McKinley v. Maddox
493 F. App'x 928
10th Cir.2012Background
- McKinley, an Oklahoma inmate, sues Mitzi Maddox and Darlene Robinson for violating his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while at ECCC, alleging denial of offsite and onsite religious exercise from Oct–Nov 2010.
- Maddox and Robinson allegedly restricted McKinley during an Executive Review, delaying or denying offsite church services and related activities.
- Maddox approved offsite activities on some occasions for nonreligious purposes, while continuing to restrict religious participation.
- McKinley alleged Maddox coordinated religious services but onsite religious options were unavailable during the restriction period.
- The district court dismissed the complaint as a § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) failure to state a claim, and the magistrate judge recommended dismissal on alternative grounds; on appeal, the Tenth Circuit reverses and remands for further proceedings, granting IFP status on appeal.
- The court clarifies that it does not foreclose McKinley’s RLUIPA and Equal Protection claims on remand and notes the need to address personal participation by defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McKinley plausibly alleges a substantial burden on free exercise | McKinley alleges intentional, not merely negligent, interference with religious exercise | Delays were administrative and not a substantial burden | Remanded; district court erred in dismissing free-exercise claim at screening stage |
| Whether RLUIPA and Equal Protection claims should be addressed on remand | Claims plausibly support relief if properly pled | Not addressed below; insufficient thematic focus in complaint | Remanded to consider plausibility and potential amendment for RLUIPA/Equal Protection on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2009) (defines substantial burden and personal participation standards in free-exercise analysis)
- Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 2010) (defines substantial burden consistent with Supreme Court framework for religious exercise)
- Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2007) (standard for determining dismissal of IFP complaints under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii))