Curtis Boyd v. C. Etchebehere

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 25, 2018

Docket17-16750

StatusUnpublished

This text of Curtis Boyd v. C. Etchebehere (Curtis Boyd v. C. Etchebehere) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curtis Boyd v. C. Etchebehere, (9th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 25 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CURTIS BOYD, No. 17-16750

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01966-LJO-SAB

v. MEMORANDUM* C. ETCHEBEHERE, Associate Warden; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 23, 2018**

Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Curtis Boyd appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment free

exercise of religion claim arising from a prison policy regarding the observation of

Ramadan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review summary

* 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). judgment rulings de novo, Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015),

and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Boyd failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ Ramadan meal

policy substantially burdened his religious practice. See id. at 1031-32 (free

exercise claim requires showing that government action substantially burdens the

practice of plaintiff’s religion).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Boyd’s motion to

amend because Boyd failed to establish any grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.

1993).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Boyd’s discovery

and sanctions motions because defendants produced all documents responsive to

Boyd’s discovery requests that existed or could be located. See Hallett v. Morgan,

296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002); Ingham v. United States, 167 F.3d 1240, 1246

(9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-16750

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 25 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CURTIS BOYD, No. 17-16750

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01966-LJO-SAB

v. MEMORANDUM* C. ETCHEBEHERE, Associate Warden; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 23, 2018**

Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Curtis Boyd appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment free

exercise of religion claim arising from a prison policy regarding the observation of

Ramadan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review summary

* 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). judgment rulings de novo, Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015),

and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Boyd failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ Ramadan meal

policy substantially burdened his religious practice. See id. at 1031-32 (free

exercise claim requires showing that government action substantially burdens the

practice of plaintiff’s religion).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Boyd’s motion to

amend because Boyd failed to establish any grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.

1993).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Boyd’s discovery

and sanctions motions because defendants produced all documents responsive to

Boyd’s discovery requests that existed or could be located. See Hallett v. Morgan,

296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002); Ingham v. United States, 167 F.3d 1240, 1246

(9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-16750

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Marsha Hatch Ingham v. United States

167 F.3d 1240 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Hallett v. Morgan

296 F.3d 732 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)

Clarence Jones v. Max Williams

791 F.3d 1023 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Curtis Boyd v. C. Etchebehere, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-boyd-v-c-etchebehere-ca9-2018.