Zackary Blankenship v. Lieutenant Setzer
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00126-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000043246].. [16-6766]
Appeal: 16-6766
Doc: 27
Filed: 03/16/2017
Pg: 1 of 9
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6766
ZACKARY ALLEN BLANKENSHIP,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
LIEUTENANT SETZER, Supervisor at the Jail; SERGEANT LAWS,
Supervisor at Jail; SERGEANT SMITH, Supervisor at Jail;
STAFF SERGEANT CARSWELL, Supervisor at the Jail,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
MAJOR BILLY BOWMAN, Administrator at the Jail,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (1:15-cv-00126-FDW)
Submitted:
March 6, 2017
Before GREGORY,
Judges.
Chief
Judge,
Decided:
and
TRAXLER
and
March 16, 2017
WYNN,
Circuit
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David M. Shapiro, NORTHWESTERN PRITZKER SCHOOL OF LAW, Chicago,
Illinois; Ameri R. Klafeta, EIMER STAHL LLP, Chicago, Illinois,
Appeal: 16-6766
Doc: 27
Filed: 03/16/2017
Pg: 2 of 9
for Appellant. Sean F. Perrin, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE,
LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 16-6766
Doc: 27
Filed: 03/16/2017
Pg: 3 of 9
PER CURIAM:
Zackary
Allen
Blankenship
appeals
the
district
court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in his
civil
action.
Sergeant
Josh
Confinement
Blankenship
Smith,
Facility
sued
officers
at
Sergeant
the
Burke
(“Burke-Catawba”),
Ginger
Laws
Catawba
alleging
and
District
that
their
refusal to permit him to carry his Bible on the transport van to
Catawba County Jail (“County Jail”) interfered with the practice
of his religion. 1
Defendants moved for summary judgment prior to
discovery, arguing that their actions were reasonably related to
a
legitimate
governmental
interest.
With
regard
to
Blankenship’s First Amendment claim, the district court granted
Defendants’ motion, concluding that Defendants’ actions survived
rational
basis
review.
The
court
also
determined
that
Blankenship had not alleged a claim under the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc
to
2000cc-5
(2012),
and
that,
even
if
he
had,
Defendants’
actions did not impose a substantial burden on Blankenship’s
religious exercise. 2
On
appeal,
Blankenship argues that the
1
Blankenship’s complaint contained other causes of action
against other staff members, but he does not pursue those claims
on appeal.
2
The complaint was filed on a prison-issued form for
actions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012).
The form states
that the complainant “MAY, BUT NEED NOT, GIVE LEGAL ARGUMENTS OR
(Continued)
3
Appeal: 16-6766
Doc: 27
Filed: 03/16/2017
Pg: 4 of 9
district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of
Defendants
claims.
with
respect
to
his
First
Amendment
and
RLUIPA
We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for
further proceedings.
“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo, applying the same standard as the district court . . .
[and] construing the evidence in the light most favorable to
. . . the non-movant[s].”
Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes, LLC, 775
F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2014).
Summary judgment is appropriate
if “there is no genuine dispute as to material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a).
We conclude that Blankenship adequately alleged a RLUIPA
claim.
Blankenship’s pro se complaint must be afforded liberal
interpretation.
curiam).
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
In his complaint, Blankenship averred that Defendants
refused to allow him to take his Bible on the transport van on
several
trips
to
the
County
Jail,
violated his exercise of religion.
and
that
those
actions
These facts, along with the
CITE ANY CASES OR STATUTES.”
(J.A. 7).
Blankenship’s failure
to cite RLUIPA in that complaint cannot defeat his claim; this
is especially so because the facts supporting a RLUIPA claim are
in the complaint, and Blankenship cited RLUIPA in his response
to the Defendants’ answer.
4
Appeal: 16-6766
Doc: 27
Filed: 03/16/2017
Pg: 5 of 9
grievances he attached to the complaint, gave Defendants fair
notice
that
Blankenship
was
alleging
a
RLUIPA
claim.
See
Weidman v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 776 F.3d 214, 222 (4th Cir. 2015)
(discussing fair notice).
Turning to Blankenship’s substantive RLUIPA claim, see 42
U.S.C.
§ 2000cc-1(a),
it
is
undisputed
that
Blankenship’s
activities qualify as religious exercise and that he sincerely
holds his beliefs.
(2015)
See Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853, 862
(describing
plaintiff’s
initial
burden).
Thus,
the
burden shifts to Defendants to show that that the challenged
policy
“[is]
interest[]
and
in
.
furtherance
.
.
[is]
of
a
the
compelling
least
governmental
restrictive
means
of
furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
Id. at 863;
see
Cir.
Lovelace
v.
Lee,
472
F.3d
(discussing substantial burden).
appeal
is
whether
Blankenship’s
Defendants’
exercise
of
174,
187
(4th
2006)
Therefore, the only issue on
actions
religion
substantially
and,
if
so,
burdened
whether
Defendants met their burden of proof.
Defendants did not permit Blankenship to bring his Bible
with him during transport to County Jail.
Although the drive
from
hour
Burke-Catawba
to
County
Jail
is
one
in
duration,
Blankenship spent 3 to 4 days at County Jail during each of his
three visits.
Thus, he was deprived of his personal Bible for
5
Appeal: 16-6766
10
Doc: 27
days
religion
in
Filed: 03/16/2017
total. 3
requires
Pg: 6 of 9
Because
him
to
Blankenship
read
and
asserted
study
the
that
Bible
his
daily,
deprivation of a Bible for longer than a period of 24 hours
forced him
to
modify
his
behavior
and
violate
his
beliefs in order to attend his mandatory court dates.
religious
See id.
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Blankenship,
Defendants placed a substantial burden on the exercise of his
religion.
Id.
Although Defendants’ asserted security interest in banning
nonlegal items on the transport van constitutes a compelling
governmental interest, Jehovah v. Clarke, 798 F.3d 169, 178 (4th
Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1829 (2016), we cannot
conclude on the present record that the policy is the least
restrictive means available to achieve that interest.
Blankenship
health
and
proposed
safety
of
alternative
individuals
means
during
of
protecting
transport,
the
including
having guards search his Bible or placing nonlegal materials in
the
front
of
the
van
away
from
prisoners.
Given
that
Burke-Catawba allows legal papers on the transport van but does
not allow any nonlegal papers, it is reasonable to infer that
3
We recognize that Blankenship’s own statements do not
clearly establish whether he had access to a Bible while held at
County Jail. However, interpreting the facts in the light most
favor to Blankenship, he did not have access to a Bible during
his time at County Jail.
6
Appeal: 16-6766
Doc: 27
Burke-Catawba
materials
Filed: 03/16/2017
conducts
at
least
a
prisoners
that
Defendants’
Pg: 7 of 9
bring
onto
evidence
searching
a
Bible
resources
expended
Defendants
offered
does
would
not
transport
the
add
search
evidence
of
how
explain
the
search
the
significantly
during
no
cursory
to
any
van.
burden
the
time
of
or
Moreover,
Blankenship’s
that
process.
remaining
proposal was not viable, and Defendants did not “even assert
that the [p]olicy was the least restrictive means of furthering
the identified compelling interests.”
197, 204 (4th Cir. 2012).
offer
sufficient
proof
Couch v. Jabe, 679 F.3d
Defendants have therefore failed to
that
the
policy
banning
nonlegal
materials on the transport van was the least restrictive means
available to ensure safety.
Turning
next
prisoners
maintain
religion.
O’Lone
(1987).
to
Blankenship’s
their
v.
Id.
First
constitutional
Estate
of
Amendment
right
Shabazz,
482
to
claims,
freedom
U.S.
342,
of
348
Thus, “reasonable opportunities must be afforded to all
prisoners to exercise the religious freedom guaranteed by the
First
Cruz v.
and
Fourteenth
Beto,
405
U.S.
Amendments
319,
322
without
n.2
fear
(1972).
of
penalty.”
Consequently,
states may not adopt “policies that impose a substantial burden
on a prisoner’s right to practice his religion.”
741 F.3d 492, 498 (4th Cir. 2014).
7
Wall v. Wade,
“However, free exercise
Appeal: 16-6766
Doc: 27
restrictions
Filed: 03/16/2017
that
are
Pg: 8 of 9
reasonably
adapted
to
legitimate penological objective are permissible.”
achieving
a
Id. at 499.
In determining whether such a policy passes constitutional
muster, we apply the test developed in Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S.
78,
89-92
(1987)
(setting
forth
four
consider in analyzing First Amendment claim).
F.3d at 499.
factors
courts
See Wall, 741
Although we conclude that—on the present record—
all but the first Turner factor weigh in favor of Blankenship,
we recognize that further discovery may well demonstrate that
there are no practical alternatives to the challenged policy and
that
Blankenship’s
proposed
alternatives
are
not
feasible.
However, Defendants have not yet presented any such evidence.
Furthermore,
we
do
not
violation was de minimis.
intended
to
weed
out
only
believe
that
the
constitutional
The “de minimis . . . threshold is
inconsequential
actions,”
Hill
v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 472-73 (6th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks
omitted).
Christianity
placed
on
and
him
Given
the
Blankenship’s
by
importance
religious
Defendants’
actions
of
the
practice,
Bible
the
significantly
to
burden
impeded
Blankenship’s ability to practice his religion for several days
at a time.
2003).
See Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 257 (3d Cir.
Therefore,
Defendants’
inconsequential.
8
actions
cannot
be
deemed
Appeal: 16-6766
Doc: 27
Filed: 03/16/2017
Pg: 9 of 9
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?