562 F. App'x 806
11th Cir.2014Background
- Tony Lee Smith, an Alabama inmate and practitioner of Odinism, sought prison recognition and accommodations (e.g., outdoor worship area with fire pit, sacred container, leather study folder, quartz crystal) from the ADOC Religious Activities Review Committee (RARC).
- RARC recognized Odinism as a religion but denied some accommodation requests (notably the outdoor fire pit and several ritual items), often because Smith did not provide authoritative sources showing the items were religiously required.
- Smith filed a § 1983 suit and RLUIPA claims against state officials alleging burdens on religious exercise, equal protection violations, retaliation, Establishment Clause injury from a faith-based dorm program, and due-process deprivations (including an STG designation and confiscation/destruction of property).
- The district court ordered special reports, limited discovery, granted summary judgment for defendants, and dismissed several supervisory defendants; Smith appealed the denial of discovery and summary judgment on several claims.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it found no abuse of discretion in limiting discovery and no genuine disputes of material fact that would defeat summary judgment on Smith’s RLUIPA, Equal Protection, retaliation, Establishment Clause, and Due Process claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RLUIPA/substantial burden (denial of four ritual items) | Denial of sacred container, leather folder, crystal, fire pit substantially burdens Odinist worship; requiring authoritative sources is a heightened burden | Denials based on lack of authoritative proof that items are religiously required; requests denied produced only inconvenience, not substantial burden | Affirmed: Smith failed to show items were essential or that denial did more than inconvenience; personal assertions insufficient |
| Equal Protection (comparative treatment re: fire, boxes, food) | Native American and other faiths get fire/boxes/food; Odinists were treated less favorably | Denials were neutral: candle provided, research showed items not required, no evidence of discriminatory intent | Affirmed: No proof of discriminatory intent or that Smith was similarly situated and intentionally treated differently |
| Retaliation (transfers, disciplinary write-up, confiscation) | Transfers and sanctions were retaliatory responses to lawsuits/grievances | Transfers and sanctions were for neutral, non-retaliatory reasons (routine swaps, valid contraband classification, witnesses unavailable) | Affirmed: Temporal and evidentiary gaps; defendants showed they would have acted absent protected conduct |
| Establishment Clause (faith-based honor dorm) | Dorm grants class credit for specified religions but excludes Odinism, effectively preferring some religions | Dorm’s primary purpose is secular (life/job skills); spiritual element is ancillary; no excessive entanglement | Affirmed: Program passed Lemon test — secular purpose, neutral effect, no excessive entanglement |
| Due process — STG designation and parole denial | False STG "Southern Brotherhood" designation deprived Smith of liberty/property and led to parole denial | Prison classifications and parole decisions are discretionary; no protected liberty interest or atypical hardship shown | Affirmed: No protected liberty interest in classification or parole; no atypical, severe change shown |
| Due process — post-deprivation remedy (confiscated artwork) | Post-deprivation state remedy inadequate because of alleged animus and official denial of the incident | State Board of Adjustment provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy under Alabama law | Affirmed: Hudson controls; state procedures are adequate, so no § 1983 due process claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir.) (background RLUIPA decision recognizing Odinism in prison)
- Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2011) (district court discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Iraola & CIA, S.A. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 325 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2003) (denial of further discovery proper when additional discovery unlikely to help)
- Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (RLUIPA protects institutionalized persons and requires compelling interest/least restrictive means)
- Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2004) (substantial-burden inquiry and limits on relying solely on a prisoner’s sincere belief)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (proof of discriminatory intent required for Equal Protection claim)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (no Fourth Amendment privacy in prison cells; state post-deprivation remedies can preclude § 1983 property claims)