Kuperman v. Wrenn
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14329
1st Cir.2011Background
- Kuperman, an Orthodox Jew and former inmate at NH State Prison, challenged NH shaving policy PPD 7.17 requiring shaving with a 1/4-inch beard waiver for religious reasons.
- Policy allows 1/4-inch beard if a shaving waiver is granted based on religion; full beards generally prohibited.
- Kuperman alleged violations of §1983 First Amendment Free Exercise and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection, and RLUIPA.
- District court screened and dismissed official-capacity claims for injunctive relief; remaining claims proceeded to summary judgment.
- District court granted summary judgment for Prison Officials on all remaining claims; Kuperman appealed.
- Appellate court reviews de novo and affirms summary judgment where no genuine issues of material fact exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment beard regulation under Turner test | Kuperman argues regulation burdened free exercise of Judaism. | Prison Officials contend regulation reasonably relates to penological interests. | Turner factors favor prison officials; regulation upheld. |
| Equal Protection over selective enforcement | Gerry allegedly treated him differently due to religion. | No evidence of religiously discriminatory enforcement; uniform policy. | No evidence of selective enforcement; EP claim rejected. |
| RLUIPA claim viability and least-restrictive means | RLUIPA requires least restrictive means; regulation burdens religious exercise. | Affidavits show regulation furthers compelling interests and is least restrictive. | Assuming personal-capacity RLUIPA claim, summary judgment for Prison Officials affirmed. |
| Mootness of injunctive/declaratory claims | Injunctive relief moot due to release; declaratory relief may survive. | Only mootness issue; need analysis of ongoing relief. | Injunctive relief moot; declaratory and monetary relief may survive; district ruling affirmed mootness withdrawal. |
| Capacity scope of RLUIPA claims (personal vs. institutional) | RLUIPA liability could be personal-capacity of officials. | Some circuits limit personal-capacity RLUIPA claims. | Assuming availability, §RLUIPA claim fails on merits; no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court 1987) (prison regulation review under Turner factors; deference to prison officials)
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (Supreme Court 2003) (deference to penological expertise; framework for regulation scrutiny)
- Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (Supreme Court 1992) (mootness discussed in constitutional challenges; Article III standing principles)
- Spratt v. Rhode Island Dept. of Corr., 482 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2007) (summary judgment standard; deference to prison policy considerations)
- O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (Supreme Court 1987) (restrictions on religious exercise in prison context; minimal intrusion permissible)