Sarah Babcock v. Harold Clarke

MEMORANDUM

Ms. Sarah J. Babcock a/k/a John D. Babcock appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Diruzza v. County of Tehama, 323 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.2003). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

I

Babcock cannot succeed on his Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claim because he cannot establish that the prison’s requirements substantially burden the exercise of his religion. See Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir.2005). A burden on the exercise of religion is substantial if it substantially pressures an inmate “to modify his behavior and to violate his [sincerely held religious] beliefs.” Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 888 (9th Cir.2008). Babcock fails to show how the requirement that he use his committed name in conjunction with his legal name on correspondence and that he be referred to by his committed name by prison staff constitutes a substantial burden on the exercise of his religion.

II

Babcock also fails to make a valid Free…