Keith Nance v. Allen Miser
700 F. App'x 629
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Keith Nance, an ADC inmate, seeks accommodation under RLUIPA to (1) purchase and use scented (halal) oils for weekly Friday prayer and two annual holidays, and (2) grow a "fist-length" beard beyond the ADC one-inch grooming limit.
- ADC policy forbids scented oils and limits beard length to one inch; failure to comply can lead to discipline.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants (prison officials); Nance appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews summary judgment de novo and applies RLUIPA's burden-shifting framework: inmate first shows religious exercise and substantial burden; prison must then show compelling interest and least restrictive means.
- Defendants did not dispute sincerity of Nance’s beliefs; trial record included defendants’ evidence and arguments on least-restrictive-means though district court did not reach that stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nance’s requested practices qualify as religious exercise | Practices are sincere religious exercises under RLUIPA | N/A — sincerity not disputed | Court: Qualified as religious exercise; courts must not assess centrality |
| Whether ADC policies substantially burden those exercises | Ban on scented oils and grooming limit coerce him or prevent exercise | ADC offered unscented oils, possible donated scented oils, and discipline threat for beard | Court: Policies substantially burden Nance; district court erred by assessing centrality |
| Whether ADC’s ban on scented oils is the least restrictive means to further security | Nance proposed buying oils from approved vendor, stored/used under chaplain supervision | Defendants argued security concerns and burden on chaplain; conceded supervised vendor purchase would not harm security at argument | Court: Defendants failed to show least restrictive means; summary judgment directed for Nance on scented oils |
| Whether ADC’s beard-length rule is the least restrictive means to further security | Nance argues 1-inch limit unnecessary; beard longer is religiously required | Defendants assert grooming rule serves security/identification interests and is necessary | Court: Unclear; remanded for further proceedings on beard issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (RLUIPA/RFRA standards and must construe RLUIPA broadly)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (prison safety is a compelling interest; RLUIPA protects institutionalized persons)
- Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005) (definition of substantial burden; officials must provide tailored evidence to defeat prisoner alternatives)
- Greene v. Solano County Jail, 513 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008) (outright bans on religious exercise generally constitute substantial burdens)
- Brunozzi v. Cable Communications, Inc., 851 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2017) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (rejects categorical fear of ‘‘other similarly situated’’ requests as justification for refusal)