KINDRED v. Cliff Allenby; et al., Defendants. (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Civil detainee Richard Scott Kindred appeals pro se from the district court's 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, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (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, 129 S.Ct. 2431, 174 L.Ed.2d 226 (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.