Harris

MEMORANDUM **

Smiley James Harris, Charles E. Lepp, and Linda I. Sentí appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging violations of the Religious *462 Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and the federal and California constitutions, and for fraud. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Lockhart v. United States, 876 F.3d 1027 , 1028 (9th Cir.2004). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Beeman v. TDI Managed Care Servs., 449 F.3d 1035 , 1038 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

The district court’s analysis of the compelling interest test under RFRA conflicts with Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430-32 , 126 S.Ct. 1211 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006), issued after the district court’s ruling. We nevertheless affirm on the alternative ground that appellants cannot seek an injunction enjoining future arrests, criminal and civil proceedings, and seizure of their marijuana. See Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir.2007). 1

To the extent the complaint alleges a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), appellants fail to state a claim…