MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Joshua Davis Bland appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) action alleging religious discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district courts 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. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Blands 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 prisons 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).
Blands motion for exigent adjudication (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.