Opinion
No. 14-16726
04-19-2016
LEWIS A. HARRY, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANNA M. JACOBS; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00736-CKJ MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Arizona state prisoner Lewis A. Harry, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant Talley violated his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 584 F.3d 1129, 1134 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Talley on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that it was unlawful under the circumstances to temporarily take possession of religious property to allow for approval by the chaplain and to not ensure the property was returned earlier. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2080, 2083 (2011) (discussing qualified immunity and noting that a right is clearly established only if "every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of a free exercise claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Talley's request to file a second motion for summary judgment to further develop the record. See Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911-12 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that "allowing a party to file a second motion for summary judgment is logical, and it fosters the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of suits" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider the merits of Harry's remaining claims because Harry does not challenge the basis for their dismissal.
AFFIRMED.