2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-9-2008 

# Rob e r t S mith v

. K e nneth K y le r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1731

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ro be r t S mith v

. Ke nne th K

y le r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 383. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/383CL D- 3 0 3 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 1731

___________ RO BE RT T . S M I T H,

A ppel l ant v . K E N N E T H K Y L E R ; R A Y E A R L ST O N , i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 0898) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le T h o m a s I. V a n a sk ie

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 Sept ember25, 2008 A M B R O , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober9, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM R obertT . Sm i th i s a R as t afa r i an i nm at e conf i ned atthe St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atH unt i ngdon ( “SC I - H unt i ngdon”) . I n 2003, he fi l ed a c om pl ai ntal l egi ng t hatT he t erm “Fai th G r oup L eade r ” al s o i ncl udes s t aff and contr actempl oy ees w ho l ead 1 i nm at e w orshi p servi ces. 2 SC I - H unt i ngdon’ s Super i nt endentand Faci l i tyC hapl ai ncyPr ogr am D i r ect orvi ol at ed the R el i gi ous L and U s e and I ns t i tut i onal i zed Per s ons A ct , 42 U . S. C . §§ 2000cc e ts eq. (“ R L U IP A ” ), an d th e F irst a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts, b yre f u sin g to p e rm it w e e k ly gr oup r el i gi ous s ervi ces forR as t afa r i ans . H e s oughtonl yi nj unct i ve r el i ef. T he U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the M i dd l e D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a grant ed the defen dan t s’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . Sm i th fi l ed a t i m el ypr o s e appe al . Forthe fol l ow i ng r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s (“ D O C ” ) p e rm its in m a tes to w o rsh ip as a group i f t he servi ces ar e con du ct ed b ya C hap l ai n. T he C hap l ai n m aybe h i red as a ful l - orpart - t i m e empl oy ee ( a “Fac i l i tyC hapl ai n, ”) oron a contr actbas i s ( a “Cont r act C hap l ai n”). A ccordi ng t o the D O C ’s A dm i nis trat or for R el i gion and V olunt eer Servi ces, the D O C w i l l hi r e a Chapl ai n t o per form the s ervi ces forthe “l ar ges tm aj orfai th gr oups w i thi n a fa ci l i ty . ” A tSC I - H unt i ngt on, the D O C has hi r ed C hapl ai ns t o pr ovi de r el i gi ous se rv ice s f

o r th e f o llo w in g g ro u p s (a p p ro x im a te n u m b e r o f w e e k lya tten d e e s in par enthes es ) : C athol i cs ( 60) ; Pr ot es t ant s ( 125) ; M us l i m s ( 175) ; and N at i ve A m er i cans ( 25) . B eca us e of l i m i t ed r es our ces , the D O C w i l l notpayforr el i gi ous l eade r s fors m al l er gr oups . I ns t ead, r el i gi ous s ervi ces forthes e gr oups m us tbe l ed byan appr oved, vol unt eer o u ts id e re lig io u s le a d e r ( a “ F a ith G ro u p L e a d e r” ). I n “ e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s ,” 13

s uch as w hen the Fai th G r oup L eade ri s i l l , a pr i s onerappr oved bythe fa ci l i tym ayl ead a r el i gi ous s ervi ce. A tSC I - H unt i ngt on, a Fai th G r oup L eade rvol unt ar i l ypr ovi des r el i gi ous s ervi ces forJ ew s ( 12) , M es s i ani c J ew s ( 15) , J ehovah W i tnes s es ( 7) , and B u d d h ists (6 ). In a d d iti o n to g ro u p w o rsh ip , the D O C a llo w s in m a tes to m e e t p e rso n a lly w i th a des i gnat ed R el i gi ous A dvi s or , an i ndi vi dual fr om out s i de the pr i s on w ho has r ece i ved endor s ementfr om a fa i th gr oup t o pr ovi de r el i gi ous couns el i ng and gui dance . In m a tes se e k in g a n a c c o m m o d a tio n b a se d o n re lig io n m u st s u b m it an In m a te R el i gi ous A ccomm odat i on For m ( D C - 52) t o the R el i gi ous A ccomm odat i on R evi ew C o m m ittee, w h o se re co m m en d ati o n is fo rw ard ed to R eg ion al D ep u tyS ec retaryfo r a d e c i s i o n . I n a d d i t i o n t o S mi th , o n l ytwo o th e ri n ma t e s a tS CI - Hu n t i n g t o n s u b mi t t e d DC52 form s r eques t i ng R as t afa r i an s ervi ces . T hos e r eques t s w er e deni ed. A R as t afa r i an c h a p lain e m p lo y e d b yth e N e w Y o rk D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s in d ica ted th a t h e w o u ld vol unt ar i l ypr ovi de r el i gi ous s ervi ces atSC I - H unt i ngt on i f the D O C pai d hi s tr avel exp enses. T he D O C refused t o p aytho se expe nses. II. W e re v iew d e n o v o an o rde r gra n ti n g su m m aryjud g m en t. S ee S alda n a v . K M art C orp. , 260 F. 3d 228, 231 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr operw hen, vi ew i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the nonmovi ng party , ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tand the movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . K auche rv. C ountyof B ucks , 455 F. 3d 418, 423 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ; Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . O nce the4

m ovi ng partyhas carr i ed the i ni t i al bur den of s how i ng thatno genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac texi s t s , the “nonmovi ng partycannotr el yupon concl us oryal l egat i ons i n i t s pl eadi ngs o r in m e m o ra n d a a n d b rie f s to e sta b lish a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t.” P a sto re v . B e ll T el . C o. of P a. , 24 F . 3d 50 8, 51 1-12 (3d C i r. 19 94 ). R at her, the n on m ov i ng party“m ust m ake a s how i ng s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h the exi s t ence of eve ryel ementes s ent i al t o hi s cas e, b a s e d o n th e a f

f i d a v i t s o rb yth e d e p o s i t i o n s a n d a d mi s s i o n s o n f i l e . ” Ha r t e rv . GAF C orp. , 967 F. 2d 846, 852 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . O nl yevi dence admi s s i bl e attr i al m aybe cons i der ed i n rul i ng on a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . See Phi l bi n v. T r ans U ni on C o rp., 1 0 1 F . 3 d 9 5 7 , 9 6 1 n . 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). III . Sm i th al l eged thatthe def endant s vi ol at ed hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o fr ee e x e rc ise o f

h is f a ith . P riso n in m a tes d o n o t f o rf e it th e ir c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to f re e ly exer ci s e thei rr el i gi on w hen theyent erthe pr i s on gat es . See C ruz v. B et o, 405 U . S. 319 (19 7 2 ) (pe r cu ri am ). Inc arc era ted in m ates, ho w ev er, en joytheir ri g h ts un d er a m o re l i mi t e d f r a mew ork tha n the a ve r a ge c i t i z e n. Se e O ’ Lone v. Es t a t e of Sha ba z z , 48 2 U. S. 342, 348 ( 1987) . I ndeed, the fa ctof i ncar cer at i on and the val i d penol ogi cal obj ect i ves of det err ence of cr i m e, r ehabi l i t at i on of pr i s oner s , and i ns t i tut i onal s ecur i tyj us t i fy l i m i t at i ons on the exe r ci s e of c ons t i tut i onal r i ght s byi nm at es . See D eH artv. H orn, 227 F .3 d 4 7 , 5 0 -5 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (e n b a n c ). A n a lleg e d re stric tio n o n a n in m a te’ s rig h t to f re e e x e rc ise o f

re lig io n w ill b e u p h e ld “ if it i s re a so n a b lyre late d to leg iti m a te5

penol ogi cal i nt er es t s . ” O ’ L one, 482 U . S. at349 ( ci t i ng T urnerv. Safl ey , 482 U . S. 78, 89 (1987 )) . In eval uati ng the reasonab l eness of a p ri son regu l at i on , w e con si der fou r fact ors: ( 1) w hetherther e i s a “va l i d, r at i onal connec t i on betw een the pr i s on r egul at i on and the legiti m ate g o v ern m en tal interest pu t fo rw ard to justi fyit ”; (2) “w h ethe r th ere are al t ernat i ve means of exe r ci s i ng the r i ghtthatr emai n open t o pr i s on i nm at es ”; ( 3) “the i m pactacc om m odat i on . . . w i l l have on gua r ds and otheri nm at es , and on the al l ocat i on o f p riso n re so u rc e s g e n e ra lly ” ; (4 ) w h e th e r th e re a re “ re a d ya ltern a tiv e s th a t co u ld f u lly acc om m odat e[] the pr i s oner ’ s r i ght s atde mi ni m i s cos tt o val i d penol ogi cal i nt er es t s . ” T urner482 U . S. at89- 91 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . N ot abl y , t he r es tr i ct i on m us tbe neutr al . I d. at90; s ee a l s o M ay fi el d v. T exas D ep’ tof C r i m i nal Ju sti ce , 5 2 9 F . 3 d 5 9 9 , 6 0 8 -09 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e agr ee thatSm i th’ s fr ee e xer ci s e r i ght s w er e notvi ol at ed bythe D O C ’ s pol i cy to p ro v id e C h a p lain s f

o r o n lyth e lar g e st m a

jo r f a ith g ro u p s a n d to p ro h ib it g ro u p w o rsh ip in the ab sen ce o f a n ap p rov ed , v o lun teer F aith G rou p L ea d er. T h e D istri ct C o u rt corr ect l ynot ed thatthe D O C has a l egi t i m at e i nt er es ti n m anagi ng l i m i t ed fi nanci al r es our ces and i n m ai nt ai ni ng pr i s on s ecur i ty . See Thornbur gh v. A bbot t , 490 U . S. 401, 415 ( 1989) . T hos e i nt er es t s ar e r at i onal l yconnec t ed t o the D O C pol i cyof pr ovi di ng c h a p lain s b a se d o n th e n u m b e r o f in m a tes in a p a rticu lar re lig io u s g ro u p w h o w o u ld r egul ar l yatt end s ervi ces . See B ar anow s ki v. H art , 486 F. 3d 112, 121 ( 5th C i r . 2007) ( s t at i ng thatpr i s on pol i cyof pr ohi bi t i ng i nm at es fr om l eadi ng r el i gi ous s ervi ces w i thout6

th e a ss ista n c e o f

a ra b b i o r a p p ro v e d o u tsid e v o lu n tee r w a s lo g ica llyc o n n e c ted to penol ogi cal conce r ns of s ecur i ty , s t aff , and s pace l i m i t at i ons ) ; A nder s on v. A ngel one, 123 F. 3d 1197, 1199 ( 9th C i r . 1997) ( “R equi r i ng an out s i de mi ni s t ert o l ead r el i gi ous a c tiv itya m o n g in m a tes u n d o u b ted lyc o n trib u tes to p riso n se c u rity .”). In a d d iti o n , S m ith h a s a ltern a tiv e m e a n s o f p ra c ticin g h is re lig io n . T h e re c o rd in d ica tes th a t, su b jec t to var i ous D O C di r ect i ves , R as t afa r i an i nm at es ar e perm i t t ed t o m ai nt ai n r el i gi ous books a n d m a ter ials in th e ir c e lls, ca n e lec t to h a v e a P e rso n a l R e lig io u s A d v iso r w o rsh ip w ith them, and mays eek e xempt i ons fr om the D O C hai rl ength r equi r ement . See D eH art , 227 F. 3d at55 ( hol di ng thatcourtm us tcons i derw hetherthe i nm at e has “al t ernat e means of pr act i ci ng hi s orherr el i gi on gener al l y , notw hether[the] i nm at e has al t ernat i ve means of e n g a g in g in [ a n y ] p a rt ic u la r p ra c tic e .” ). Fur therm or e, the D O C per s uas i vel yas s ert s thatpr ovi di ng gr oup r el i gi ous s ervi ces t o R ast afari an inm at es w ou l d im po se a subst anti al bu rden on pri son st aff an d resources, and thatther e ar e no r eadyal t ernat i ves . Fori ns t ance , i f the D O C pai d fora R as t afa r i an c h a p lain b u t d id n o t p ro v id e a c h a p lain f o r sim ilarly -siz e d g ro u p s, R a sta f a ria n s c o u ld appea rt o be fa vor ed, a per cept i on thatcoul d negat i vel yaff ectpr i s on m or al e and di s ci pl i ne. See A dki ns v. K as par , 393 F. 3d 559, 565 ( 5th C i r . 2004) . B ut , pr ovi di ng a chapl ai n foral l r ecogni zed r el i gi ons atSC I - H unt i ngt on, r egar dl es s of the numberof i nm at es w ho w i s h t o att end s ervi ces , coul d have a “s i gni fi cant‘ r i ppl e ef fec t ’ ” on pr i s onO n appea l , Sm i th as s ert s forthe fi r s tt i m e thatN at i ve A m er i cans atSC I - H unt i ngt on 2 a r e p e r mi t t e d t o wo r s h i p a s a g r o u p u n d e rth e s u p e r v i s i o n o f th e F a c i l i tyCh a p l a i n . He cl ai m s thata s i m i l argr oup s ervi ce c oul d be conduc t ed forR as t afa r i ans . W e w i l l not cons i deri s s ues r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al . I n anyevent , Sm i th has pr ovi ded no e v id e n c e to su p p o rt h is c laim s a n d h a s f a iled to d e m o n stra te th a t p e rm itt in g th e F a c ili ty C h a p lain to su p e rv ise a R a sta f a ria n se rv ice w o u ld im p o se n o m o re th a n a d e m in im is c o st. 7 r es our ces . T urner , 482 U . S. at90; s ee a l s o A dki ns , 393 F. 3d at565 ( s t at i ng that“no

2 obvi ous , eas yal t ernat i ves w oul d acc om m odat e both” the i nm at es ’ r eques tfor , i nt eral i a, s epar at e r el i gi ous s ervi ces and the admi ni s tr at i ve nee ds of the Texas D epart m entof J u s tic e ). S m ith co n tend s tha t th ere is a fa ctua l dispu te as to th e n eu tr ali tyo f th e D O C ’s reg u lat ion s. T h e D O C su b m itted e v iden ce ind icati n g itp rov ides p aid c h ap lai n s at S C IH unt i ngt on w hen the numberof i nm at es w ho r egul ar l yatt end r el i gi ous s ervi ces equal s or exce eds 25. A ccor di ng t o t he D O C , onl ythr ee Rast afa r i an i nm at es have f or m al l yas ked to p arti cipa te i n g rou p reli g iou s serv ices. S m ith d ispu tes th ese n u m b ers. I n an u n sw o rn d e c lar a tio n , S m ith id e n tifie d 3 7 R a sta f a ria n in m a tes w h o h a d b e e n g ra n ted h a ir len g th exempt i ons , 11 i nm at es w ho had bee n gr ant ed t empora ryhai rl ength exempt i ons , 10 i nm at es w hos e hai rl ength exempt i on r eques t s w er e pendi ng, and 17 i nm at es w ho had r ece i ved R el i gi ous A ccomm odat i on For m s ( pr es um abl yt o fi l e hai rl ength exempt i on r eques t s ) . I m por t ant l y , how ever , the D O C bas es i t s deci s i on t o payfora chapl ai n on t he num berof i nm at es w ho form al l yexpr es s thei ri nt ent i on t o r egul ar l yatt end r el i gi ous serv ices, no t on the n u m b er o f p ri so n ers w h o claim ad h ere n ce to a p arti cu lar rel igion . InI n oppos i t i on t o t he mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , Sm i th al s o pr ovi ded a l ett erfr om 3 H e n ryD e n n iso n , an o th e r in m a te a t S C I-H u n tin g to n , tha t id e n tifie s 3 6 in m a tes w h o w o u ld “l i ke t o part i ci pat e i n R as t afa r i an w or s hi p s ervi ces and R as t a R el i gi ous C l as s . ” H ear s ay evi dence pr oduced i n an af fi davi toppos i ng s um m aryj udgm entm aybe cons i der ed i f the o u t- o f -c o u rt d e c la ra n t c o u ld la te r p re s e n t th e e v id e n c e th ro u g h d ir e c t te s tim o n y , i . e. , i n a form that“w oul d be admi s s i bl e attr i al . ” W i l l i ams v. B or ough of W es tC hes t er , 891 F. 2d 458, 466 n. 12 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . B eca us e the i ntr oduct i on of D enni s on’ s t es t i m onyt o pr ove the truth of the 36 i nm at es ’ w i s hes w oul d notbe admi s s i bl e attr i al , the l ett ers houl d not b e c o n s id e re d o n a s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n . S e e B la c k b u rn v . U n ite d P a rc e l S e rv ., 1 7 9 F .3 d 8 1 , 9 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 8 appar entr ecogni t i on of thi s m or e l i m i t ed foc us , Sm i th al s o s ubm i t t ed af fi davi t s of 34 SC I - H unt i ngt on i nm at es w ho expr es s ed an i nt er es ti n r egul ar l yatt endi ng R as t afa r i an s ervi ces . B utonl yfourof thos e i nm at es as s ert ed thattheyhad r eques t ed R as t afa r i an

3 se rv ice s, a n d th e o n e in m a te w h o sta ted th a t th e re q u e st w a s in w riting d id n o t in d ica te thati tw as m ade on a D C - 52 form . W i thoutevi dence thatthes e i nm at es fol l ow ed the e sta b lish e d p ro c e d u re s f o r se e k in g a re lig io u s a c c o m m o d a tio n , the a f f id a v its d o n o t cr e a te a g e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te ri a l f

a c t c o n c e rn in g th e n e u tr a lity o f th e D O C ’s p o lic ie s . I V. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o the def endant s on Sm i th’ s R L U I PA cl ai m s . R L U I PA pr ohi bi t s the governm entfr om i m pos i ng a s ubs t ant i al bur den on a pr i s oner ’ s r el i gi ous exer ci s e, even i f the bur den r es ul t s fr om a rul e of ge ner al appl i cabi l i ty , unl es s the governm ents how s thatthe bur den i s i n fur ther ance of a compel l i ng governm enti nt er es tand i s the l eas tr es tr i ct i ve means of further i ng that i nt er es t . See W as hi ngt on v. K l em, 497 F. 3d 272, 277 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . A “s ubs t ant i al bur den” e xi s t s w her e: 1) a fol l ow eri s for ced t o choos e betw een f ol l ow i ng the pr ece pt s of9

hi s r el i gi on and for fei t i ng benef i t s otherw i s e gene r al l yavai l abl e t o otheri nm at es ver s us abandoni ng one of the pr ece pt s of hi s r el i gi on i n or dert o r ece i ve a be nefi t ; or2) the governm entput s s ubs t ant i al pr es s ur e on an a dher entt o s ubs t ant i al l ym odi fyhi s behavi or a n d to v io la te h is b e lie f s . Id . a t 2 8 0 . S m ith c laim s th a t th e D O C p o licie s a n d re g u latio n s s u b sta n tiallyb u rd e n e d h is r el i gi ous exer ci s e. I m por t ant l y , how ever , the abs ence of w eekl ygr oup R as t afa r i an r el i gi ous s ervi ces r es ul t s fr om i nadequa t e demand fors uch s ervi ces and fr om “a de arth of qual i fi ed out s i de vol unt eer s avai l abl e t o go t o [SC I - H unt i ngt on] , notfr om s om e rul e or r egul at i on thatdi r ect l ypr ohi bi t s s uch gather i ngs . ” A dki ns , 393 F. 3d at571. Sm i th has n o t b e e n d e n ied a b e n e f it b e c a u se o f

h is re lig io u s b e lief

s, n o r h a s h e b e e n f

o rc e d to m odi fyhi s behavi or . C f. B ar anow s ki v. H art , 486 F. 3d 112, 125 ( 5th C i r . 2007) ( “G i ven the s tr ong s i gni fi canc e of ke epi ng kos heri n the J ew i s h fai th, the [pr i s on’ s ] pol i cyof not p rov iding k o sh er f

o o d m ayb e d ee m ed to w o rk a su b stan ti al bu rde n u p o n B ara n o w sk i’ s pr act i ce of

hi s fai th. ”) . I n addi t i on, as not ed above , Sm i th m aym ai nt ai n r el i gi ous books a n d m a ter ials in h is c e ll, h e is p e rm itt e d to h a v e a P e rso n a l R e lig io u s A d v iso r w o rsh ip w ith h im , a n d h e is e lig ib le to s e e k a n e x e m p tio n f ro m th e D O C h a irle n g th re q u ir e m e n t. C f. M a y f ield , 5 2 9 F .3 d a t 6 1 4 -1 5 (“ A n in a b ili tyto e x e rc ise o th e r m e a n s o f . . . w o rsh ip i ncr eas es the r el at i ve bur den i m pos ed bythe . . . pol i cypr event i ng gr oup m eet i ngs i n t he a b s e n c e o f

a n o u ts id e v o lu n te e r.” ). As s u mi n g th a tth e DOC ’ s p o l i c ya n d r e g u l a t i o n i mp o s e a s u b s t a n t i a l b u r d e n , we10

w oul d agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatthe D O C has demonstr at ed thatthe r es tr i ct i ons ar e the l eas tr es tr i ct i ve means of adva nci ng a compel l i ng governm ent al i nt er es t . W hen cons i der i ng thes e fa ct or s , w e ow e “due defe r ence t o the expe r i ence and expe r t i s e of p riso n a n d jail a d m in istra to rs in e sta b lish in g n e c e ss a ryre g u latio n s a n d p ro c e d u re s to m ai nt ai n good or der , s ecur i tyand di s ci pl i ne, cons i s t entw i th cons i der at i on of cos t s and l i m i t ed r es our ces . ” C ut t erv. W i l ki ns on, 544 U . S. 709, 722 ( 2005) ( quot i ng 146 C ong. R ec. S7774, S7775 ( J ul y27, 2000) ( j oi nts t at ementof Sen. H at ch and Sen. K ennedyon R L U I PA ) ) . T he D O C m ai nt ai ns thati t s r egul at i on m andat i ng thatr el i gi ous s ervi ces be su p e rv ise d b ya C h a p lain o r F a ith G ro u p L e a d e r p re v e n ts th e c re a tio n o f a n a u th o rity s tructur e among i nm at es , ther ebycontr i but i ng t o pr i s on s ecur i ty . See B ar anow s ki , 486 F. 3d at121 ( 5th C i r . 2007) . I n addi t i on, hi r i ng a C hapl ai n t o per form r el i gi ous s ervi ces o n lyf o r th e “ lar g e st m a

jo r f a ith g ro u p s w ith in a f

a c ili ty ,” b u t p e rm itt in g sm a ller g ro u p s to w orshi p toget her und er the d i rect i on of a v olunt eer Fai th G roup L eader, i s the leas t r es tr i ct i ve means of further i ng the D O C ’ s i nt er es t s . T hi s pol i cyi s a fa i rm eans of all o ca ti n g sca rce p ri so n reso u rce s b ec au se, as the D O C ex p lai n s, “to p ay[f o r a R as t afa r i an C hapl ai n] w oul d r equi r e the D epart m entt o payexpens es fornum er ous ot her r el i gi ous l eade r s . . . orel s e be e xpos ed t o a cha r ge of r el i gi ous favor i t i s m . ” V. Fi nal l y , Sm i th al l eged thatthe D O C vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s underthe Equal Pr ot ect i on C l ause bypreven t i ng him from w orshi ping w i th o ther R ast afari ans, si nce C hri st i ans,J e w s , M u s lim s , a n d N a tiv e A m e ri c a n s a re p e rm itte d to a tte n d g ro u p re lig io u s s e rv ic e s .

B u t h e h a s f

a iled to p ro v id e a n yc o m p e ten t su m m a ryju d g m e n t ev id e n c e th a t sim ilarly s i tuat ed fa i ths ar e tr eat ed di ffe r ent l yfr om R as t afa r i ans . See C i tyof C l eburne v. C l eburne L i vi ng C tr . , 473 U . S. 432, 439 ( 1985) ( s t at i ng thatthe Equal Pr ot ect i on cl aus e does not r equi r e thatal l per s ons be tr eat ed al i ke, butr atherthat“al l per s ons s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed s houl d be tr eat ed al i ke. ”) ; s ee a l s o C ruz, 405 U . S. at322 n. 2 ( r ecogni zi ng that“[a ] s peci al chape l orpl ace of w or s hi p need notbe pr ovi ded foreveryfai th r egar dl es s of s i ze; nor m us ta chapl ai n, pr i es t , orm i ni s t erbe pr ovi ded w i thoutr egar d t o the ext entof the d e m a n d .”). A c c o rd in g ly , w e a g re e th a t S m ith h a s f a iled to sta te a n e q u a l p ro tec tio n c laim s uffi ci entt o s ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm ent . See W i l l i ams v. M or t on, 343 F. 3d 212, 221- 22 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). V I. Forthe above - s t at ed r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthe appe al pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m . See I . O . P. 10. 6.