Jackson v. State of Nevada

── Jackson v. State of Nevada ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT JACKSON, No. 24-1771 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00995-APG-NJK Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF NEVADA, in relation to the Nevada Department of Corrections; E K McDANIEL; DWIGHT WALTER NEVEN; JENNIFER NASH; RENEE BAKER; HAROLD MIKE BYRNE; DUANE WILSON; BRIAN WILLIAMS, in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 26, 2026** Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Nevada state prisoner Robert Jackson appeals pro se from the district court’s * 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). judgment entering a permanent injunction in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) alleging claims related to his request for a religious diet. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the scope of the permanent injunction. United States v. Washington, 853 F.3d 946, 962 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by entering the permanent injunction, as amended, because the injunction “state[s] its terms specifically” and “describe[s] in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts restrained,” consistent with the parties’ stipulation following summary judgment for Jackson on his First Amendment and RLUIPA claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1). We do not consider Jackson’s contentions regarding the district court’s dismissal and summary judgment orders because those issues are beyond the scope of this appeal. Jackson’s contentions about the reasonableness of defendants’ interpretation of the permanent injunction, as amended, and defendants’ compliance with its terms are not properly before us in this appeal. All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 24-1771