T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). t k/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R E GI NA L D C . HO WAR D, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. H O W A R D S K O L N IK , D i re ct or (N D O C ); e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15382 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 8 -C V -0 0 7 2 8 -R C JG WF ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R obe rtC . J one s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 16, 2010 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , P R E G E R S O N , an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R e gi na l d C . H ow a r d, aN e va das t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ryj udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng pr i s on 

# FI LED MA R 30 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSt k / Res ea r ch 09- 15382 2 of f i c i a l s c urt a i l e d hi s r e l i gi ous e xpr e s s i on, w r ongf ul l yt ook pe r s ona l pr ope rty , a nd s u b j e c t e d h i m t o s e c o n d - h a n d s mo k e . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . T oguc hiv . Chung , 39 1 F . 3d 10 51 , 10 56 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) . W e a f

f irm in p a rt, v a c a te in p a rt, a n dr e m a n d . T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y g ran t ed su m m ary j u d g m en to n H o w ard ’ s F i rst A m endm entcl ai m concerni ng tw o al l eged i nci dent s w here pri son p er sonn el i nt er fe re d w i th H ow ar d’ s f as t i ng because there w as no genu i ne i ss ue as t o w hether as u b s ta n tia l b u r d e n w a s p la c e d o n H o w a r d ’s f r e e e x e r c is e o f

r e lig io n . Se e Ca n e ll v. L i gh tner , 1 4 3 F .3 d 1 2 1 0 , 1 2 1 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( c o n c lu d in g th a t a“r e la tiv e ly s h o rt- te rm a n d s p o r a d ic ” in te r f e r e n c e d idn o t c o n s titu te as u b s ta n tia l b u r d e n ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyg r a n te ds u m m a ryju d g m e n t o n H o w a r d ’s E ig h th A m endm entcl ai m concerni ng expo sure t o sec on d-hand sm ok e bec ause H ow ar d f a i l e d t o r a i s e atr i abl e i s s ue a s t o w he the rhe w a s e xpos e d t o unr e a s onabl yhi gh le v e ls o f s e c o n d - h a n d s m o k e o rw h e th e rth e d e f e n d a n ts a c te dw ith d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e . See H

el l i ngv. McKi nn ey , 50 9 U . S . 25 , 35 -37 (19 93 ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e nton H ow a r d’ s c l a i m c onc e rni ng 12 t ape s tha tw e r e c onf

i s c a t e d f r om hi s c e l l , a f

t e rD e f e nda nt s e vi nc e d a n i nt e nt i on t o r e turn the t ape s . D e s pi t e the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s i ns truc t i on tha tD e f e nda nt s f ol l owt k / Res ea r ch 09- 15382 3 th r o u g h o n th e irin te n tio n , H o w a r d ’s tap e s ap p e a rto n o t h a v e b e e n r e tu rn e d . W e v a c a te s u m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th is c la im a n dr e m a n df o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s . T he di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e nton H ow a r d’ s F i r s tA m e ndm e nt a nd R e l i gi ous L a nd U s e a nd I ns t i tut i ona l i z e d P e r s ons A c tc l a i m c onc e rni ng the cancel l at i on of N at i on of Is l am pray erse rvi ce s. H ow ever , H ow ar d i ntrodu ce d evi dence s ug gest i ng thatcancel i ng the pray erse rvi ce w ou l d cre at e asubst ant i al b u r d e n o n h is r e lig io n b e c au s e h e s in c e r e lyb e lie v e dth a t p r a y in g in E n g lis h is r e q u ir e d to m a in ta in h is s p ir itu a lity . See Sh a ku r v. Sch ri ro , 514 F . 3d 878, 884- 85 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( f

oc us i ng on the s i nc e r i tyr a the rtha n c e ntr a l i tyof ar e l i gi ous b e lie f ) ; s e e al s o 42 U . S . C . § 2000c c - 5( 7) ( A ) ( de f i ni ng “ r e l i gi ous e xe r c i s e ” a s “ a ny e xe r c i s e of

r e l i gi on, w he the rornotc om pe l l e d by , orc e ntr a l t o, as y s t e m of r e l i gi ous be l i e f

” ) . M or e ove r , D e f

e nda nt s di d nots ubm i ta nye vi de nc e s ugge s t i ng th a t th e ird e c is io n to c a n c e l th e p r a y e rs e rv ic e w a s b a s e do n ale g itim a te c o rr e c tio n a l g o a l. Se e Sw ift v . L e w is , 901 F . 2d 730, 731- 32 ( 9th C i r . 1990) (e xp l ai ni ng thatpri son o ff i ci al s m ustprod uce s om e e vi dence thatthei r pol i ci es w e r e a c tu a llyb a s e d o n th e le g itim a te c o rr e c tio n a l g o a ls th e ya s s e rt) . W e v a c a te su m m ary j u d g m en to n th i s cl ai m an drem an dfo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s.t k / Res ea r ch 09- 15382 4 W e d o n o t c o n s id e rH o w a r d ’s c la im th a t s u m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s p r e m a tu r e . Se e D o dd

v . H o o d R iv e rC o u n ty , 5 9 F . 3 d8 5 2 , 8 6 3 (9 th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) (st at i n g th atas a generalrul e, appeal s c ou rt s do n otconsi der i ss ues notra i se d b el ow ). W e d o n o t c o n s id e ris s u e s th a t w e r e n o t r a is e din H o w a r d ’s o p e n in g b r ie f . See Sm i th v. M

a rsh , 19 4 F . 3d 10 45 , 10 52 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). T h e p a rtie s s h a ll b e a rth e iro w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. AF F I RME D i n p a r t , V AC AT E D i n p a r t , a n d RE MAND E D.