA, prisoner has the initial burden to demonstrate a prima facie
claim that prison policies constitute a substantial burden on the exercise of his
religious beliefs); Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 736 (9th Cir. 1997) (plaintiff
must show that defendants burdened the practice of his religion), abrogated on
other grounds as recognized in Shakur, 514 F.3d at 884-85.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Florer’s retaliation
claim because he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to retaliatory
animus. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To show the
presence of this element on a motion for summary judgment, [the plaintiff] need
only put forth evidence of retaliatory motive, that, taken in the light most favorable
to him, presents a genuine issue of material fact as to [defendant’s] intent . . . .”
(internal citation and quotations omitted)).
2 11-35004
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Florer’s Eighth
Amendment claim because Florer failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendants deprived him of the “minimal civilized
measure of life’s necessities,” or acted with deliberate indifference towards his
health or safety. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc);
LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The Eighth Amendment
requires only that prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain health . . . .”).
Florer’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-35004