William Jannisch v. D. Bates ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM JANNISCH, No. 18-36081
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:16-cv-00061-DLC
v. MEMORANDUM*
D. BATES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
William Jannisch, a Montana state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the
First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291. We review de novo. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir. 2008).
We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jannisch’s free
exercise and RLUIPA claims arising from (1) the confiscation and destruction of
his property and (2) the application of the prison’s hobby policy, because Jannisch
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the alleged conduct
placed a substantial burden on his religious exercise. See Jones v. Williams, 791
F.3d 1023, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of § 1983 free exercise claim);
Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1134 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of a RLUIPA
claim); San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th
Cir. 2004) (under RLUIPA, to constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise,
a regulation “must impose a significantly great restriction or onus upon such
exercise.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jannisch’s
procedural due process claim because Jannisch failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to defendants’ personal participation in the alleged due process
violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor is
liable under § 1983 only if he was personally involved in the constitutional
deprivation or there was a “sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s
wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation
2 18-36081
marks omitted)).
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Jannisch’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, set forth in his opening
brief, is denied as unnecessary.
Jannisch’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief,
is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-36081