Albert Brinkman v. Mike Linderman

MEMORANDUM

Albert Brinkman, a pro se prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to several Arizona Department of Corrections officials (collectively, “Defendants”) in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we review the district court’s summary judgment orders de novo. Blanford v. Sacramento Cnty., 406 F.3d 1110 , 1114 (9th Cir.2005).

We affirm the judgment of the district court. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we need not recount it here.

I

A

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Defendants on Brinkman’s claims challenging their refusal to provide him with a private worship area and certain ceremonial foods and their confiscation and destruction of certain items in his cell.

Brinkman failed to identify sufficient evidence to support an inference that these actions substantially burdened his exercise of religion. A prisoner cannot prevail on a RLUIPA claim without meeting this “initial burden” of production. Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994-95 (9th Cir.2005). Nor can a prisoner prevail on a Free Exercise Clause claim…