731 Fed.Appx. 722 (9th Cir. 2018), 17-55693, Rogers v. Giurbino
|Citation:||731 Fed.Appx. 722|
|Party Name:||Tyrone ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. J. GIURBINO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||Tyrone Rogers, Pro Se Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Attorney, Kristina Doan Gruenberg, Esquire, Attorney, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees G. J. Giurbino, Domingo Uribe Janine K. Jeffery, Esquire, Attorney, Reily & Jeffery, Inc., Woodla...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||July 20, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted July 18, 2018 [*]
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Tyrone Rogers, Pro Se
Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Attorney, Kristina Doan Gruenberg, Esquire, Attorney, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees G. J. Giurbino, Domingo Uribe
Janine K. Jeffery, Esquire, Attorney, Reily & Jeffery, Inc., Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellee P. Kuzil-Ruan
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00560-WQH-RBB
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Tyrone Rogers appeals pro se the district courts judgment dismissing Rogerss action alleging that defendants implemented prison lockdowns violating his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § § 2000cc, et seq. ("RLUIPA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rogerss individual-capacity claims against Giurbino, the director of the Division of Adult Operations for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, because Rogers failed to allege Giurbinos personal involvement in any constitutional violation or a causal connection between his conduct and any such violation. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (a plaintiff must allege facts that "allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged"); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) ("A...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP