4 and I.O.P. 10.6 February 16
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Curry Robinson, an inmate at SCI-Houtzdale, sued DOC officials under RLUIPA, the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection), seeking only injunctive relief.
- Robinson alleges the Sex Offenders Therapeutic Community program bars participation unless inmates "accept responsibility" for their offenses; as a Christian he says any admission is a religious "confession" and thus participation would substantially burden his faith.
- He filed a grievance in 2015 complaining the program required him to "set aside his religious beliefs;" prison officials responded and denied the grievance.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing lack of personal involvement and that Robinson failed to plausibly plead a substantial burden or intentional discrimination.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal; the District Court adopted that R&R and dismissed with prejudice. Robinson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether program’s "acceptance of responsibility" requirement substantially burdens Robinson’s religious exercise (First Amendment / RLUIPA) | Robinson: any acknowledgement of guilt is a religiously forbidden confession; the program forces him to choose religion or benefits | Defendants: requirement is not a religious confession; plaintiff not asked to confess in a religious sense; participation is voluntary and facility interest is legitimate | Reversed in part: at pleading stage plaintiff plausibly alleged a substantial burden under RLUIPA; court must accept sincerity and cannot recharacterize belief as unburdened |
| Applicable standard of review for challenged policy | Robinson: RLUIPA strict scrutiny applies to substantial-burden claims | Defendants: First Amendment Turner rational-basis/prison-deference standard applies | Court: RLUIPA’s compelling-interest/least-restrictive-means test governs; district court erred by applying only Turner rational-relation test at dismissal |
| Sufficiency of pleadings / preclusion by prior choice or statute of limitations | Defendants: Robinson previously declined program in 2006 and statute of limitations bars suit | Robinson: filed a new grievance in 2015, continuing policy restarted limitations period | Held: dismissal on statute-of-limitations/choice grounds improper as to 2015 grievance and ongoing policy |
| Equal protection claim based on instrument-purchase disparity (guitar vs keyboard) | Robinson: policy permits up to $500 for guitars but limits keyboards, producing racial profiling against Black inmates who predominantly play keyboard | Defendants: plaintiff fails to allege intentional discrimination or that race was a substantial factor | Affirmed: complaint fails to plead intentional discrimination; equal protection claim properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- McGreevy v. Stroup, 413 F.3d 359 (3d Cir.) (official with final policymaking authority may be liable under § 1983)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S.) (prison regulation review under First Amendment uses reasonableness/prison-deference framework)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (U.S.) (RLUIPA requires compelling interest and least restrictive means; deference has limits)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (U.S.) (RLUIPA standard and limits on courts probing centrality of belief)
- Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272 (3d Cir.) (threshold substantial-burden inquiry for prisoner religious claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S.) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S.) (plausibility and pleading standards)
- McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (U.S.) (importance of admission/acceptance requirements in sex-offender treatment programs)
- Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (U.S.) (equal protection requires proof of discriminatory intent)
- Hassan v. City of New York, 804 F.3d 277 (3d Cir.) (race must be substantial factor to state equal protection claim)
- Yellowbear v. Lampert, 741 F.3d 48 (10th Cir.) (government must prove compelling interest and lack of less restrictive means at summary judgment)