Chance v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17917
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Chance, a Native American inmate at TDCJ’s Michael Unit, sues under RLUIPA alleging failures to accommodate four religious practices.
- TDCJ stopped permitting a communal Sacred Pipe; only chaplain smoking is allowed due to health concerns from disease transmission.
- Chance alleges insufficient frequency of Native American ceremonies (Sacred Pipe, Teaching, Wiping Away the Tears) and limited holy-day observances.
- Smudging indoor ban allegedly burdens Chance by preventing indoor purification before ceremonies during inclement weather.
- Keeping of Souls claim: Chance seeks possession of a lock of hair of deceased relatives; policy generally bars external items as contraband.
- District court granted summary judgment on all but the hair-keep claim; court remanded only that issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does TDCJ’s Sacred Pipe ban substantially burden Chance’s religion? | Chance argues ban is substantial burden; needs personal pipe. | TDCJ shows health/safety interests; ban is least restrictive. | Yes, no; we need least-restrictive means; see analysis within. |
| Is the frequency/availability of Native American ceremonies the least restrictive means? | Chance requests more frequent ceremonies. | Volunteer limits and resource constraints justify current schedule. | There is no federal violation; policy deemed least restrictive. |
| Is indoor Smudging ban the least restrictive means to advance interests? | Indoor Smudge should be allowed; ban too broad. | Fire-safety and cost concerns justify outdoor-only Smudging. | Ban upheld as least restrictive means. |
| Does denying a lock of hair for Keeping of Souls burden Chance’s religion; is it least restrictive? | Hair possession is essential; testing/limited exceptions exist. | Contraband/security justify no-exceptions rule. | Genuine issue of material fact; remand on this claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garner v. Kennedy, 713 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2013) (RLUIPA substantial burden analysis; deference to prison officials)
- Moussazadeh v. TDCJ, 703 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2012) (Case-specific least-restrictive-means inquiry in RLUIPA)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (Prisonadministration deference; context matters in RLUIPA)
- Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2004) (Volunteer-based religious services; permissible accommodation)
- Freeman v. TDCJ, 369 F.3d 854 (5th Cir. 2004) (Generic religious services approach appropriate)
- Jones v. Shabazz, 352 F. App’x 910 (5th Cir. 2009) (Generic holiday observances within resource limits)
- Mayfield v. TDCJ, 529 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2008) (Odinist runestones; less restrictive alternatives exist)
- McAlister v. Livingston, 348 F.App’x 923 (5th Cir. 2009) (Volunteer/limited-resources accommodation analysis)
- Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007) (Prison policy balancing and deference to administrators)