Roberts v. Perry
1:16-cv-00034
W.D.N.C.Aug 1, 2017Background
- Pro se inmate Jimmy Allen Roberts sued NCDPS Secretary Frank Perry, Chaplaincy Director Betty Brown, and MVCI Administrator Mike Slagle under RLUIPA and the First Amendment, challenging (1) the refusal to recognize “Nation of Israel” as a prison-recognized religion and (2) limits on his possession of religious texts; he also alleged denial of access to courts because NCPLS declined representation.
- Roberts submitted a DC-572 requesting recognition; the Religious Practices Committee (RPC) reviewed materials showing the group espoused white-supremacist, anti-Semitic views and concluded it was not a distinct religion separate from Messianic Judaism/Christianity and denied recognition.
- Brown and Slagle attested they forwarded and followed RPC procedures, that Roberts could worship as a Messianic Jewish inmate and receive approved religious materials, and that recognition was denied due to racist, violent, and security-threatening rhetoric in the group’s literature.
- MVCI staff seized overtly white-supremacist and anti-Jewish printed materials found in Roberts’ cell as contraband during a 2016 search; MVCI policy otherwise permits ten books plus approved religious materials.
- Roberts did not identify specific practices he was prevented from performing and did not show actual injury from alleged denial of legal assistance.
- The court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether refusal to recognize “Nation of Israel” violated RLUIPA/Free Exercise | Roberts: Nation of Israel is a distinct, sincerely held religion and denial substantially burdens his practice | Defendants: Group is white‑supremacist/part of Christian Identity, not a separate religion; recognition would jeopardize security; inmate can worship as Messianic Jew/Christian | Denial upheld: not a separate religion for recognition and, even if it were, security interests justify denial under RLUIPA/Turner/Cutter strict scrutiny/deference principles |
| Whether numeric limits or confiscation of religious texts violated rights | Roberts: numeric restriction on religious publications is unconstitutional | Defendants: Seized materials were racist/violent and contraband; limits serve compelling security interests; approved materials may be received if nonviolent | Denial upheld: materials legitimately restricted as contraband; policy tailored to security objectives |
| Whether defendants impeded access to courts via NCPLS refusal | Roberts: NCPLS denial of representation amounts to denial of access, attributable to defendants | Defendants: They did not interfere with his ability to file or communicate with courts; NCPLS decisions are independent | Denial upheld: Roberts failed to show actual injury or specific interference; conclusory allegations insufficient |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Roberts: disputed some factual findings and ownership of seized materials | Defendants: presented affidavits, policies, seized items, and evidence of procedures followed | Denial upheld: No genuine issue of material fact; defendants entitled to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (RLUIPA does not elevate religious accommodation over prison safety; courts must defer to prison administrators' expertise)
- Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006) (definition of substantial burden and RLUIPA strict‑scrutiny framework)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (RLUIPA's substantial‑burden inquiry and strict scrutiny application)
- Smith v. Ozmint, 578 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 2009) (burden shifting under RLUIPA and Free Exercise analysis)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations that burden rights are valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (right of access to courts requires showing actual injury to a nonfrivolous claim)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact on summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden‑shifting principles)