Treandous Cotton v. Matthew Cate

MEMORANDUM

Treandous Cotton began practicing the Shetaut Neter religion in a California state prison. The religion mandates a Kemetic diet. The diet is practically, but not by definition, vegan and organic. Cotton asked prison officials to provide him a Kemetic diet; they refused, and he sued. He brings three claims: an Equal Protec tion claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ; a Free Exercise claim also under § 1983; and a claim for damages and injunctive relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). The district court granted a motion to dismiss one defendant, Matthew Cate, and then disposed of the rest of Cotton’s case on summary judgment. Cotton appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

We affirm the dismissal of defendant Matthew Cate. Our review is de novo. Kahle v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 697, 699 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm because Cotton has not met his burden under Rule 28(a)(8)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The rule requires appellants to present their “contentions and the reasons for them” in their opening briefs. Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). In his opening brief, Cotton contends that dismissing Cate was error, but…