Anthony Wright v. Kenneth Lassiter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-ct-03245-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999756278]. Mailed to: Anthony Wright. [15-6958]

Appeal: 15-6958

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/17/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6958

ANTHONY WRIGHT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KENNETH E. LASSITER; CARLTON B. JOYNER; VAN MCCULLOUGH;
BETTY BROWN; R. SPEER; B. VINES; TERRI C. STRATTON,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-ct-03245-D)

Submitted:

October 29, 2015

Decided:

February 17, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Anthony Wright, Appellant Pro Se.
Judith Maria Estevez,
Assistant Attorney General, Kimberly D. Grande, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6958

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/17/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Anthony Wright, a North Carolina inmate, filed a complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the Religious Land Use
and

Institutionalized

§ 2000cc-5

(2012)

officials

Persons

(RLUIPA),

substantially

Act,

42

alleging

burdened

his

U.S.C.
that

§ 2000cc

several

religious

to

prison

exercise

by

prohibiting him and other Rastafarian inmates from celebrating
certain

holy

days

with

a

communal

feast.

The

district

court

granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground
that Wright failed to make a prima facie showing that defendants
substantially

burdened

his

religious

exercise.

We

affirm

in

part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.
RLUIPA analysis proceeds in two steps. First, the inmate
“bears

the

initial

policy

exacts

a

burden

to

substantial

demonstrate
burden

on

that

the

religious

prison’s

exercise.”

Incumaa v. Stirling, 791 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2015). “If the
inmate clears this hurdle, the burden shifts to the government
to prove its policy furthers a compelling governmental interest
by the least restrictive means.” Id.
The district court reasoned that because the prison allowed
Wright other ways of exercising his religious beliefs, including
weekly worship and private prayer, the denial of the holy feasts
did

not

“RLUIPA’s

amount

to

a

‘substantial

substantial
burden’
2

burden

inquiry

under
asks

RLUIPA.
whether

But
the

Appeal: 15-6958

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/17/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

government has substantially burdened religious exercise . . .
not whether the RLUIPA claimant is able to engage in other forms
of

religious

exercise.”

Holt

v.

Hobbs,

135

S.

Ct.

853,

862

(2015). The district court’s reliance on alternative means of
worship

was

therefore,

at

least

with

respect

to

the

RLUIPA

claim, in error. We accordingly vacate its judgment.
On remand, if the district court concludes that Wright has
demonstrated

that

the

prison’s

denial

of

his

proposed

holy

feasts constitutes a substantial burden under RLUIPA, then it
should consider whether that burden “is the least restrictive
means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest.” 42
U.S.C.

§ 2000cc-1.

This

is

an

exacting

standard,

Holt,

135

S. Ct. at 864, but it is not applied without some measure of
deference.
urgency

of

“Lawmakers

supporting

discipline,

order,

RLUIPA

safety,

were
and

mindful

security

of

in

the

penal

institutions.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 723 (2005).
The

Act’s

standards

are

therefore

to

be

applied

with

“due

deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail
administrators
procedures

to

in

establishing

maintain

good

necessary

order,

security

regulations
and

and

discipline,

consistent with consideration of costs and limited resources.”
Id.
With respect to Wright’s § 1983 First Amendment claim, we
note

that

while

“the

availability
3

of

alternative

means

of

Appeal: 15-6958

Doc: 17

practicing

Filed: 02/17/2016

religion

is

a

Pg: 4 of 5

relevant

consideration,”

Holt,

135

S. Ct. at 862, it is not the only consideration. Rather it is
one

of

four

factors

used

to

evaluate

the

constitutional

reasonableness of prison regulations. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.
78, 89-91 (1987). We therefore vacate and remand the district
court’s
§ 1983

grant

of

claim.

summary

On

judgment

remand,

the

to

defendants

district

court

on

Wright’s

should

apply

Turner’s four-factor test in the first instance.
While we vacate the district court’s judgment with respect
to these two issues, we affirm with respect to others. We affirm
to the extent that Wright seeks monetary damages from defendants
for wrongfully violating RLUIPA, Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d
182, 189 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009), and to the extent that he seeks
monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from defendants in their
official capacities. Cromer v. Brown, 88 F.3d 1315, 1332 (4th
Cir.

1996).

Wright’s

We

motions

also
for

affirm
an

the

audit

district
and

for

court’s
an

denial

order

of

removing

Defendant Stratton from her position pending resolution of the
case.
Our

opinion

does

not

prohibit

the

parties

from

further

developing the summary judgment record on remand. We conclude,
however, that the court improperly granted summary judgment on
the ground that Wright has not made a prima facie showing that
the

prison

substantially

burdened
4

his

religious

exercise.

We

Appeal: 15-6958

Doc: 17

dispense

with

contentions

are

Filed: 02/17/2016

oral

argument

adequately

Pg: 5 of 5

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
VACATED IN PART;
AND REMANDED

5