Cryer v. Massachusetts Department of Correction, 763 F. Supp. 2d 237

Cryer, an inmate at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, is a member of the facility's Native American circle and seeks access to ceremonial tobacco for religious purposes.
DOC policy bans possession or use of tobacco on all DOC property, including ceremonial use; traditionally, monthly outdoor smudging/corporate ceremonies occur with kinnick-kinnick, sage, and tobacco among participants.
Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages; defendants moved for partial summary judgment on several grounds.
Magistrate Judge Collings recommended granting summary judgment for unrestricted tobacco access but denying limited access only for the once-monthly smudging ceremony; the district court adopted this, but Cryer later sought relief from final judgment.
Cryer narrowed his relief requests in a post-order filing, prompting the court to modify its dismissal and adopt the magistrate’s report to the extent of Cryer’s clarified relief sought.
Court’s ultimate posture: (a) unrestricted access denied; (b) limited access during the monthly ceremony potentially viable; (c) multiple state-law and constitutional challenges partially denied or granted as described in the order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOC policy substantially burdens Cryer’s religious exercise under RLUIPA.	Cryer argues tobacco is essential to prayer and the policy imposes a substantial burden.	Policy banning tobacco is necessary for security and health; less restrictive alternatives exist.	There is a genuine issue of material fact as to substantial burden; summary judgment denied on broad access but may be limited.
Whether the DOC policy serves a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive means to achieve it.	Cryer contends a less restrictive accommodation (monthly ceremony) is feasible with minimal cost.	Policy advances health and security interests; alternatives are not sufficiently demonstrated as least restrictive.	Court finds compelling interest but notes need for further analysis of alternatives; partial denial without prejudice to renewal.
Whether Cryer is entitled to limited relief (ceremonial tobacco during the monthly smudging ceremony) and related remedies under First Amendment and state law.	Cryer seeks access during monthly ceremonies as a targeted accommodation.	Unrestricted access is barred; limited access may be permissible but not presently clearly established.	Limited access during the monthly ceremony denied preliminarily under First Amendment with potential for renewal; RLUIPA may render broader constitutional challenges unnecessary.

Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (U.S. 2005) (RLUIPA required on substantial burden inquiry; compelling interest standard applied)
Spratt v. Rhode Island Dept. of Corrections, 482 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2007) (test for substantial burden and least restrictive means in prison context)
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (U.S. 1981) (substantial burden standard and religious exercise保护 framework)
O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1987) (Turner framework for evaluating prison regulations and religious exercise)
Hudson v. Dennehy, 538 F. Supp. 2d 400 (D. Mass. 2008) (courts have engaged in substantial burden and accommodation analysis in similar prison tobacco cases)