RAYMOND ROLES V. JAY CHRISTENSEN, No. 20-35071 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAYMOND A. ROLES, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-35071 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00292-DCN MEMORANDUM* JAY CHRISTENSEN, ISCC Warden; RHONDA OWENS, ISCC, ASM, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Idaho state prisoner Raymond A. Roles appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 * 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). F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Roles’s action because Roles failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants’ conduct placed a substantial burden on his religious exercise. See Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of § 1983 free exercise claim); Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1134 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of a RLUIPA claim); San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004) (under RLUIPA, to constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise, a regulation “must impose a significantly great restriction or onus upon such exercise”). AFFIRMED. 2 20-35071

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.