appeals pro se from the district court’s judgement dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations in connection with the interruption of his prayers on one occasion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jacobson v. AEG Capital Corp., 50 F.3d 1493, 1496 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm. The district court properly concluded that Camacho failed to establish a prima facie claim that his religious beliefs were substantially burdened. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000ce-2(b) (requiring that a plaintiff must produce “prima facie evidence to support a claim alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause or a violation of the [Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act]”); Canell v. Lightner, 143 F.3d 1210, 1215 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly determined that
holding that docs may place reasonable limitations on an inmates right to the free exercise of religion including a requirement that the inmate register his religious affiliation holding that shortterm and sporadic interference with free exercise rights does not violate the first amendment recognizing right to be free from unjustified intrusions on personal security holding that  relatively shortterm and sporadic  intrusions on an inmates prayer activities did not constitute a substantial burden on inmates free exercise of his religion holding that corrections officers mockpreaching and espousal of religious views did not constitute a substantial burden on inmates free exercise of religion