McCollum v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10971

CDCR operates paid chaplaincy in five faiths (Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Native American); other religions are aided by volunteers.
McCollum is a Wiccan volunteer chaplain seeking eligibility for a paid chaplaincy position; inmates allege the program burdens their religious exercise.
Inmates' grievances focus on accommodations and access, not on a paid chaplaincy policy per se; Collins’ grievance is explicit about the paid-Wiccan chaplaincy issue.
District court dismissed/in part refused to exercise jurisdiction due to standing and exhaustion issues; some claims deemed unexhausted or time-barred.
McCollum’s claims are asserted as derivative of inmates’ rights, plus direct claims as a potential paid Chaplain, including First Amendment, FEHA, Title VII, and RLUPIA theories.
Court analyzes standing, exhaustions, and the merits of McCollum’s derivative and own-right claims, ultimately affirming dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McCollum has standing to challenge the paid-chaplaincy program	McCollum asserts third-party standing to vindicate inmates' rights.	Inmates, not McCollum, hold the rights; McCollum lacks redressable injury for third-party standing; taxpayer standing absent.	McCollum lacks third-party and taxpayer standing; appeals on derivative claims declined.
Whether McCollum has taxpayer standing to challenge program	Taxpayer status could permit challenge to unconstitutional expenditure or allocation.	No nexus between taxpayer status and the challenged allocation; not a direct injury.	Taxpayer standing rejected.
Whether McCollum's own rights claims (equal protection, Title VII/FEHA) fail as a matter of standing and merits	As a potential paid chaplain, he is discriminated against and seeks protection against religious discrimination.	BFOQ and institutional purpose justify paid-chaplaincy; claims fail on merits and standing.	District court proper in dismissing these claims; no viable equal protection/Title VII/FEHA claims against the program.
Whether McCollum's RLUIPA claim fails as to not being an institutionalized person	CDCR action burdening McCollum's religious exercise violates RLUIPA.	McCollum is not an institutionalized person under RLUIPA; no protection here.	RLUIPA claim rejected.

Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2009) (grievance exhaustion requires notice of the wrong for which redress is sought)
Mansourian v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 602 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2010) (continuing violation analysis for claims within limitations period)
Nat'l Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (continuing violation doctrine; timing matters for violations)
Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1976) (standing limits: litigant normally assert own legal interests)
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1991) (third-party standing where rights holders are close and cannot assert their own claims)
Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1972) (reasonable opportunities to exercise religious freedom)
O'Guinn v. Lovelock Correctional Center, 502 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (retaliation and causal linkage standards)
Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2004) (temporal proximity and motive in retaliation claims)
Doremus v. Bd. of Educ., 342 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1952) (plaintiffs must show concrete injury to assert standing or rights)
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1968) (taxpayer standing framework)