Andre Dennison v. Charles Ryan
678 F. App'x 530
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Andre Almond Dennison, an Arizona state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA challenging the prison’s vegan meal policy.
- He sought injunctive relief and money damages and named prison officials and private vendors (Canteen Correctional Services and Trinity Correctional Services).
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants and entered a protective order for certain discovery materials; Dennison’s requests for sanctions and other discovery relief were denied.
- Dennison appealed pro se to the Ninth Circuit; the panel reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in full, addressing RLUIPA (injunctive relief and damages), First Amendment free exercise, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection, non‑liability of private vendors, and the protective order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RLUIPA injunctive relief: whether vegan meal plan is least restrictive means | Dennison: vegan plan is not least restrictive; burdens religious exercise | Defendants: vegan plan serves compelling interests and is least restrictive means | Affirmed for defendants; Dennison failed to raise genuine dispute on least restrictive means |
| RLUIPA money damages: whether RLUIPA permits damages | Dennison sought money damages under RLUIPA | Defendants: RLUIPA does not authorize money damages against state officials or individuals | Affirmed for defendants; damages not available under RLUIPA |
| First Amendment free exercise: whether policy is reasonably related to penological interests | Dennison: policy violates free exercise rights | Defendants: policy is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests (Turner factors) | Affirmed for defendants; no genuine dispute on reasonableness |
| Equal protection: whether policy was motivated by discriminatory intent | Dennison: Ryan acted with discriminatory intent in creating policy | Defendants: no intentional discrimination in policy creation | Affirmed for defendants; Dennison failed to show discriminatory intent |
| Liability of private vendors | Dennison: vendors participated and are liable | Defendants/vendors: they did not participate in creating policy | Affirmed for defendants; vendors not personally involved so no § 1983 liability |
| Protective order and discovery requests | Dennison: court erred in entering protective order and denying discovery help | Defendants: disclosure of proprietary ADC info would cause harm; protective order proper | Affirmed; district court did not clearly err and had good cause for protective order |
Key Cases Cited
- Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard for de novo review and RLUIPA analysis)
- Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011) (RLUIPA does not authorize money damages against states)
- Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2014) (RLUIPA does not authorize suits against employees in individual capacity)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (framework for assessing reasonableness of prison regulations)
- Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 1997) (equal protection requires intentional discriminatory action under § 1983)
- Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard for personal participation in § 1983 liability)
- Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2002) (personal participation requirement for § 1983 liability)
- Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (good cause standard and review for protective orders)