ABDELKAKER MORCELI V. W. MEYERS, No. 15-15187 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 4 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ABDELKAKER MORCELI, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-15187 D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00685-AWIBAM v. W. MEYERS, Lieutenant, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Abdelkaker Morceli appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his First Amendment free exercise rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1030 (9th Cir. * 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). 2015), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Morceli failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was responsible for the challenged headwear policy’s creation and enforcement. See id. at 1031-32 (setting forth elements of a § 1983 free exercise claim); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth elements for supervisory liability under § 1983). Contrary to Morceli’s contentions, the district court applied the proper standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 in granting summary judgment where Morceli’s contentions were not supported by facts. See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 922 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[C]onclusory allegations unsupported by factual data are insufficient to defeat [a defendant’s] summary judgment motion.”). AFFIRMED. 2 15-15187

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.