Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ray Lee VAUGHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. WEGMAN, Defendant-Appellee, Bowman, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Ray Lee Vaughn appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), arising out of the denial of his request for inclusion on the prison’s Jewish religious services list and kosher meal plan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mendiola-Martinez v. Arpaio, 836 F.3d 1239, 1247 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Vaughn’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims because Vaughn failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Wegman personally participated in the decisions that Vaughn challenges, or exercised authority over the individuals who made those decisions. See Mendiola-Martinez, 836 F.3d at 1247 (explaining that summary judgment is proper if a plaintiff “fails to make a sufficient showing to support an element of” his claims); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that in order to demonstrate liability under § 1983, “there must be a showing of personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation”).
The district court properly dismissed Vaughan’s RLUIPA claim as moot because Vaughn was transferred to a different prison where he now receives kosher meals and there is no reasonable expectation that Wegman will violate his rights in the future. See Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining that “RLUIPA does not authorize suits for damages against state officials in their individual capacities”); see id. (explaining that claims for injunctive relief are moot once the “inmate is removed from the environment in which he is subjected to the challenged policy or practice” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Vaughn’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-15547
Decided: May 12, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)