Randall Jackson v. Jay Nixon, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5721

Jackson, an atheist inmate at WRDCC, challenges the OUTP as violating the First Amendment;
District court dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1);
On appeal, only Crawford (MDOC Director), Burgess (WRDCC Warden), and Salsbury (OUTP Director) remain;
Complaint alleges coercive religious content in OUTP (serenity prayer, prayers, religious meditation);
Missouri law ties OUTP to potential early parole, but completion does not guarantee parole;
Record shows Jackson attempted to transfer to secular treatment and sought parole via the Board of Probation and Parole.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OUTP coercion violates the Establishment Clause	Jackson claims coercion via religious content tied to parole	OUTP was optional; withdrawal cannot create a right to early release	Yes, pleadings state a First Amendment coercion claim against Crawford and Salsbury
Whether Crawford and Salsbury showed personal involvement	Jackson alleges directors’ involvement in policy and program impact	Supervisors’ general duties do not equal personal involvement	Sufficient personal involvement pled for Crawford and Salsbury; Burgess insufficient at this stage
Whether the district court erred in pre-service dismissal	Complaint should survive to allow fact development	Claims fail as withdrawal from OUTP negates coercion	Pre-service dismissal premature; reversal and remand proper

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (U.S. 1992) (coercion of religious participation violates Establishment Clause)
Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996) (three-part coercion test: state action, coercion, religious content)
Warner v. Orange Cnty. Dep’t of Prob., 115 F.3d 1068 (2d Cir. 1996) (coercive effect of mandatory religious components in probation programs)
Inouye v. Kemna, 504 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2007) (parole condition to attend religion-based programs can violate Establishment Clause)