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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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