A ft erexami ni ng the openi ng br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee- * j udge pane l has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of m a te ri a l a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a); 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca us e i s ther efor e or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 11, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT KAR L DE E KAY,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. N os . 07- 4032 and 07- 4081 NA NC Y B EM I S, RO NA LD S T AM P E R, J E RE M Y HE YWOOD, F NU G REE N, CAS EY BOULT ER, J AN BO DI LY, a n d ESTHER SCHU BE, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF UT AH ( D . C . N O . 2: 05 - C V - 99 5- D S) Subm i t t ed on the br i ef: K ar l D ee K ay , Pr o Se. B efo re HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. * TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge.-2-

K ar l D ee K ay , a U t ah pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se and in fo rm a p a up e ris ( I FP), fi l ed a 42 U . S. C . § 1983 ci vi l r i ght s compl ai ntagai ns ts ever al offi ci al s at th e B o n n e v ill e C o m m u n ityC o rre c tio n a l F a c ili ty(B C C F ), cla im in g m u lti p le depr i vat i ons of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s ar i s i ng fr om hi s i m pr i s onm ent . Fi r s t , he cl ai m ed thatthe defendant s vi 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( R L U I PA ) , 42 U . S. C . §§ 2000cc ets eq. , and hi s Fi r s tA m endment r i ghtt o fr eel yexer ci s e hi s r el i gi on bydeny i ng hi m t ar otcar ds , i ncens e, and re lig io u s b o o k s. S e c o n d , h e a ss e rte d th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts a rre ste d h im o n a p a ro le vi ol at i on us i ng a w arr antbas ed on know i ngl yfal s e i nform at i on and fa br i cat ed evi dence , i n vi ol at i on of the Four th A m endment . T hi r d, he ar gued that defe ndant s s ubj ect ed hi m t o cruel and unus ual puni s hm enti n vi ol at i on of the E i ghth A m endmenti n r et al i at i on forhi s s eeki ng l egal couns el . Fi nal l y , he a v e rre d h is F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts w e re v io late d d u rin g h is p aro le rev o ca ti o n p roc ee d ing s. K ayso u g h t bo th an injun cti o n an d m o n etary d a ma g e s . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i s mi s s e d e a c h c l a i m. H aving j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1, w e affirm i n p art , rever se i n p art , and rem and for further proceedings.“N otw i ths t andi ng anyfi l i ng fee , oranypor t i on ther eof, thatm ayhave 1 been pa i d, the courts hal l di s m i s s the ca s e atanyt i m e i f the courtdet erm i nes that

. . . the ac t i on orappea l . . . fai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m on w hi ch r el i ef maybe g ran ted[ . ]” 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i i) . -3- I . Pro c e dur al Backg r ound P u r s u a n tt o th e c o u r t ’ s s c r e e n i n g f u n c t i o n fo rI F P c a s e s u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(ii), th e d istric t co u rt d ism iss e d K a y ’s c o m p lain t, co n c lu d in g it 1 fa ile d to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h re lie f m a yb e g ra n te d o n fo u r g ro u n d s . T he di s tr i ctcourti ni t i al l ydi s m i s s ed tw o defe ndant s fr om the ac t i on bas ed on K ay ’ s fai l ur e t o s how an “a ffi r m at i ve l i nk” betw een the al l eged c ons t i tut i onal viol at i on and the d efen dan t s. S econ d, the d i stri ctcou rtdis m i ssed the F i rs t A m e n d m e n t cla im b a se d o n K a y ’s fa ilu re to d e m o n stra te h o w th e p ra c tice o f h is r el i gi on w as bur dened bythe deni al of t ar otcar ds and otherm at er i al s . T hi r d, the di s tr i ctcourtthen di s m i s s ed K ay ’ s r emai ni ng cl ai m s bas ed on hi s fai l ur e t o s how th a t h is p a ro le re v o c a tio n w a s in v a lid a te d b ya n o th e r c o u rt . See C row v. P enry , 1 0 2 F .3 d 1 0 8 6 , 1 0 8 7 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). F in a lly , the d istric t co u rt d e n ied h is m ot i on foran i nj unct i on beca us e he w as no l ongerhel d atthe B C C F and thought thathi s m ot i on pr es um ed thathe w oul d be par ol ed and e ventual l ys entback t o the BC CF. K ayappea l ed thi s deci s i on, w hi ch r es ul t ed i n the openi ng of C as e N o. 0 7

– 4 0 3 2 . T w o d a y s b e fo re , h e a lso filed a tim e lym o tio n fo r re c o n sid e ra tio n in the di s tr i ctcourt . C ons trui ng thi s m ot i on as a mot i on t o al t eroramend j udgm ent-4-

underFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 59, the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed i n partand g ra n ted in p a rt th e m o tio n , allo w in g K a yto a m e n d h is c o m p lain t w ith re sp e c t to th e F irst A m e n d m e n t cla im . H e filed a m o tio n fo r a d d iti o n a l ti m e to a m e n d h is compl ai nt , w hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed. K ayfai l ed t o amend hi s compl ai nt w i thi n the t i m e perm i t t ed, and the di s tr i ctcourtagai n di s m i s s ed the cl ai m . K ay appea l ed thi s deci s i on s epar at el y , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n the openi ng of C as e N o. 0 7

– 4 0 8 1 . T h e c a s e s h a v e b e e n c o n s o lid a te d fo r p ro c e d u ra l p u rp o s e s . II . A n a ly sis A . St andard of R evi ew W e r evi ew de novo the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s an I FP com pl ai nt u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B )( ii) fo r fa ilu re to s ta te a c la im . P erki ns v. Kan. D ep'tof C orr. , 16 5 F . 3d 80 3, 80 6 (10th C i r. 19 99 ). “D i sm i ssal of a p ro se compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m i s pr operonl yw her e i ti s obvi ous thatthe pl ai nt i ff c annotpr evai l on the fa ct s he has al l eged a nd i tw oul d be fut i l e t o gi ve hi m an opportuni tyt o amend. ” C url ey v. P erry , 2 4 6 F . 3 d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion o m itted). “In d eterm ining w h ethe r a d ism issal i s p rop er, w e m ustaccep tthe all egati on s of t he co m plai nt as true and con strue tho se al l egat i ons , and anyr eas onabl e i nfer ence s thatm i ghtbe dr aw n fr om them, i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff. ” G ai nes v. St ens eng , 292 F. 3d 1222, 1224 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).-5-

W e appl ythe s ame st andar d of r evi ew fordi s m i s s al s under § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) thatw e empl oyforFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) m o tio n s to d is m is s fo r fa ilu re to s ta te a c la im . See M i t chellv. F arcass , 112 F. 3d 1483, 1490 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( hol di ng the s t andar d of r evi ew forR ul e 12( b) ( 6) and § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(ii) d ism iss a ls a re th e sa m e ). W e re c e n tlyg a v e f u ller m e a n in g to ours t andar d forR ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i ons i n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s 2007 deci s i ons i n B e ll A tl. C o rp . v. Tw o m b ly , 127 S. C t . 1955, 1970 ( 2007) , and E r i cks on v. P ardus , 1 2 7 S . C t. 21 9 7 , 2 2 0 0 (2 0 0 7 ). In th e R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) c o n tex t, “[w ] e l ook forpl aus i bi l i tyi n th[e] compl ai nt . ” Al v a ra d o v . KOB- T V, L . L . C. , N o. 0 6 -2 0 0 1 , 2 0 0 7 U . S . A p p . L E X IS 1 6 7 2 0 , at *7 , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 0 1 9 7 5 2 at *3 (10 th C ir . J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 ) . I n part i cul ar , w e “l ook t o the s peci fi c al l egat i ons i n the compl ai nt t o det erm i ne w hethertheypl aus i bl ys uppor ta l egal cl ai m forr el i ef. ” Id . at*8 n. 2. R atherthan adj udgi ng w hethera cl ai m i s “i m pr obabl e, ” “[ f] actual al l egat i ons [i n a compl ai nt ] m us tbe enough t o r ai s e a r i ghtt o r el i ef a bove the s pecul at i ve l evel . ” B el l A t l . C or p. , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 9 5 5 , 1 9 6 5 (2 0 0 7 ). “I n addi t i on, w e mustcons true a pr o s e appe l l ant ’ s compl ai ntl i ber al l y . ” G ai nes , 2 9 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 4 . T h is lib e ra l trea tm e n t is n o t w ith o u t li m its, an d “ th is co u rth as re p ea tedlyinsist ed that p ro se p arti es fo ll o w the s am e ru les o f p roc ed u re thatgovern otherl i t i gant s . ” G ar r et tv. Sel by, C onnor, M addux & Janer , 425 F. 3d 8 3 6 , 8 4 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion o m itted).-6-

A ppl y i ng thes e s t andar ds , w e conc l ude thattw o of K ay ’ s cl ai m s m ays t at e a cl ai m forr el i ef. B . R e l i g i o u s F r e e d o m C l a i ms K aym ak es b o th a F ir st A m en d m en t free e x erc ise claim an d a statuto ry c l a i m u n d e rRL UI P A.

1 . F r e e E x e r c ise C la im K ayfi r s tchal l enges the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s r el i gi ous fr eedom cl ai m . A ft err evi ew i ng K ay ’ s or i gi nal compl ai nt , w e ar e s at i s fi ed thathe al l eges fac t s s uffi ci entt o “pl aus i bl ys uppor ta l egal cl ai m forr el i ef” and r ever s e and re m a n d th is c la im to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . Iti s w el l -s et t l ed that“[i ]nm at es . . . ret ai n p rot ect i on s afforded bythe F i rs t A m endment , i ncl udi ng i t s di r ect i ve thatno l aw s hal l pr ohi bi tthe fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on. ” O ’Lon e v. E state of Sh ab azz , 482 U . S. 342, 348 ( 1987) . Y ets uch pr ot ect i ons ar e notw i thoutr eas onabl e l i m i t at i ons . T he Supr eme C our thas caut i oned thatpr i s on i nm at es ar e al s o s ubj ectt o the “ne ces s aryw i thdr aw al or l i m i t at i on of m anypr i vi l eges and r i ght s , a r etr act i on j us t i fi ed bythe cons i der at i ons under l y i ng ourpenal s y s t em. ” Id . A ccor di ngl y , the C our thas h e ld th a t “a p riso n re g u latio n im p in g [ in g ] o n in m a tes ’ c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts . . . is val i d i f i ti s r eas onabl yr el at ed t o l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal i nt er es t s . ” Id . a t 3 4 9 . T hu s, i n o rdert o all ege a c on st i tuti on al viol at i on based o n a free exe rci se claim , a p ri so n er-p lai n ti ff m u st surv ive a tw o -st ep inq u iry . F ir st, the p ri so n er-T he bur den then r eturns t o the pr i s onert o “s how thatthes e art i cul at ed 2 conce rns w er e i rr at i onal . ” Sa lah uddin v. G oo rd , 4 6 7 F . 3 d 2 6 3 , 2 7 5 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T her e maybe an unr es ol ved t ens i on betw een Turne rv Saf l ey , 48 2 U. S. 3 78 ( 1987) , w hi ch hol ds thatan i nt er fer ence w i th a pr i s oner ’ s fr ee e xer ci s e i n the p riso n c o n tex t is u n c o n stitu tio n a l if it is n o t “r e a so n a b lyre late d to leg iti m a te penol ogi cal i nt er es t s , ” and E mp loy m e n t D ivis io n v . Sm ith , 4 9 4 U . S . 8 7 2 (19 9 0 ), w hi ch hol ds thatthe Fr ee Exer ci s e C l aus e i s notoffe nded byneutr al rul es of g e n e ra l ap p lica b ili ty . T h e re g u latio n h e re m a yb e n e u tra l an d g e n e ra lly ap p li ca b le – a n d there fo re c o n sti tuti o n al un d er Sm ith ( even i f cha l l engea bl e under s om e others our ce of

l aw , s uch as R L U I PA ) . I n B ol es , w e ac know l edged that (c o n tin u e d ...) -7- p la in tiff m u s t fir s t s h o w th a t a p ri s o n re g u la tio n “ s u b s ta n tia lly b u rd e n e d . . . s i ncer el y - hel d r el i gi ous bel i efs . ” B ol es v. Neet , 4 8 6 F . 3 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 2 (10 th C ir . 2007) . C ons equent l y , “[t ] he fi r s tques t i ons i n anyfr ee e xer ci s e cl ai m ar e w hether the pl ai nt i ff’ s bel i efs ar e r el i gi ous i n natur e, and w hetherthos e r el i gi ous bel i efs ar e s i ncer el yhel d. ” Sn yder v. M urray C i ty C orp . , 1 2 4 F . 3 d 1 3 4 9 , 1 3 5 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). S e c o n d , p riso n o fficia ls-d e fe n d a n ts m a y“ id e n tif[ y ] th e leg iti m a te penol ogi cal i nt er es t s thatj us t i f[i ed] the i m pi ngi ng conduct . ” B ol es , 486 F. 3d at 1182. A tthatpoi nt , court s bal ance the fa ct or s s etfor th i n Turne rv. Saf l ey, 482 2 U . S. 78, 89–91 ( 1987) , t o det erm i ne the r eas onabl enes s of the r egul at i on: ( 1) w hethera r at i onal connec t i on exi s t s betw een the pr i s on pol i cyr egu la t i on and a l egi t i m at e governm en ta l i nt er es tadvanc ed as i t s j us t i fi cat i on; ( 2) w hetheral t ernat i ve means of exe r ci s i ng the r i ghtar e ava i l abl e notw i ths t andi ng the pol i cyorr eg u lat ion ; ( 3) w hateffectacc om m odat i ng the exe r ci s e of the r i g h tw o u l d h a v e o n g u a r d s , o th e rp r i s o n e r s , a n d p r i s o n r e s o u r c e s g e n e r a l l y; a n d (4 ) w h e th e r re a d y , ea sy -to -im p lem e n t alte rn a tiv e s e x is t th a t w o u ld accom m od at e t he p ri soner’ s r i gh t s. B ol es , 486 F. 3d at1181. 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 “ [ t] h is c o u rt h a s y e t to a d d re s s th e is s u e s q u a re ly,” a n d le f t it fo r a n o th e r d a y . B ol es , 4 8 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 1 . In re sp o n se to K a y ’s m o tio n to re c o n sid e r, th e c o u rt v a c a ted in p a rt its 4 i ni t i al J anuary25, 2007 or derdi s m i s s i ng the fr ee e xer ci s e cl ai m . T he courtthen g a v e K a ylea v e to file a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t o n th e f re e e x e rc ise c laim w ith in fi ft een da y s . A ft erdeny i ng K ay ’ s m ot i on t o ext end the t i m e t o fi l e the amended co m p lai n t, K ayfa il ed to fil e a ti m elyam en d ed co m p lai n t w ith the c o u rt . In r es pons e, the di s tr i ctcourtagai n di s m i s s ed the fr ee e xer ci s e cl ai m s forthe r eas ons s etfour th i n the J anuary25, 2007 or der . O r der , M ar ch 20, 2007, R . , D oc. 43. A ccor di ngl y , w e exa m i ne the court ’ s J anuary25, 2007 or dert o anal y ze the r e a s o n s fo rth e d i s mi s s a l o f th e f r e e e x e r c i s e c l a i m. Be c a u s e o f

th e d i s p o s i t i o n o f

th i s c a s e , we n e e d n o ta d d r e s s Ka y ’ s c l a i ms pert ai ni ng t o the court ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on forext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e the a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. “W i cca i s a pol ythei s t i c fa i th bas ed on bel i efs thatpr evai l ed i n both the 5 O l d W orl d an d the N ew W orl d b efore C hri st i anity . It s pract i ces i nclude t he u se of herbal m agi c and be ni gn w i t chcr aft . ” O ’B r yan v. B ur eau of

P r is ons , 349 F. 3d 3 9 9 , 4 0 0 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion o m itted). -8- T he di s tr i ct court pr ematur el y di s m i s s ed K ay ’ s cl ai m at s t ep one. T he di s tr i ct courtdeni ed hi s cl ai m beca us e K ay fai l ed t o s uffi ci ent l y pl ead: ( 1) w hatr el i gi on he p r a c t i c e s , ( 2 ) whe th e rh i s r e l i g i o u s b e l i e fs a r e s i n c e r e l yh e l d , a n d ( 3 ) h o w t ar ot car ds , i ncens e, and r el i gi ous books ar e nec es s aryt o the p rac ti ce of hi s r el i gi on. 4 T h is m is c o n s tru e s th e c o m p la in t. F ir st, K ay ’s co m p lai n t cl ea rl yiden ti fies h is r eli g ion as “ W icca . ” C o n tr ary 5 to th e d istric t co u rt’s s tate m e n t th a t h is c o m p lain t o n lym e n tio n s W icc a o n c e in re fe re n c e to “ W ic c a n b o o k s ,” th e c o m p la in t r e fe re n c e s W ic c a fo u r t im e s . See-9-

K ayC om pl . , R . , D oc. 3, at5, 7. I n tw o of thos e i ns t ance s , K ayr efe r s t o W i cca as “hi s r el i gi on. ” Id . Second, the court ’ s as s es s m entof the s i ncer i tyof K ay ’ s bel i efs w as pr ematur e atthi s s t age of the cl ai m . “The i nqui ryi nt o the s i ncer i tyof a f r eee x e rc ise p lain tiff ’s r e lig io u s b e liefs is a lm o st e x c lu siv e lya c re d ib ili tya ss e ss m e n t,

. . . an d there fo re the issue o f sin ce ri tyca n rarelyb e d eterm ined o n su m m ary ju d g m e n t,” le t a lo n e a m o tio n to d is m is s . Snyder , 124 F. 3d at1352–53 ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) . W e have s ai d thats um m arydi s m i s s al on the s i ncer i typr ong i s approp ri at e on l yi n the “veryrar e case[]” i n w hich the p l ai nti ff’s bel i efs are “s o bizarre, so cl earl yno nrel i gious i n m oti vati on that theyare notenti t l ed to Fir st A m endmentpr ot ect i on. ” Id . at1353 ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) . O n thi s r ecor d, s u c h a d e te rm in a tio n is u n w a rr a n te d . See D et tm erv. Landon , 799 F. 2d 929, 933 ( 4th C i r . 1986) ( hol di ng thatW i cca i s a r el i gi on s ubj ectt o Fi r s tA m endment p ro tec tio n ); see al so P ug h v. C aruso , N o . 1 :06 -cv -13 8 , 2 0 0 6 U . S . D ist . L E X IS 24709 ( W . D . M i ch. M ar ch 15, 2006) at*4 n. 2. ( s t at i ng thatM i chi gan s t at e pena l r egul at i ons r ecogni ze W i cca as a r el i gi on and perm i t s i nm at es one dec k of t ar ot c a rd s ). R evi ew i ng hi s compl ai nt , and t aki ng the fa ctual al l egat i ons as true, enough fa ctua l sup p o rtex ist s to rati o n all yan d p laus iblyco n clud e tha t K ayis a since re devot ee of

the W i cca n fai th. K ayper s i s t ent l yas ked pr i s on admi ni s tr at or s for p e r mi s s i o n t o p o s s e s s t a r o tc a r d s i n o r d e rt o p r a c t i c e h i s r e l i g i o n . On two-10-

occa s i ons , he s urr ept i t i ous l ybr oughtt ar otcar ds i nt o the B C C F and w as di s ci pl i ned fori t . K ayC om pl . , R . , D oc. 3, at7. I f anythi ng, thes e fa ct s evi nce s o m e c o n v ic tio n o n K a y ’s p a rt to p ra c tic e h is fa ith w ith th e u s e o f ta ro t c a rd s . T hi r d, i ti s unnece s s aryforK ayt o s how thatthe us e of t ar otcar ds and the o th e r item s w e re “ n e c e ss a ry ” to th e p ra c tice o f h is re lig io n if

h is b e lief

in th e ir us e w as s i ncer el yhel d. W e ac know l edge thatotherci r cui t s r equi r e thata pr i s on r egul at i on m us ti nt er fer e w i th a t enetorbel i ef thati s “ce ntr al ” orm andat ed by re lig io u s d o c tr in e b e fo re a p ri s o n e r m a ys ta te a c la im u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . S e e , e .g ., F re e m a n v . A rp a io , 125 F. 3d 732, 737 ( 9th C i r . 1997) . T he Tent h C i r cui tdoes notfol l ow s uch a rul e. I n L a F e v e rs v . S a ffl e , 9 3 6 F . 2 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 1 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ), w e h e ld th a t a p riso n e r’s b e lief in re lig io u s d ieta ryp ra c tice s is cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed i f the bel i ef i s “genui ne and s i ncer e, ” eve n i f s uch d ie ta ry p ra c tic e s a re n o t d o c tr in a lly “ re q u ir e d ” b yth e p ri s o n e r’ s re lig io n .

“‘ Si ncer el yhel d’ i s di ffe r entfr om ‘ centr al , ’ and court s have r i ght l ys hi ed aw ay fro m att em p ti n g to g au g e h o w ce n tr al a sinc ere lyh eld b eli ef is t o the b eli ev er’s r el i gi on. ” Wat ts v. F l a. Int ’ l Uni v. , 05 -1385 2, S l i p O p. at10 (11t h C i r. A ug ust 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 ). W e b e lie v e th is ru le m o re c lo s e ly h e w s w ith S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t. See F ow l erv. R hode Is l and , 3 4 5 U .S . 6 7 , 7 0 (1 9 5 3 ) (“ [ I]t is n o b u sin e ss o f c o u rts to s aythatw hati s a r el i gi ous pr act i ce oract i vi tyforone gr oup i s notr el i gi on under th e p ro tec tio n o f

th e F irst A m e n d m e n t.”); F raz ee v . Il l . D ep’ tof E mpl oym ent-11-

Sec. , 489 U . S. 829, 834 ( 1989) ( expl ai ni ng thatthe fa cts om e C hr i s t i an denomi nat i ons do not“compel [] ” thei radher ent s t o r efus e Sundayw or k does not d im in ish th e c o n stitu tio n a l p ro tec tio n th e b e lief e njo y s); H ernandez v. C om m i s s i oner , 4 9 0 U .S . 6 8 0 , 6 9 9 (1 9 8 9 ) (“ It is n o t w ith in th e ju d icia l k e n to q u e stio n th e c e n tra lityo f p a rticu lar b e liefs o r p ra c tice s to a fa ith , o r th e v a lid ity o f p a rticu lar lit ig a n ts’ in terp re tatio n s o f th o se c re e d s.” ); E mp loym en t D iv. , D ep ’t o f H u m a n R e so u rc e s v . S m ith , 4 9 4 U .S . 8 7 2 , 8 8 7 (1 9 9 0 ) (“ Ju d g in g th e c e n tra lity of di ffe r entr el i gi ous pr act i ces i s aki n t o the unac cept abl e bus i nes s of eva l uat i ng th e re la tiv e m e ri ts o f

d iffe ri n g re lig io u s c la im s .” ). A c c o rd in g ly , the d istric t co u rt e rre d in re q u irin g K a y ’s p lea d in g to in d ica te th a t th e u se o f

tar o t ca rd s a n d o th e r item s w e re “ n e c e ss a ry ” to th e p ra c tice o f h is r el i gi on. R el i gi ous s i ncer i ty— notnece s s i ty— i s the keycomponentt o s at i s fy i ng th e fi r s ts t e p o f

a p r i s o n e r ’ s f

r e e e x e r c i s e c l a i m a tth i s s t a g e o f th e l i t i g a t i o n . As sta ted a b o v e , w e b e liev e th a t K a y ’s c o m p lain t su fficie n tlyp lea d e d h is b e lief in the us e of t ar otcar ds and the otherr eques t ed i t ems forr el i gi ous purpos es w as s in c e re ly h e ld . W e r emand t hi s cl ai m t o the di s tr i ctcourt . W e t ake no vi ew on w hether K ayca n m ee t th e o ther req u ir em en ts fo r a c lai m fo r reli ef o r w h ethe r th e p ri so n ’sT h e q u e stio n a lso re m a in s w h e th e r th e p riso n o fficia ls a re e n tit led to 6 q u a lifie d im m u n ity in a p p lyin g p ri s o n re g u la tio n s to K a y ’s re lig io u s p ra c tic e s . K aym us ts how atthe t i m e of hi s chal l enged a ct i on i tw as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed that a n yre g u la tio n w a s u n c o n s titu tio n a l. Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 5 3 3 U . S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 (20 0 1 ). W e have r ecogni zed thatan off i cer ’ s “r el i ance on a s t at e s t atut e, r egul at i on, or offi ci al pol i cythatexpl i ci t l ys anct i oned the conduc ti n ques t i on” mayabs ol ve the o ffice r f ro m k n o w in g th a t h is c o n d u c t w a s u n law f u l. R os ka v. P et ers on , 328 F. 3d 1 2 3 0 , 1 2 5 1

– 5 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); Law r ence v. R eed , 4 0 6 F .3 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 3 2 (1 0 th C i r . 2005) . T he exc ept i on t o thi s rul e i s that“w her e a s t atut e author i zes conduct thati s ‘ pat ent l yvi ol at i ve of f undament al cons t i tut i onal pr i nci pl es , ’ r el i ance on the s t atut e does noti m m uni ze the off i cer ’ s conduct . ” Id. T h e p riso n d e fe n d a n ts have y ett o fi l e anyr es pons i ve pl eadi ngs atthi s s t age of the l i t i gat i on out l i ni ng th e ir o th e r d e fe n se s to K a y ’s c o m p lain t. -12- r es tr i ct i ons ar e j us t i fi ed ( 1) byr eas onabl e penol ogi cal i nt er es t s , or( 2) unders t ep tw o of Turne r . 6

2. R el i gi ous Lan d U s e and Ins t i t ut i onal i zed Pers ons A ct O n a p p e a l, K a ya lso a ss e rts th a t th e d istric t co u rt fa iled to a d d re ss h is R L U I PA , 42 U . S. C . § 2000cc- 1, cl ai m . W e agr ee. K ay ’ s i ni t i al compl ai nts ty l es h is c laim s u n d e r R L U IP A , y e t th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r o n lyc o n stru e d h is re lig io u s c la im a s a § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n . R L U I PA pr ovi des that“no [s t at e orl ocal ] governm ents hal l i m pos e a su b sta n tial b u rd e n o n th e re lig io u s e x e rc ise o f a p e rso n re sid in g in o r c o n fin e d to an i ns t i tut i on, ” unl es s the governm ents how s thatthe bur den further s “a compel l i ng governm ent al i nt er es t ” and doe s s o by“the l eas tr es tr i ct i ve means . ” § 2000cc- 1( a) ( 1) –( 2) . T he A ctdefi nes “r el i gi ous exer ci s e” t o i ncl ude “a ny exer ci s e of r el i gi on, w hetherornotcompel l ed by , orcentr al t o, a s y s t em of re lig io u s b e lief.” § 2 0 0 0 c c -5 (7 )(A ). A n d w e h a v e h e ld th a t R L U IP A a p p lies in-13-

th e p ri s o n c o n te x t. See Ahm ad v. F ur l ong , 4 3 5 F . 3 d 1 1 9 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); H a m m o n s v . S a

ffl e , 3 4 8 F .3 d 1 2 5 0 , 1 2 5 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); K i kum ura v. H ur l ey , 24 2 F. 3d 95 0, 96 0 ( 10 th Ci r . 20 01 ) . A c c or di ng l y , the s t a nd a r ds un de rRL U I PA a re d iffe re n t th a n u n d e r t h e f re e e x e rc is e c la u s e o f th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. Ka ywa s e n t i t l e d t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f h i s c l a i m u n d e rRL UI P A a n d we rem an d to the d istri ct co u rtfo r fu rth er a cti o n o n this m att er. C . Ot h e r C l a i ms K ayal s o chal l enges the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r es ol ut i on of the fa l s e arr es t , cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent , and deni al of pr oces s cl ai m s as r el at ed t o the r evoca t i on of hi s par ol e. T he di s tr i ctcourtcons ol i dat ed thes e cl ai m s and hel d thatno r el i ef chal l engi ng a par ol e r evoca t i on i s cogni zabl e under§ 1983 unl es s the pl ai nt i ff can s how the r evoca t i on w as i nval i dat ed byei thera s t at e tr i bunal ora fe der al h a b e a s c o rp u s d e c is io n . See C row v. P enry , 1 0 2 F . 3 d 1 0 8 6 , 1 9 8 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . S i n c e K a y fa i l e d t o d e m o n s tr a t e a n y a t t a c k o n h i s p a r o l e r e v o c a t i o n b y a c o mp e t e n tc o u r t , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i s mi s s e d th e c l a i m. F o rs u b s t a n t i a l l yth e s a me reas on s as the d i stri ctcou rt ’s order, w e affirm the d i sm i ssal of these cl ai m s. D . I nj unct i on Fi nal l y , K aychal l enges the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on for i nj unct i ve r el i ef. T he di s tr i ctcourtm ade i t s deci s i on “[b] as ed on i t s fi ndi ng t hat Pl ai nt i ff’ s compl ai ntfai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m on w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed” a nd thus hel d thati t“ca nnotconcl ude thatther e i s a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood Pl ai nt i ff-14-

w i l l even tuall yprevai l on the m eri t s. ” O rder , R . , D oc. 32 , at9. S i nce w e revers e a n d re m a n d o n K a y ’s r e lig io u s f re e d o m c laim s, th e d istric t co u rt sh o u ld v a c a te th e d e n ia l o f

inju n c tiv e re lie f

a n d re c o n s id e r t h a t p a rt o f its o rd e r. I I I . C oncl usi on F o rth e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e a ffi r m i n p a r ta n d r e v e r s e i n p a r t . We r e m a n d t o th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tfo rp r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n tw i th th i s d e c i s i o n . We a ls o g ra n t K a y ’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d w ith o u t p re p a ym e n t o f th e filin g fe e . W e r emi nd M r . K aythathe i s obl i gat ed t o cont i nue t o m ake pa r t i al paym ent s unt i l the ent i r e fe e has been pa i d.