Dennis Walker v. Beard
789 F.3d 1125
9th Cir.2015Background
- Walker, an Odinist inmate who believes rituals must be performed only in the presence of "Aryans," requested a white cellmate; prison classified him "racially eligible" (i.e., may be celled with other races) under California’s Integrated Housing Policy and assigned a non‑white cellmate.
- Walker refused the non‑white assignment, was disciplined and placed in administrative segregation, and sued state officials pro se alleging violations of RLUIPA and the Free Exercise Clause (and other claims). The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim and denied leave to amend; Walker appealed.
- Walker later was transferred but remained in state custody and still classified racially eligible; the Ninth Circuit held the injunctive RLUIPA claim was not moot because the Housing Policy is systemwide and the official defendants could provide relief.
- Walker clarified (in objections and on appeal) that the particular religious practice at issue is the "warding ritual," which he says cannot be performed with a non‑Aryan present; the court treated the ritual as a religious exercise for RLUIPA purposes.
- The Ninth Circuit found Walker plausibly alleged the Housing Policy substantially burdens his religious exercise, but held the State demonstrated a compelling interest—avoiding unconstitutional, race‑conscious housing and potential Equal Protection liability—and that denying an exemption was the least restrictive means.
- The court also held Walker’s Free Exercise claim failed under Turner because the denial was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests (risk of liability, security concerns), and denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warding ritual is a "religious exercise" under RLUIPA | Walker: the warding ritual is a sincere religious practice requiring an Aryan‑only circle | State: ritual either not pleaded sufficiently or not central | Held: ritual qualifies as a religious exercise under RLUIPA |
| Whether classifying Walker "racially eligible" substantially burdens his religious exercise | Walker: classification forces him to choose between ritual and discipline, creating substantial pressure to conform | State: alternatives exist (e.g., perform ritual elsewhere) and no substantial burden | Held: classification substantially burdens his exercise (at pleading stage) |
| Whether the State met RLUIPA strict scrutiny (compelling interest and least restrictive means) | Walker: State must accommodate (exempt him) or adopt less restrictive accommodations | State: compelling interest in avoiding race‑based exemptions to prevent Equal Protection violations; denying exemption is least restrictive means | Held: State has compelling interest in avoiding race‑conscious housing and denying exemption is least restrictive means; RLUIPA claim fails |
| Free Exercise (First Amendment) review under Turner | Walker: sincere belief, denial infringes Free Exercise | State: denial is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests (liability, security); Turner factors favor State | Held: Walker fails Turner test; Free Exercise claim fails |
| Mootness and standing after transfer | Walker: Housing Policy is systemwide and relief remains possible; claim not moot | State: transfer moots injunctive relief if not subject to integrated celling now | Held: claim not moot — systemwide policy and official capable of relief |
| Denial of leave to amend | Walker: should be allowed to amend to seek other accommodations | State: amendment would not cure core legal defect (requesting race‑based exemption) | Held: denial not an abuse of discretion; amendment could not cure fundamental defect |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (limits on Congress’s enforcement power over state religious‑liberty regulation)
- Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005) (race‑based prison celling triggers strict scrutiny)
- Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005) (RLUIPA burden and substantial‑burden analysis in prison context)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (RLUIPA’s breadth and accommodation principles in institutional settings)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (threat of serious disciplinary action can constitute pressure to conform for Free Exercise/RLUIPA purposes)