Clarence Jones v. Max Williams
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10862
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Clarence Jones, a Muslim and Nation of Islam member, worked in the Oregon State Penitentiary kitchen (2006–2008) and objected to serving or handling pork on religious grounds.
- Jones filed administrative complaints after supervisors allegedly threatened discipline if he refused to handle pork; a superintendent memo later stated Muslim inmates need not be required to handle pork.
- Incidents at issue: (1) May 31, 2007 — Jones ate part of a tamale pie he alleges contained undisclosed pork; (2) July 8, 2007 — Jones was ordered to fry/cook pork loins and complied after threats of discipline; (3) ongoing grill-cleaning practice allegedly left pork residue contaminating non-pork meats.
- Jones received a daily performance failure after a January 8, 2007 kitchen confrontation in which he threatened to sue; he later received disciplinary segregation after an October 29, 2008 altercation with another inmate.
- Jones sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment free exercise and retaliation; Fourteenth Amendment equal protection) and RLUIPA seeking damages and injunctive relief; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants and Jones appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RLUIPA: monetary and injunctive remedies | RLUIPA authorizes relief against the state and officials for religious burdens | States retain sovereign immunity for monetary RLUIPA claims; injunctive relief moot after release | Monetary damages not permitted under RLUIPA against states/individuals; injunctive claims moot due to release — affirmed |
| Free exercise — tamale pie (May 31, 2007) | Jones: served undisclosed pork, forced to violate belief | Defendants: no pork was added; evidence supporting pork is inadmissible hearsay | Jones failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact — summary judgment affirmed |
| Free exercise — ordered to cook pork (July 8, 2007) | Jones: ordering him to handle pork substantially burdened his religion; policy allowed exemption | Defendants: qualified immunity; officers believed they followed prison policy | Right to avoid handling pork was clearly established and material facts dispute officers’ knowledge — qualified immunity denied; summary judgment reversed and remanded |
| Free exercise — grill-cleaning practice | Jones: residual pork grease contaminated grills, burdening his exercise | Defendants: cleaning meets industry standards; alternatives to grilled meat always available | No substantial burden shown (alternatives available; no showing grilled meat essential) — summary judgment affirmed |
| First Amendment retaliation (daily performance failure) | Jones: failure issued because he complained of discrimination and threatened suit, chilling protected conduct | Defendants: action advanced security/penological goals | Material disputes (motive and necessity) preclude summary judgment; claim against Ridderbusch reversed and remanded |
| Equal protection — disciplinary action after altercation | Jones: disciplinary proceeding was racially motivated | Defendants: no evidence of racial motivation; facts show assault by Jones | No evidence of racial discrimination; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651 (U.S. 2011) (RLUIPA does not waive state sovereign immunity for monetary damages)
- Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2014) (RLUIPA does not authorize damages against state officials in their individual capacities)
- O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1987) (prisoner free-exercise claims judged under reasonableness related to penological interests)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (prison rules valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests; Turner factors)
- Ashelman v. Wawrzaszek, 111 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 1997) (ordering prisoners to defile themselves is a substantial burden; dietary accommodations may be required)
- United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1997) (qualified immunity requires clearly established law such that reasonable official would understand conduct violated rights)