Opinion
21-56141
10-14-2022
LILY CASSANDRA ALPHONSIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOEL GARNICA, Deputy; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendants-Appellees, and CENTURY REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY; JIM MCDONNELL, Sheriff; PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 12, 2022 [**] San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California No. 2:17-cv-03650-ODW-DFM Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Lily Alphonsis appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendants Joel Garnica and the County of Los Angeles (County) in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action alleging a variety of claims arising from her incarceration in the Century Regional Detention Facility. We review de novo, and we affirm.
See Hughes v. Rodriguez, 31 F.4th 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2022).
The district court correctly determined that there was no genuine dispute of material fact that Garnica did not use excessive force when he removed Alphonsis's handcuffs on June 5, 2017. The evidence before the district court-including witness statements, video footage of the encounter, and Alphonsis's minimal injuries-showed that Garnica did not act maliciously or sadistically. See id. at 1221; U.S. Const. amend. XIII. Alphonsis's assertions to the contrary are plainly belied by video evidence, which the district court was entitled to credit. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007).
Failure of the district court to expressly consider the supplemental evidence Alphonsis submitted was harmless error. See Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2002); Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 534 (9th Cir. 2011); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The purported medical records were not properly authenticated, and did not tend to show that any injuries occurred on June 5, 2017. See Las Vegas Sands, 632 F.3d at 532-34; Sanchez v. Aerovias de Mex., S.A. de C.V., 590 F.3d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir. 2010).
The district court also properly entered summary judgment in favor of the County on Alphonsis's disability discrimination claim because there was no genuine dispute of material fact that due to her disciplinary infractions, Alphonsis was not "otherwise qualified to participate in" the jail education program. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002).
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the County on Alphonsis's First Amendment free exercise claim arising from the purported confiscation of her Quran and prayer mat. Alphonsis's evidence failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact about whether the County had a "policy or custom" of confiscating the Qurans and prayer mats of inmates who were in solitary confinement. Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc); see Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 714 (9th Cir. 1995).
Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031-32 & 1032 n.5 (9th Cir. 2015); U.S. Const. amend. I.
Alphonsis waived any challenge to the judgment on her free exercise claim premised on the prison's head cover policy by failing to address that in her opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Finally, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the County on Alphonsis's RLUIPA claim arising from the prison's head cover policy. The district court correctly concluded that there was no genuine dispute of material fact that the policy, which prohibited head coverings other than Kufi caps, was "the least restrictive alternative available . . . to reach [the County's] compelling interest" in prison security. Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 998 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2015).
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc-2000cc-5 (RLUIPA).
Alphonsis did not allege a RLUIPA claim premised on the purported confiscation of her Quran and prayer mat, nor did she address any such claim in her opening brief on appeal. See Padgett, 587 F.3d at 985, 985 n.2.
The district court's error in failing to expressly consider the letter from Chaplain Khani was harmless because the letter did not contradict the County's evidence regarding the use and availability of Kufi caps. See Las Vegas Sands, 632 F.3d at 532-34; Sanchez, 590 F.3d at 1029.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett, 587 F.3d at 985, 985 n.2.
AFFIRMED. Alphonsis's petition for an initial hearing en banc (9th Cir. Dkt. 6) is DENIED.
[*] 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).