Zackary Blankenship v. Lieutenant Setzer
681 F. App'x 274
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Zackary Blankenship, a prisoner at Burke Catawba District Confinement Facility, alleged that two sergeants refused to let him bring his personal Bible on the transport van to Catawba County Jail for multiple trips.
- Each trip involved a one-hour drive; Blankenship spent 3–4 days at County Jail per visit and alleges he was without his Bible for about 10 days total.
- Blankenship contends his religion requires daily Bible reading and that deprivation for more than 24 hours forced him to violate or modify his religious practice to attend mandatory court dates.
- Defendants enforced a policy allowing legal papers on the van but banning nonlegal papers (including personal religious materials) for security reasons.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants, applying rational-basis review to the First Amendment claim and concluding (1) Blankenship hadn’t stated a RLUIPA claim and (2) even if he had, there was no substantial burden.
- Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding Blankenship adequately alleged a RLUIPA claim, that Defendants likely imposed a substantial burden, and that defendants had not shown the policy was the least restrictive means; remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint adequately pleaded a RLUIPA claim | Complaint facts and attached grievances put defendants on fair notice of a RLUIPA claim | Failure to cite RLUIPA on form means no claim | Pleading was adequate: pro se complaint and grievances gave fair notice; RLUIPA claim plausible |
| Whether defendants’ refusal to allow Bible on transport imposed a substantial burden under RLUIPA | Deprivation >24 hours forced modification of religious practice and thus was a substantial burden | Policy served legitimate security interest; burden not substantial or justified | On present record, deprivation constituted a substantial burden when viewed favorably to plaintiff |
| Whether defendants met RLUIPA strict scrutiny (compelling interest & least restrictive means) | Proposed feasible alternatives (search Bible; place nonlegal items away from prisoners) | Security needs justify banning nonlegal papers on van; policy necessary | Defendants did not show the ban was the least restrictive means; alternatives not rebutted on record |
| First Amendment (Turner) reasonableness of burden | Policy not reasonably related to penological interests given alternatives; burden not de minimis | Policy reasonably adapted to security aims; deference to prison judgments | Majority of Turner factors favor plaintiff on current record; material facts unresolved — remand for development of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (per curiam) (pro se complaints must be liberally construed)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (RLUIPA shifts burden to defendants to show compelling interest and least restrictive means)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (four-factor test for reasonableness of prison regulations burdening constitutional rights)
- O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987) (prisoners retain free exercise rights subject to reasonable penological restrictions)
- Jehovah v. Clarke, 798 F.3d 169 (4th Cir.) (recognizing security as compelling interest in prison religious cases)
- Couch v. Jabe, 679 F.3d 197 (4th Cir.) (defendants must show the policy is the least restrictive means)
- Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes, LLC, 775 F.3d 202 (4th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Weidman v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 776 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2015) (fair notice pleading principles)