Douglas Clark v. Ron Davis

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS DANIEL CLARK, No. 16-15992 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:14-cv-02637-YGR

v.

MEMORANDUM*

RON DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018**

*

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

Before:SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Douglas Daniel Clark appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) alleging that defendant interfered with the practice of his religion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

3

district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R. Co., 765 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Clark’s claims seeking injunctive and declaratory relief because defendant voluntarily changed the allegedly infringing policy, rendering his claims moot. See Rosebrock v. Mathis, 745 F.3d 963, 972 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth factors for evaluating whether defendant’s voluntary cessation of behavior has rendered a case moot); Native Vill. of Noatak v. Blatchford, 38 F.3d

4

1505, 1514 (9th Cir. 1994) (declaratory relief not appropriate for moot claims).

The district court properly dismissed Clark’s claims seeking monetary damages as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Holley v. Cal. Dep’t. Corr., 599 F.3d 1108, 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 2010) (state officials acting in their official capacity are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and “[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars [an inmate’s] suit for official- capacity damages under RLUIPA”).

We reject as without merit Clark’s

5

contentions regarding judicial misconduct.

Clark’s motion for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 28) is denied.

AFFIRMED.