Darryl Wakefield v. Richard Indermill

MEMORANDUM

Darryl Kent Wakefield, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his right to free exercise under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 888 (9th Cir.2008), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Wakefield’s First Amendment claim because Wakefield failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the denial of weekly religious services was not rationally related to a legitimate penological interest in maintaining prison security. See O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 350-53 , 107 S.Ct. 2400 , 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987) (restraint on inmate’s ability to exercise his religion does not violate the First Amendment if it is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest).

Summary judgment on Wakefield’s RLUIPA claim was proper because…