23 F.4th 1124
9th Cir.2022Background
- Edward Jones, an Arizona inmate and Nation of Islam adherent, ordered six hip‑hop/R&B CDs and two Elijah Muhammad books in 2017–2018; ADC confiscated them under Department Order 914 (DO 914) governing inmate publications.
- DO 914 bars publications with categories such as explicit sexual content, gang/drug material, violence, and material that "promotes racism or the superiority of one group."
- ADC’s Office of Publication Review (OPR) upheld the exclusions; Jones exhausted administrative appeals and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, RLUIPA, and the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding DO 914 constitutional (Turner standard) and that exclusion of the Elijah Muhammad books did not substantially burden Jones’s religious exercise.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding triable issues exist whether ADC applied DO 914 neutrally to the CDs (Free Speech) and whether excluding the books substantially burdened religious exercise under RLUIPA and the Free Exercise Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of six CDs violated Jones’s First Amendment rights (as‑applied) | ADC applied DO 914 inconsistently and targeted rap/R&B; Jones submitted affidavits and examples of permissible media with similar content | DO 914 is rationally related to penological goals; exclusions were properly applied and supported by OPR/administrative affidavits | Ninth Circuit: There is a genuine dispute of material fact about neutrality/inconsistent enforcement; summary judgment improper; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether exclusion of two Elijah Muhammad books substantially burdened religious exercise under RLUIPA | Reading those texts during Ramadan is a protected religious exercise; exclusion imposed a substantial burden | Jones can observe Ramadan without those books; no substantial burden shown | Ninth Circuit: District court erred in its framing; triable issue exists whether exclusion substantially burdened Jones; remanded for RLUIPA least‑restrictive‑means inquiry |
| Whether exclusion violated Free Exercise Clause | Exclusion interfered with sincerely held religious practice of reading Muhammad’s texts during Ramadan | Free Exercise is limited in prison; DO 914 is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests | Ninth Circuit: Sincerity satisfied; material factual question whether exclusion burdened exercise; summary judgment improper; remanded |
| Damages against individual OPR officer (Miller) | Seeks damages for officer’s role upholding exclusions | Officer argues she correctly applied DO 914 and is entitled to summary judgment | Ninth Circuit: Plaintiff must show the officer personally applied DO 914 inconsistently to sustain individual‑capacity damages; remanded to resolve factual issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (prison regulation valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (publications to prisoners analyzed under Turner)
- Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. en banc) (deferential Turner application to prison regulations)
- Greene v. Solano Cnty. Jail, 513 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008) (identify specific "religious exercise" under RLUIPA)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (RLUIPA requires least‑restrictive means; "exceptionally demanding" standard)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (RLUIPA construed broadly to protect institutionalized persons)
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (basis for compelling‑interest/least‑restrictive‑means framework adopted by RLUIPA)
- Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.) (substantial‑burden standard under RLUIPA)
- Mayfield v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 529 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2008) (inconsistent enforcement can show lack of Turner neutrality)
- Ashker v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 350 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2003) (prison need not show past harms unless inmate rebuts common‑sense connection)