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 8-12-2008 

# W arre n v . C omm of P

A 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 . 07-3011

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 " W arr e n v . C omm of P

A" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 673. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/673NOT 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. 07- 3011

___________ DANI E L K. WARR E N, A ppel l ant

v. CO M M O N W EA LTH O F PEN N SY LV A N I A ; D EPA RT M EN T O F CO RR EC TI O N S; S T A T E C O R E C T IO N A L IN S T IT U T E C A M P H IL L , als o k n o w n a s S .C .I. C a m p H ill ; ST A T E C O R R E C T I O N A L I N ST I T U T E G R E E N E , a corpor at i on( s ) s ol e ac t i ng

thr ough i t s benef

i ci arym ember s , al s o know n as SC I G r eene ; JE F F R E Y A . B E A R D ; S H A R O N M . B U R K S ; L O U IS S . F O L IN O ; D A N D A V IS ; D A V ID G R A IN E Y , E a c h in th e ir p riv a te c a p a c ity , ind iv id u a lly a n d s e v e r a l l y, th e m a r t i a l c o m m u n i ty a n d a n y b o n d ( s ) o rs u r e t i e s u n d e rw h i c h th e y m ayperform du t i es i n the nam e(s ) of theirseveral corporat e db a(s )

____________________________________ 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- 00504) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N or a B arryFi s cher

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

FE B R U A R Y 12, 2008 Bef or e : M CK EE, SM I TH A N D CH A G A RE S, CI RC U I T J U D G ES.

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t12, 2008)Soon aft erW arr en fi l ed hi s compl ai nt , he vol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s ed the C om m onw eal th, 1 th e D O C , a n d th e tw o p r i s o n s f r o m th e s u i t , l e a v i n g J e f f r e y B e a r d , th e D O C S e c r e t a ry, Shar on B ur ks , the C hi ef G r i evanc e O ffi cerforthe D O C , L oui s Fol i no, the Super i nt endentof SC I –G r eene , D an D avi s , the SC I –G r eene G r i evanc e C oor di nat or , and D a v id G ra in e y , th e S C I– G re e n e R e s tr ic te d H o u s in g U n it C a p ta in . 2 ___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM D ani el K i ng W arr en, J r . , a pr o s e pr i s oner , s ued the C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a, i t s D epart m entof C orr ect i ons ( “D O C ”) , tw o s t at e pr i s ons , and fi ve o f f icia ls a n d e m p lo y e e s o f th e sta te p riso n sy ste m . A lth o u g h h is c o m p lain t, i ts 1 amendm ent , and hi s l engthy“narr at i ve w r i tt en s t at ement ” ar e notm odel s of cl ar i ty , they in c lu d e f e d e ra l s ta tu to ry a n d c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s w ith in th e irh u n d re d s o f p a g e s . O st ensi blythroug h 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 98 3, W arr en rai sed cha l l eng es und er the D ue P rocess C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endmentand the Fi r s tand Four t eenth A m endment s t o the r emoval of 57 books , i ncl udi ng the K or an and otherr el i gi ous books , and publ i cat i ons and p a p e rs, in c lu d in g m a ter ials re latin g to th e U n if o rm C o m m e rc ial C o d e (“ U C C ” ), f ro m h is cel l on A ugus t12, 2005, and t o the conf i s cat i on of tw o books fr om the mai l on Sept ember 6 , 2 0 0 5 . He g e n e r a l l yc o n t e n d e d th a tth e p o l i c yl i mi t i n g i n ma t e s t o 1 0 b o o k s e a c h ( DCA D M 8 0 3 (V I)(F )(6 )(a )(3 )) a n d th e p o licyre stric tin g th e p o ss e ss io n o f U C C m a ter ials ( DC- ADM 8 0 3 ( VI ) ( D) ( 1 ) ( g ) ) we r e u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l . F u r th e r mo r e , h e c l a i me d th a tDC-3

A D M 803( V I ) ( F) ( 6) ( a) ( 3) and i t s appl i cat i on t o hi m vi ol at ed the R el i gi ous L and U s e and In s titu tio n a liz e d P e rs o n s A c t o f 2 0 0 0 (“ R L U IP A ” ), 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c e t s e q .. W arr en al s o al l eged thatD efe ndant s r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m for“pos s es s i ng the l aw ” and f

i l i ng gr i evanc es and a c i vi l act i on agai ns tthem. H e as s ert ed thathe w as i s s ued m i s c o n d u c t s b a s e d o n f a b r i c a t e d i n f

r a c t i o n s o rf

o rn o a p p a r e n tr e a s o n . A d d i t i o n a l l y, W arr en cl ai m ed thatD efe ndant s have e ngaged i n a patt ern and pr act i ce of cr i m i nal r acke t eer i ng; vi ol at ed thei roaths of off i ce; exer ci s ed author i tybey ond thatperm i t t ed by A r t i cl e I , § 8, cl aus e 17 of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on; us urped author i tyi n vi ol at i on of the N i nth and Tent h A m endment s ; m ade l aw i n vi ol at i on of A r t i cl e I , § 1 of the C ons t i tut i on; depr i ved hi m of a r epubl i can f or m of governm ent ; and vi ol at ed the Pr i vi l eges and I m m uni t i es C l aus e of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on ( A r t i cl e I V , § 2, clau se 1 ). D e f e n d a n ts f iled a m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, arg u in g W a rre n h a d f a iled to e x h a u s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s a n d h a d p ro c e d u ra lly d e f a u lte d m o s t o f

h is c la im s . D e f e n d a n ts c o n c e d e d th a t W a rr e n h a d e x h a u s te d tw o g ri e v a n c e s d u ri n g h is s ta yin p ri s o n . I n one, gr i evanc e number139440, he compl ai ned thatthe pr i s on m ai l r oom hel d a book ad d resse d to h im b ec au se ith ad a c o m p ac t disc (“C D ”) a tt ac h ed to it . In th e o ther, g ri e v a n c e n u m b e r 1 3 5 5 5 0 , W a rr e n o b je c te d to th e s e iz u re o f

b o o k s f ro m h is c e ll. N onethel es s , D efe ndant s ar gued thatanyr el at ed cl ai m s r ai s ed i n the compl ai ntw er e not pr oper l yexhaus t ed bec aus e D efe ndant s w er e notnamed i n the gr i evanc e ordur i ng the4

admi ni s tr at i ve appe al pr oces s . D efe ndant s addi t i onal l yar gued thatW arr en s uffe r ed no d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n f

ro m th e re m o v a l o f

b o o k s f ro m h is c e ll b e c a u se h e h a d a p o stdepr i vat i on r emedyand no i m pi ngementof hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtbythe 10- book po l i cyun der the tes tof T urner v. S afl ey , 48 2 U . S . 78 , 84 -85 (198 7), especi al l ybecau se W arr en r efus ed t o choos e w hi ch books t o keep a nd di d notfi l e a r el i gi ous acc om m odat i on r eques tt o keep a ddi t i onal r el i gi ous books . D efe ndant s al s o ar gued that T u rn e r a n d W a rre n ’s f

a ilu re to sh o w a c tu a l in

ju ryf ro m th e re stric tio n o n U C C m a ter ials doom ed hi s cl ai m r el at ed t o D C - A D M 803( V I ) ( D ) ( 1) ( g) , and thatW arr en’ s r et al i at i on and var i ous othercl ai m s fai l ed on the mer i t s and bec aus e of W arr en’ s fai l ur e t o al l ege D e f e n d a n ts ’ p e rs o n a l in v o lv e m e n t. I n r es pons e, W arr en conc eded thathe di d notal w ay s us e the pr i s on gr i evanc e s y s t em and ar gued thathi s eff or t s i n fi l i ng a compl ai nti n fede r al courts at i s fi ed the exhaus t i on r equi r ement . H e al s o s oughtt o evade the exha us t i on r equi r ementbyar gui ng th a t h is c o m p lain t w a s n o t f iled p u rsu a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . W a rre n a d d iti o n a lly arg u ed that m ere stat em en ts i n a m o ti o n are n o t al o n e a su ff ici en t bas is fo r sum m ary j udgm entand thatthe s t at ement s i n D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on m us tbe di s r egar ded bec aus e the m oti on w as fi l ed b ycou nsel w ho cou l d n ot l egall yrepr esentD efen dan t s. W arr en als o m o v e d f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t b e c a u se D e f e n d a n ts h a d n o t f

iled a p re -tria l sta tem e n t. A M agis trat e Judg e, t o w ho m the case h ad b een referr ed, con cl ud ed thaton l yt ho se cl ai m s r ai sed i n the gri evan ces cou l d b e revi ew ed. B ased on the p ri son o ffi ci al s’5

r es pons e t o W arr en’ s gr i evanc e aboutthe r emoval of books fr om hi s cel l and the 10- book l i m i t , the M agi s tr at e J udge det erm i ned thatW arr en’ s as - appl i ed cha l l enge t o the pr i s on p o licie s w a s w ith o u t m e rit b e c a u se h e h a d re f u se d to se lec t w h ich b o o k s h e w a n ted to keep i n hi s cel l . T he M agi s tr at e J udge al s o concl uded thatthe pol i ci es pas s ed c on s t i tut i on a l mus t e run de rthe Turne rt e s ta s i tw a s i nt e rpr e t e d i n Bea r d v . Bank s , 12 6 S. C t . 2572 ( 2006) , bas ed on the r eas ons forthe pol i ci es thatD efe ndant s offe r ed. T he M agi s tr at e J udge r ej ect ed the cl ai m aboutthe due pr oces s depr i vat i on r el at i ng t o the w ith h o ld in g o f

th e b o o k a n d C D . B a se d o n th e re c o rd a n d W a rre n ’s r e sp o n se to D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on, the M agi s tr at e J udge conc l uded thatther e w as no genui ne i s s ue of m at eri al factand recom m end ed g rant i ng D efen dan t s’ m oti on . T he M agis trat e Judg e al so d e te rm in e d th a t W a rr e n ’s m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t s h o u ld b e d e n ie d . W arr en fi l ed obj ect i ons , chal l engi ng the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s j ur i s di ct i on t o fi l e a rec o m m en d ed d ispo sit ion o f h is case an d the re co m m en d ed o u tcom e. In a sh o rto rde r, the D istri ct C o u rtrejected W arren ’s objecti o n s, d ism issed W arren ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entas m oot , and gr ant ed D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . W arr en ap p ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er a n d the re su lt ing jud g m en t i n D ef en d an ts’ fa v o r, a s w e ll as th e d e c isio n s d e n y in g h is m o tio n to re c u se th e M a g istra te J u d g e a n d h is m ot i ons fors anct i ons and foratt orney ’ s fee s . H e ar gues thatD efe ndant s B ear d and B a n k s s h o u ld h a v e b e e n d e e m e d to h a v e m a d e th e a d m iss io n s h e re q u e ste d w h e n th e yd id notr es pond t o hi s r eques t . A ddi t i onal l y , W arr en cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tneverT o th e e x t e n tth a tWa rr e n c h a l l e n g e s th e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f th e M a g i s tr a t e J u d g e , we 2 r e j e c th i s c o mp l a i n t s a b o u ta p e r f e c t l yo r d i n a ryr e f

e rr a l . S e e 2 8 U. S . C. § 6 3 6 ; F e d . R. C iv . P . 7 2 . 6 had j ur i s di ct i on overhi s cas e, “us urped pow er s , ” “c om m i t t ed fr aud on the court , ” and gener al l yabus ed i t s di s cr et i on bybarr i ng W arr en fr om a r emedyforthe al l eged w r ongs h e s u f f e re d . W arr en atonce ( and atl ength) chal l enges the j ur i s di ct i on of the D i s tr i ctC our tand s eeks r el i ef on the mer i t s . H ow ever , i ti s cl earthatthe D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1331 and 1343. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s cas e under28 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . A s a p re lim in a rym a tter, w e c o n sid e r W a rre n ’s c h a llen g e s to th e o rd e rs d e n y in g h is m ot i on forthe M agi s tr at e J udge t o r ecus e, hi s m ot i on fors anct i ons , and hi s m ot i on for att orney ’ s fee s . W e hol d thatthe M agi s tr at e J udge w as notobl i ged t o r ecus e fr om W a rre n ’s c a se . It w a s n o a b u se o f d isc re tio n to re f

u se to re c u se w h e re W a rre n ’s o n ly a rg u m e n t f

o r re c u sa l w a s (a n d c o n tin u e s to b e ) h is d iss a tisf a c tio n w ith ru lin g s o n h is m ot i ons i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . See Secur aC om m C ons ul t i ng, I nc. v. Secur acom I nc. , 224 F . 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T h ere w as n o ab u se o f d iscreti o n in d en y ing W arren ’s m o tio n f o r th e sa n c tio n o f

a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s f o r a n a lleg e d d isc o v e ryv io latio n a n d h is r el at ed mot i on foratt orney ’ s fee s beca us e W arr en, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, di d notengage an a tto rn e y . C f. O w e n s -E l v . R o b in s o n , 6 9 4 F .2 d 9 4 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ruli n g s o n the s u m m aryT o ex hau sta gri evan ce t hroug h the procedu res of D C -A D M 80 4, a pri soner fi l es a 3 g rie v a n c e w ith th e g rie v a n c e c o o rd in a to r w ith in 1 5 d a y s o f th e c o m p lain e d -o f

in c id e n t, appea l s t o the fa ci l i tym anage rw i thi n fi ve day s of anyi ni t i al deci s i on, and appe al s the fac i l i tym anage r ’ s deci s i on t o the D O C Secr et ary ’ s O ffi ce of I nm at e G r i evanc es and A p p e a ls . 7 j udgm entm ot i ons . See A br amson v. W i l l i am P att er s on C ol l ege, 260 F. 3d 265, 276 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro p e rl yd e n ie d W a rr e n ’s m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. H is b a sis f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t – D e f e n d a n ts’ f

a ilu re to f

ile a p re -tria l sta tem e n t – d id nots at i s fythe s t andar d fors um m aryj udgm entbydemonstr at i ng the abs ence of a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 56; C el ot ex C orp. v. C atr ett , 477 U . S. 317, 322- 23 ( 1986) . I n anyevent , D efe ndant s fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm enti n l i eu of f ilin g a p re -t ri a l b ri e f. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o pr oper l ydecl i ned t o ent ert ai n m os tof W arr en’ s cl ai m s on th e m e rits. A p riso n e r w h o c h a llen g e s p riso n c o n d iti o n s m u st e x h a u st a v a ilab le admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es befor e fi l i ng s ui ti n fede r al court . See 42 U . S. C . § 1997e; W oodfor d v. N go, 126 S. C t . 2378, 2382 ( 2006) ; B ooth v. C hurner , 532 U . S. 731, 739 ( 2001) . D efe ndant s putfor th evi dence thatW arr en di d notexhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve re m e d ies f

o r m o st o f

h is c laim s. D e f

e n d a n ts’ M o tio n f

o r S u m m a ryJu d g m e n t, E x h ib its D , E , F, H , & I . W arr en di d notdi s put e D efe ndant s ’ evi dence . Fors om e cl ai m s , he fi l ed no gri evan ce atal l ; for ot hers, he d i d n ot fi l e a fi nal adm i nis trat i ve ap peal orotherw i se compl yw i th the pert i nentpr i s on di r ect i ve, D C - A D M 804. D efe ndant s ’ M ot i on for 3 S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t, E x h ib it F . D ef en d an ts co n ce d e tha t W arren ex h au sted tw o g ri ev an ce s, g ri ev an ce n u m b ers8

1 3 5 5 5 0 a n d 1 3 9 4 4 0 . Ap p e l l e e s ’ Br i e f 1 3 . Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tc o n s i d e r e d th e c l a i ms r ai s ed i n gr i evanc e number139440, r el at i ng t o a compl ai ntthati n D ece m ber2005 the p ri s o n m a il r o o m h e ld a b o o k a d d re s s e d to h im b e c a u s e a C D w a s a tta c h e d to it. W arr en’ s pl eadi ngs ar e di ffi cul tt o deci pher ; how ever , w e conc l ude thatW arr en di d not r ai s e thos e cl ai m s i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . I n anyevent , W arr en had a pos t - depr i vat i on r emedyand ul t i m at el yr ece i ved the r es ol ut i on he pr opos ed t o pr i s on offi ci al s – hi s book wa s d e l i v e r e d t o h i m a n d h e wa s g i v e n th e o p t i o n o f s h i p p i n g o u tth e f

r e e CD . In g rie v a n c e n u m b e r 1 3 5 5 5 0 , W a rre n c o n ten d e d th a t th e D O C p o licylim iti n g h im t o 10 books i m pos ed a s ubs t ant i al bur den on hi s r el i gi ous exer ci s e. Speci fi cal l y , he as s ert ed thathe nee ded more than 10 books t o pr act i ce I s l am. I n addi t i on t o the K or an, he nee ded books t o l earn how t o pr ay , pur i fy , fas t , and per form otherr el i gi ous r i tual s and to b ett er u n d erstan d A ll ah . W arren n o ted th at he w as w ith o u t anyb o o k s, as a ll w ere bei ng hel d bythe pr i s on. H e ci t ed and tr i ed t o appl yR L U I PA and the Fi r s tA m endment to h is cl aim s an d req u ested an ex ce p ti o n to the p ri so n ’s po li cy . H e p o inted to the p ri so n ’s e x c e p tio n to th e 1 0 -b o o k lim it f o r b o o k s f

o r e d u c a tio n a l p u rp o s e s . A tfi r s t , D efe ndantD avi s r ej ect ed W arr en’ s gr i evanc e, rul i ng thatthe gr i evanc e d id n o t in d ic a te th a t W a rr e n w a s p e rs o n a lly a f f e c te d b ya f

a c ility a c tio n o r p o lic y . W arr en appe al ed t o D efe ndantFol i no, expl ai ni ng thathe had t aken i s s ue w i th a s ubs t ant i al bur den on the exe r ci s e of hi s r el i gi on and r epea t i ng hi s ar gum ent s . D efe ndant Fol i no perm i t t ed W arr en’ s gr i evanc e t o go forw ar d. D efe ndantG r ai neythen deni edA l though the D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed on the mer i t s W arr en’ s chal l enge t o the pr i s on 4 re stric tio n o f

U C C m a ter ials , w e c o n c lu d e th e c laim w a s u n e x h a u ste d a n d p ro c e d u ra lly defa ult ed an d aff

i rm this aspectof the j ud gm ent on t hese grou nd s. S ee E ri e T el ecom m s. v. E r i e, 853 F. 2d 1084, 1089 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( hol di ng thatw e mayaff i r m on an al t ernat i ve b a s is s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd ). 9 W arr en’s gr i evan ce. H e st at ed thatW arr en h ad b een g i ven an o pp ortun i tyt o ch oo se w hi ch books t o keep a nd had r efus ed t o do s o. H e al s o s ugges t ed thatW arr en us e the opt i on of fi l i ng a D C - 52 R el i gi ous A ccomm odat i on R eques tt o pos s es s m or e than 10 r el i gi ous books . W arr en appe al ed, r ei t er at i ng thateveryr el i gi ous book he ow ned w as c o n f i s c a t e d a n d th a th e n e e d e d mo r e th a n 1 0 b o o k s t o p r o p e r l yp r a c t i c e h i s r e l i g i o n . He n o te d th a t h e w a s to ld th a t h e h a d to s h ip o u t a ll o f h is b o o k s o r h a v e th e m d e s tr o y e d . W a rre n m a in tain e d th a t th e p riso n ’s p o licyv io late d th e F irst, E ig h th , an d F o u rte e n th A m endment s as w el l as R L U I PA byi m pi ngi ng on the exe r ci s e of hi s r el i gi on. D efe ndant F o li n o d en ied W arren ’s ap p ea l. W arren then so u g h t r eli ef thro u g h D ef

en d an t B ea rd’s offi ce. D efe ndantB ur ks uphel d the deni al of W arr en’ s gr i evanc e. She concl uded that W arr en had f

ai l ed t o pr ovi de s uffi ci entevi dence thatD O C s t aff w as pr event i ng hi m fr om h av ing an yreli g iou s b o o k s in h is cell . B u rks to ld W arren that h is ow n ac ti o n s w ere pr event i ng hi m fr om havi ng 10 books , i ncl udi ng hi s K or an. She al s o r epea t ed D efe ndant G ra in e y ’s a d v ice f

o r h im to f

ile a D C -5 2 R e lig io u s A c c o m m o d a tio n R e q u e st. G iv e n th e c o n ten t o f

W a rre n ’s g rie v a n c e a n d a p p e a ls a n d th e su b sta n c e o f h is compl ai nt , w e conc l ude thatthe cl ai m s befor e the D i s tr i ctC our tw er e thatthe 10- book l i mi t , o n i t s f

a c e a n d a s a p p l i e d t o Wa rr e n , v i o l a t e d th e F i r s tAm e n d me n ta n d RL UI P A. 410

T urnerv. Safl ey , 482 U . S. 78 ( 1987) , and O vert on v. B azz ett a, 539 U . S. 126 ( 20 03 ) , ou t l i ne the c on t ou r s of a pr i s on e r ’ s Fi r s tA mend mentr i gh t s . Se e Bea r d, 12 6 S. C t . at25 77 (pl ural i ty ). W hil e i m pri sonm ent does no tdep ri ve a p ri soner of the Fir st A m endment ’ s pr ot ect i on, i ts om et i m es perm i t s a contr act i on of the r i ght s aff or ded out s i de pr i s on w al l s . See i d. at2577- 78. “[R]e s tr i ct i ve pr i s on r egul at i ons ar e perm i s s i bl e i f they ar e ‘ 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 . . . and notan ‘ exagge r at ed re sp o n se ’ to su c h o b

jec tiv e s . . . .” Id . at 2 5 7 8 (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e in q u iryis four fol d: ( 1) “[I ] s ther e a ‘ val i d, r at i onal connec t i on’ betw een the pr i s on r egul at i on and the leg it im ate g o v ern m en tal interest pu t fo rw ard to justi fyit ? ”; (2) “[ A ]re there

‘ 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) “[W ] hati m pactw i l l ‘ acc om m odat i on of the as s ert ed cons t i tut i onal r i ght. . . have on guar ds and otheri nm at es , and on the al l ocat i on of pr i s on r es our ces gener al l y ?”; and ( 4) “[A ] r e ‘ r eadyal t ernat i ves ’ forfur ther i ng the governm ent al i nt er es tavai l abl e?” I d. at 25 78 (ci t at i on s om i t t ed). O ur r ecent addit i on t o R L U IPA j uri spruden ce i nfo rm s the F i rs t A m e n d m e n t a n a lysis in th is c a s e . Forpr i s oner s , R L U I PA hei ght ens the pr ot ect i on fr om bur dens on r el i gi ous exer ci s e. See W as hi ngt on v. K l em, 497 F. 3d 272, 277 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . R L U I PA does not di ffe r ent i at e betw een bona fi de fa i ths orperm i ta courtt o det erm i ne w hetherthe bel i ef or p ra c tice in q u e stio n is “ ‘c o m p e lled b y , o r c e n tra l to , a s y ste m o f b e lief ,’” o r to in q u ire in to the s i ncer i tyof a pr i s oner ’ s bel i efs . See i d. I n W as hi ngt on, w hi ch w as deci ded af t ert heIn th is c a s e , D e f e n d a n ts p ro v id e e s s e n tia lly th e s a m e re a s o n s f o r t h e p o lic y . 5 11 Di s tr i c tCo u r tru l e d o n Wa rr e n ’ s c l a i ms , we p r e s e n t e d a p r i me ro n RL UI P A: Sect i on 3 of R L U I PA s t at es that“[n] o governm ents hal l i m pos e a s ubs t ant i al bur den on the r el i gi ous exer ci s e of a per s on r es i di ng i n orconfi ned t o an in s titu tio n . . . e v e n if

th e b u rd e n re s u lts f

ro m a ru le o f

g e n e ra l a p p lic a b ility,” unl es s the governm entdemonstr at es thatthe bur den i s “i n fur ther ance of a compel l i ng governm ent al i nt er es t ” and i s “the l eas tr es tr i ct i ve means of further i ng th a t . . . inte re st.” 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c -1 (a ). If th e p lain tiff

“ p ro d u c e s p rim a f

a c ie evi dence t o s uppor ta cl ai m al l egi ng a [RL U I PA ] vi ol at i on . . . the governm ent s hal l bearthe bur den of pe r s uas i on on anyel ementof the cl ai m , exce ptthatthe pl ai nt i ff s hal l bearthe bur den of pe r s uas i on on w hether[the cha l l enged pr act i ce [orl aw ] s ubs t ant i al l ybur dens the pl ai nt i ff' s exer ci s e of r el i gi on. ” I d. § 2000cc2 (b). Id . In th a t ca se , w e a lso a d o p ted a tes t to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a su b sta n tial b u rd e n e x ists; it e x ists w h e re “ 1 ) a f

o llo w e r is f

o rc e d to c h o o se b e tw e e n f o llo w in g th e p re c e p ts o f h is r el i gi on and for fei t i ng benef i t s otherw i s e ava i 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 ; O R 2) the governm ent p u ts s u b sta n tial p re ss u re o n a n a d h e re n t to su b sta n tiallym o d if yh is b e h a v io r a n d v io late h is b e lie f

s .” Id . a t 2 7 9 -2 8 0 . I n W as hi ngt on, w e hel d thatthe 10- book l i m i t at i on ( the s ame pol i cythatW arr en ch all en g es) su b stan ti all yb u rde n ed the p ri so n er’s reli g iou s ex erc ise u n d er the sec o n d p art o f th e “ s u b s t a n t i a l b u r d e n ” t e s tb e c a u s e i tl i m i t e d h i s a b i l i ty t o r e a d f o u rb o o k s e a c h d a y, a s th e p a r t i e s a g r e e d h e mu s td o t o p r a c t i c e h i s r e l i g i o n . 4 9 7 F . 3 d a t2 8 2 - 8 3 . Wh i l e we acknow l edged thatthe D O C as s ert ed a “ val i d i nt er es t ” i n pr event i ng fi r e haz ar ds and s a n i t a t i o n p r o b l e ms a n d d i s a l l o wi n g p l a c e s t o c o n c e a l we a p o n s o ro th e rc o n tr a b a n d , we 5T heyar gued i ns t ead thatW arr en had pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed bynotnami ng them 6 dur i ng the gr i evanc e pr oces s , a cont ent i on theydo notr ai s e on appe al . H ow ever , W arr en su e d o n lyth o se in v o lv e d in e n f o rc in g th e 1 0 -b o o k lim it th ro u g h th e re jec tio n o f

h is g ri ev an ce an d ad m inistrati v e a p p ea ls. C f. S p ruil l v. G il li s, 3 7 2 F . 3 d 2 1 8 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 12 c o n c lu d e d th a t th e D O C h a d n o t s h o w n h o w th e 1 0 -b o o k lim it f u rt h e re d th a t in te re s t. I d. at284. E ven as s um i ng thatthe D O C s how ed thatthe pol i cys erved a c om pel l i ng go vernm ental i nter est , w e con cl ud ed thatthe D O C had no tshow n thati tw as the leas t r es tr i ct i ve means avai l abl e. I d. at285 ( cal l i ng the l i m i t at i on arbi tr aryand not i ng exce pt i ons and fl exi bi l i tyi n the pol i cy( i ncl udi ng the more gener ous al l ow ance for e d u c a tio n a l b o o k s th a t W a rre n c ited ) th a t u n d e rm in e its “ c o m p e lli n g ” n a tu re ). W e d id notfac i al l yi nval i dat e the pol i cy , buthel d thati t s appl i cat i on t o W as hi ngt on had s u b s t a n t i a l l yb u r d e n e d th e e x e r c i s e o f h i s r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f

s a n d th e DOC h a d n o ts h o wn the bur den w as the l eas tr es tr i ct i ve means t o fur theri t s s afe tyand s ecur i tyi nt er es t s . I d. at 2 8 6 . (W e re m an d ed fo r a rea sses sm en t of the c lai m u n d er the p rop er leg al st an d ard . Id.) A lth o u g h D e f

e n d a n ts re c o g n ize d th a t W a rre n p re se n ted R L U IP A c laim s, th e yd id notaddr es s them on t he mer i t s i n thei rm ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . T heydi d not 6 th o ro u g h lya d d re ss th e T u rn e r te st, w h ich d e m a n d s a w e ig h in g o f f o u r f a c to rs to d eterm ine th e re aso n ab le relat ion o f a reg u lat ion to p en o log ical objecti v es. H o w ev er, theycont ended thatthe pol i cyl i m i t i ng books i n cel l s fac i l i t at es cel l s ear ches , hi nder s t he con ceal m ent of con traband , and prom otes safetybypreven t i ng a fi re hazard. D efen dan t s’ M o tio n f o r S u m m a ryJu d g m e n t, E x h ib it J, ¶ 3 . T h e D istric t C o u rt w a s o b lig e d to13

cons i derw hetherD efe ndant s had es t abl i s hed the abs ence of a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fa ct relat ing to W arren ’s F ir st A m en d m en t and R L U IP A claim s b ef o re g ran ti n g su m m ary j udgm ent . See B ear d, 126 S. C t . at2578. H ow ever , the D i s tr i ctC our t , concl udi ng that D efen dan t s’ assert i on s show ed thatthe 1 0-boo k li m i tw as “desi gn ed to accom pli sh l egi t i m at e penol ogi ci al s ecur i tyconce rns ” and i nvoki ng the s um m aryj udgm ents t andar d, d id n o t e n g a g e in m o re th a n a s u m m a ry a n a lysis . A l though the D i s tr i ctC our ts um m ar i zed the Turne rpr ece pt s and w ei ghed i n on t he f i r s tf a c t o ro f th e a n a l y s i s , i td i d n o tu n d e r t a k e th e t e s to f o v e r a l l r e a s o n a b l e n e s s . We acknow l edge the l egi t i m acyof D efe ndant s ’ i nt er es ti n pr om ot i ng pr i s on s afe tyand s ecur i ty . C f. W as hi ngt on, 497 F. 3d at284. W hi l e w e have ques t i oned w hetherthe pol i cy s erves a compel l i ng governm ent al i nt er es t , s ee i d. at284- 86, ourques t i oni ng does not for ecl os e the “‘ cont extual , r ecor d- s ens i t i ve, ’ ” s ee W ol f v. A s hcr oft , 297 F. 3d 305, 310 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ), co n sid e ra tio n o f a ra tio n a l re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e p o licya n d th e in ter e st. H ow ever , w hetherornotW as hi ngt on i nfl uence s the out come, cons i der at i on of the rel at i on shi p b et w een the po l i cyand the int eres ton l ycom m ences t he n ecessaryF i rs t A m end m ent i nq uiry . S ee W olf, 29 7 F . 3d at31 0. F urtherm ore, becau se of D efen dan t s’ l es s than thor ough br i efi ng and W arr en’ s unfocus ed ar gum ent s , the r ecor d i s not d e v e lo p e d e n o u g h f

o r u s o r t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt to e n g a g e in th e T u rn e r a n a lysis a t p re s e n t. Inst ead, w e w i l l vacate the judgm ent i n fav or of D efen dan t s on W arr en’s Fi rs t A m endmentcl ai m s . See W ol f, 297 F. 3d at310 ( pr ovi di ng gui dance on how t o undert ake14

the Turne ranal y s i s t o a di s tr i ctcourtthatr eci t ed the Turne rfac t or s w i thoutundert aki ng the n ec essa ryan aly sis) . W e al s o w i l l vaca t e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm enti n favorof D efe ndant s on W a rre n ’s R L U IP A c laim s. A t th e v e rylea st, th ro u g h th e d o c u m e n ts th e yre lied o n to s uppor tthei rm ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , D efe ndant s expos ed genui ne i s s ues of m at eri al factrel at i ng t o the que st i on of a su bst anti al bu rden i n the R L U IPA analy si s. Si m i l art o the pos i t i on t aken bythe def endant s i n W as hi ngt on, D efe ndant s do not c h a llen g e W a rre n ’s r e p e a ted a ss e rtio n th a t h e n e e d s m o re th a n 1 0 b o o k s to p ra c tice h is rel i gion. T heyi nst ead argu e t hat W arr en co ntr i ved a scenari o thati m pli cat ed F i rs t A m e n d m e n t co n c e rn s b yre f u sin g to se lec t 1 0 b o o k s to k e e p a n d d e c lin in g to f ill o u t a r el i gi ous acc om m odat i on r eques t . D efe ndant s ’ fi r s tcont ent i on does notabr ogat e the conce rn i n thi s cas e. E ven i f W arr en had s ens i bl ychos en 10 books t o keep, hi s r el i gi ous pract i ce w ou l d st i l l be b urdene d b ecause h e pu rport s t o n eed m ore than 10 bo ok s; that i s, h e is w ith o u t h is e lev e n th b o o k , h is tw e lf th b o o k , an d so o n . S im ilarly , ev e n if a se p a ra te a c c o m m o d a t i o n p r o c e d u r e m a y h a v e l e s s e n e d th e i m p a c to f th e b o o k l i m i t a t i o n p o l i c y – an as s ert i on notes t abl i s hed bythe curr entr ecor d, w hi ch onl ydet ai l s the ava i l abi l i tyof an a v e n u e to re q u e st a n a c c o m m o d a tio n – th e p o licy ’s a c tu a l, his to ric a l im p a c t o n W a rre n is u n c h a n g e d . A l s o, on the curr entr ecor d, othergenui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tr emai n. For instan ce , as in W ash ing ton , itis un clea r ho w the p ri so n ’s saf etyan d sec u ri tyinterests arefur ther ed bythe 10- book l i m i t , and, even i f the 10- book l i m i ts erves a compel l i ng

governm ent al i nt er es t , w hetherthe pol i cyi s the l eas tr es tr i ct i ve means avai l abl e t o fur ther th o se in ter e sts . C f. 4 9 7 F .3 d a t 2 8 4 . It d o e s n o t ap p e a r th a t th e D istric t C o u rt, i n its su m m a rya n a ly sis , p u t th e b u rd e n o n D e f e n d a n ts, w h o d id n o t ev e n b rie f th e iss u e , to s h o w th a t th e p o lic yw a s th e le a s t r e s tr ic tiv e m e a n s . G i ven thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d nothave the bene fi tof thor ough br i efi ng orour decis i on i n W ashi ng t on , w e w i l l vacate i t s j ud gm ent i n fav or of D efen dan t s on the Fir st A m en d m en t and R L U IP A claim s. O therw ise, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s j udgm ent . W e w i l l r emand t hi s m att ert o the D i s tr i ctC our tforfur therpr ocee di ngs c o n sis ten t w ith th is o p in io n . O n re m a n d , the D istric t C o u rt m a yw ish to in q u ire a s to w hetherW arr en w oul d l i ke t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s forthe purpos e of a ppoi nt i ng c o u n s e l a n d t o c o n s i d e rwh e th e rc o u n s e l s h o u l d b e a p p o i n t e d f o rh i m. S e e 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 1 ) . Wh e th e ro rn o tc o u n s e l i s a p p o i n t e d , th e Di s tr i c tCo u rtma ywi s h t o a l l o w a p e rio d o f f u rth e r d isc o v e ry , af

ter w h ich D e f

e n d a n ts a n d W a rre n c o u ld b e p e rm itt e d to f ile re n e w e d m o tio n s f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th e re m a in in g c la im s .

1 5