James Barstad v. Earl Wright, 689 F. App'x 866

Plaintiff James Benjamin Barstad, a Washington state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the First Amendment and RLUIPA based on several mail rejections and related prison actions.
Disputed incidents included rejection of outgoing mail (pre-franked envelopes), two incoming items with noncompliant return-address information, and an incoming package containing oils, herbs, and stones; also an interrupted prisoner orientation presentation and exclusion from future orientations.
Barstad claimed these actions impeded his access to courts, burdened his free exercise of religion, violated his free speech, and were retaliatory responses to his complaints about mail rejections.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims.
Barstad appealed pro se; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the cross-motions for summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Access to courts — mail restrictions	Barstad said mail rejections impeded his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous claim	Mail rejections did not cause an actual injury to a nonfrivolous claim	Summary judgment for defendants; no genuine dispute of actual injury under Lewis v. Casey
Free exercise / RLUIPA — mail/package rejections	Rejections of incoming package and mail substantially burdened his religious practice	Rejections were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests	Summary judgment for defendants; plaintiff failed to show a substantial burden and Turner analysis upheld restrictions
Free speech — incoming/outgoing mail and orientation	Regulation of incoming/outgoing mail and barring from orientation violated speech rights	Regulations furthered prison safety/security and orientation exclusion served penological objectives	Summary judgment for defendants; no genuine dispute that restrictions were reasonably related to penological interests (Thornburgh/Procunier/Jones standards)
Retaliation — complaints about mail rejections	Adverse actions were retaliatory for complaining about mail rejections	Adverse actions were justified by legitimate correctional goals	Summary judgment for defendants; plaintiff failed to show causation or lack of legitimate penological basis (Rhodes standard)

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (access-to-courts claim requires actual injury)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (prison regulations valid if reasonably related to penological interests)
Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (prisoner’s initial burden under RLUIPA to show substantial burden)
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (factors for evaluating incoming mail regulation)
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (standards for outgoing mail regulation)
Jones v. N.C. Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119 (standards for regulating expressive or associational conduct)
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (elements of prison retaliation claim)
Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957 (standard of review for cross-motions for summary judgment)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (appellate waiver for arguments not raised in opening brief)
Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971 (court will not manufacture arguments for appellant)