Shawna Hartmann v. California Department of Corr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3385
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- CDCR maintains paid full-time and part-time chaplains for Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, and Protestants; other faiths may use volunteer or staff chaplains.
- Hill (a Wiccan inmate) and Hartmann (a former Wiccan inmate) allege the policy deprives them of a paid full-time Wiccan chaplain and neutral criteria for chaplain hiring.
- Plaintiffs sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Free Exercise, Establishment, Equal Protection, RLUIPA, and California Constitution claims.
- District court dismissed several federal claims; Establishment Clause and state-constitution claims were left for further proceedings; others were dismissed with prejudice.
- This appeal addresses whether the district court erred in its Rule 12(b)(6) rulings and whether relief is appropriate on Establishment Clause and state-constitutional theories.
- Hartmann’s release mooted any injunctive/declaratory relief for her, but the court considers the remaining plaintiffs' claims on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free Exercise – whether denial of a paid Wiccan chaplain denied a reasonable opportunity | Hill/Hartmann: denial harms Wiccan practice; must have paid chaplain to provide parity with other faiths | Defendants: not required to provide chaplain of choice; alternatives (staff/volunteer) suffice | Claim dismissed; no plausible denial of a reasonable opportunity |
| Equal Protection – whether denial shows intentional discrimination against Wiccans | Plaintiffs allege intentional discrimination against Wiccans in favor of other faiths | Access to volunteer Wiccan chaplain and other chaplains shows no discriminatory intent | Claim dismissed; no plausible discriminatory intent shown |
| RLUIPA – whether the policy imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise | Policy deprives central accommodations for Wiccan practice | Plaintiffs receive other religious accommodations; no substantial burden shown | Claim dismissed; no substantial burden shown |
| Establishment Clause – whether policy improperly favors one religion over others | Policy creates non-neutral criteria, favoring conventional faiths | Prison can provide chaplains without endorsing or preferring religion; neutral administration | Survives dismissal; pleadings show potential Establishment Clause violation on remand |
| California State Constitution – whether claim mirrors Establishment Clause violation | State constitution prohibits establishment; seeks relief similar to Establishment claim | No standing or proper defendant linkage; policies under CDCR control | Remanded; standing issues resolved similarly to Establishment Clause claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972) (prisoners retain First Amendment rights; opportunity sufficient if reasonable)
- O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987) (institutional objectives limit religious exercise rights)
- Ward v. Walsh, 1 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1993) (no affirmative obligation to provide the chaplain of choice)
- Toombs, 827 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1987) (no equality requirement to provide every faith’s counselor)
- McCollum v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 647 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2011) (context for Establishment Clause analysis of prison chaplaincy policy)
- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (Establishment Clause applies to states; no preference among religions)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements: injury in fact, traceability, redressability)
- Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005) (substantial burden standard in RLUIPA context)
- Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2008) (RLUIPA burden analysis; alternatives and accommodations considered)