Sean Raphael Roberts v. J. St. Clair;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEAN RAPHAEL ROBERTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
J. ST. CLAIR; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-16156
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00970-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted August 25, 2015***
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Sean Raphael Roberts, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
FILED
SEP 08 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

(“RLUIPA”) violations arising from his request to be examined and treated by
male medical professionals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal of a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes,
213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we reverse and remand.
The district court prematurely dismissed Roberts’s RLUIPA claim because
Roberts sufficiently alleged a substantial burden was imposed on his practice of
Islam when prison officials, including Allen, denied his request for a male medical
practitioner to examine his hernia in order to avoid violating his religious practices.
See Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 717-18 (1981)
(substantial burden exists where the state denies an important benefit because of
conduct mandated by religious belief, “thereby putting substantial pressure on an
adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs”); Warsoldier v.
Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994-95 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a RLUIPA claim);
see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisor can be held
liable for his or her own personal involvement in the alleged constitutional
violation); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 889 (9th Cir. 2008) (choice between
eating food harmful to health and religious practice can impose substantial
burden).
14-16156 2

-- 2 of 3 --

We do not consider Roberts’s First and Eight Amendment claims because
Roberts does not raise these claims on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d
983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
We reject Roberts’s contentions concerning the defendants who were not
served.
Allen’s request for judicial notice, filed on January 9, 2015, is granted.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
14-16156 3

-- 3 of 3 --