Richard Kindred v. Marisa Bigot ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 15 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED, No. 19-17189
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARISA BIGOT; KENNETH BELL,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
CLIFF ALLENBY; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Civil detainee Richard Scott Kindred appeals pro se from the district court’s
*
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).
summary judgment in his action alleging violations of his First Amendment right
to free exercise of his Native American religious beliefs. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023,
1030 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Kindred’s free
exercise claims because Kindred failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendants’ actions substantially burdened the practice of his religion
or whether the regulations at issue were not reasonably related to a legitimate
penological interest. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987) (factors for
determining whether a prison regulation is reasonably related to a legitimate
penological interest); Jones, 791 F.3d at 1031-32 (defining substantial burden for
purposes of the Free Exercise Clause).
Contrary to Kindred’s contention, the district court did not err in applying
the Turner factors to him as a civil detainee. See, e.g., Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d
978, 991 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 556
U.S. 1256 (2009).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2