Joshua Davis Bland v. Scott Kernan; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SCOTT KERNAN; CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16565
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01315-TLN-EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Joshua Davis Bland appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) action alleging religious discrimination.
* 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).
FILED
SEP 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-16565
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal of a complaint as frivolous. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194
(9th Cir. 1998) (order). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record.
Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
Dismissal of Bland’s First Amendment and RLUIPA claims was proper
because Bland failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the policy of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation prohibiting incarcerated
persons from possessing pornographic materials bore no reasonable relationship to
the legitimate penological interest of prison security, or that the policy
substantially burdened his religious practice. See Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d
1023, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth elements of a § 1983 free exercise
claim); Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth
elements of a RLUIPA claim); Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1059-60 (9th Cir.
1999) (explaining that prison’s ban on sexually explicit material did not violate the
First Amendment).
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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-16565
Bland’s motion for exigent adjudication (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied as
moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --