Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20697 S u m m ary C al en da r
S A M U E L L E E J O N E S , J R ., a ls o k n o w n a s S a m u e l H a k e e m M u h a m m a d , P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. A K B A R SH A B A Z Z , D i rect or of I sl am i c C h ap l ai n s; C H A R L E S K ISE R , P ri son Ch a p l a i n ; BI LL P I ERCE, Di r e c t o ro f Ch a p l a i n c yDe p a r t m e n t ; RI CHARD L O P E Z , R egi on alP rogram A dm i n i st rat or; D O U G L A S D R E T K E , D i rect or, T D C J -C ID , D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 4: 06- c v- 01119

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * S am u elL ee J on es ( “Jon es” ) a pp eal s the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s grant of sum m ary j udg m e nta s t o t e n o f J o ne s ’ s t hi r t y- t hr e e Rel i gi ou s Land Use a nd I nst i t ut i onal i ze d Pers ons A c t( “ R LU I PA ” ) , Fi r stA m end m en t , and E qual P rot ect i on cl ai m s agai n stvari ou s Tex as D epa rt m en tof C ri m i n alJu st i ce United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20697

2 ( “ T D C J”) chap l ai n s and adm i n i st rat ors. A f t er c a reful l y ad dressi n g each al l e ga t i o n, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ude d t hatJ o ne s fai l e d t o r ai s e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m ater i alfacta s to any of h i s asser t ed cl ai m s. A dd i t i on al l y, t h e di st ri ctcourt decl i n ed to al l ow Jon es t o am en d h i s c om pl ai n tt o add a request f or m on et ary d a m a g e s . We A F F I R M. I . F A CT UA L B A CK GRO UND Jon es, al so kn ow n as Sa m u elH ak eem M u h am m ad , i s an i n m ate c on f i n ed t o t h e T D C J at t h e M i cha elU n i ti n T en n essee C ol on y, T exas. Jones i s a m em ber of t h e N ati on of

I sl am ( “ N O I” ). J o n e s al l eges he w as subjec t ed to a vari et y of act s and even t s he cl ai m s viol ated h i s F ree E xerci se r i gh t s, R L U IPAprot ect i on s, a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t E q u a l P r o t e c t io n r ig h t s . S p e c if ic a ll y , J o n e s ’s ap pea lrai ses t h e f

ol l ow i n g exam pl es of T D C J’ s al l eged cond u ct as groun ds f or h is v a rio u s c la im s: 1 ) “th e ft” of h is “re li g iou s p ro p e rty ” a n d “re li g iou s v id eot ap es” b ys e v e r a ld i f

fe r e n tT DC J ad mi n i s t r a t o r s ; 2 ) T DC J ’ s r e f u s a lt o a l l o w NO I
a d h e r e n t s t o p e r f

o r m c e r t a i n a c t s a tt h e i rwe e k l ys e r v i c e s a n d p r e a c h NOI doctr i n e t o non - N O I M u sl i m i n m ates; 3) T D C J ’ s ref u salt o ackn ow l edg e or ac c o m m o d a t e u n i q u e NOI r e l i g i o u s h o l i d a y s ; a n d 4 ) T DCJ ’ s fa i l u r e t o p r o vi de N O I ad h erents w i t h a speci f i c di etconf

orm i n g t o t h ei r r el i gi ou s pref erences rat h er t h an a di ett h at s i m pl y avoids prohibi t ed f oods. O n M ar c h 6 , 2 00 6, J o ne s b r o ugh ts ui tagainst f ive TD CJ c hap l ai ns a nd ad m i n i st rat ors: A kb ar Sh aba z z , D i rect or of I sl am i c C h ap l ai n s; C h arl es K i ser, P ri son C h ap l ai n at t h e B et o U n i t ; B i l l P i erce, D i rect or of th e C h a p lai n cy D epar t m ent ; R i c hard Lope z, R egi onalPro gr am A dm i ni st rat or ; and D ougl as D r e t k e , F o r m e rD ir e c t o rT D C J -C o r r e c t io n a l I n s t it u t io n s D iv is io n . J o n e s ’s
com pl ai n tal l eged t h i rt y- t h ree c l ai m s a ri si n g u n der R L U IPA , t h e F i rst A m en d m en t, an d t he Fourt ee nt h A m en d m en t. Jon es inc l u d ed do ze n s of exh ib i ts t h at eventuall y grew t o hu n dreds of pag es of

docum en t ati o n a s th e case p rog ress ed

. O ve r th e n ex t ei gh teen m on th s, the de fen d a n ts f i l ed thre e se p a ra teN o. 08- 20697

This court previously denied Jone s’s motion to file an oversiz ed brief. Jones states in 1 his briefs that h e would h ave appeal ed the di strict court ’ sgrant of summaryj udgment re gardin gth e re mainin gtwe nty -thre e cl aim s h a d h e b ee n permitte d to file anover si z edb rief

. Inlieu of such a filin g, Jones lists the other issue s he w oul d have appeal ed in a “Notic e To The Court.” Even under the lib eral construction afforde d pro se briefs, a liti gant must still attempt toa dvanceanargu me nt inorderto pres erve it

. Lon go ria v. Dretke , 50 7 F .3d 8 98, 901 (5th Cir. 200 7). Jones’s listin g of po ssibleother groun ds of errordoe s not meet this veryminimal st andar d. As su ch, any claimof errorasto the dis tri ct co urt ’sruling on the rem aining tw entythre e cl aims has bee n waived. 3 m o t i o ns fo rsum m ar y j udg m e nt
. The di s t r i c tco ur trul e d on t he f i r s tand s e c o nd
m ot i on s on S eptem ber 28, 200 7. I n a 60-page ruli n g consi deri n g each an d every
coun ti n detai l , t h e d i st ri ctcourtgran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en ton thi rt y- on e of th ir ty -th r e e cla im s . T h e co u r t w ith h e ld a fin a l d e te r m in a tio n o f J o n e s ’ s cla im s
r e ga r di ng w he t he rhe s ho ul d b e pe r m i t t e d t o r e t ai n pr ay e r o i li n t he pr i s o n a nd
w h e th e rT D C J s h o w e rp r o c e d u r e s v io la te d N O I m o d e s ty ru le s . T h e defen da n t s f

i l ed t h ei r t h i rd sum m ary j u dg m en tm ot i on on N ovem ber 2 0 , 2 0 0 7
. I n g r a n t i n gd e fe n d a n t s ’mo t i o n , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tf o u n d t h a tt h e T DCJ h a d c h a n g e d i t s p o l i c ywi t h r e s p e c tt o p r a y e ro i li n o r d e rt o a c c o mm o d a t e NOI
r equi r em ent s. The m ode st y i ss ue, atl eas t i nso far as Jo nes w as c onc er ned, has been res ol ved by placi n g Jo n e s i n a un i tt h at provi ded a m ore s u i t able show er arran gem en t
. Jones ap pea l ed on O ct ober 20, 200 8 al l egi n g el even groun ds of
error . 1 I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW We r e v i e w a g r a n to f s u mma r yj u d g me n td e n o v o , a p p l y i n gt h e s a me
s ta n d a r d a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Bol t o n v . Ci ty of D al las , 47 2 F

. 3 d 26 1 , 26 3 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 00 6)

. O ur i nqui r y “ i s l i m i t e d t o t he s um m ar y j udg m e nt r e c o r d b e f o r e t he tri a lcou rt. ” Top al i an v . Ehr m an , 9 5 4 F .2 d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 3 2 n .1 0 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). W e
m ustvi ew t h e ev i d en c e i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he non- m ovi ng par t y, Mat s us hi t a El e c . I

ndus

. Co. v . Ze ni t h Radi o Cor p. , 4 75 U

. S. 5 74 , 5 87 ( 19 86 ) , a nd th e m o v a n t h a s t h e b u r d e n o f s h o w in gth is co u r t t h a t s u m m a r yju d g m e n t is
a p p r o p r ia te
. Celo texCo rp . v . Ca tre tt , 477 U

. S

. 317 , 323 ( 198 6)

. S u m m a ryN o. 08- 20697

Jo nes does not a dvance his Fourteenth Amen dment clai ms on appeal. In stead, Jones 2 rep e at edly asse rtsthat hisclaim s ari se“unde r the RLUIPA, FIRST, and FOURTEENTH Amen dments” atth e b eginning of eachsection with no additional argu ment. He does not make anyar guments related to E qual Protectionunder the Fourteenth Amen dment or any arguments th at canbe liber ally con strued as reachin g that point. Accordingly , th e Fourt eenth Ame ndment argu me ntsh ave b ee nwaived

. Lon gor ia , 5 0 7 F

. 3 d at 9 0 1
. E ve n if he had not waived these argu ments, however, Jone s ha s failed to a dvance any evidence at all sugge sting NOI adherent s were subj ected to di scrimin atio n relative to other faith s onany of his eleven clai ms of error. 4 j u dg m en ti s app ro p ri ate w h ere t h e com petent s u m m ary j u dg m en tevi den ce de m o ns t r at e s t hatt h ere i s no g e nui ne i s s ue o f m at e r i alfac ta nd t he m o vi ng p a r tyis e n tit le d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tt e ro f la w . B ol t on , 4 7 2 F .3 d a t 2 6 3 ; see F ed. R

. C iv. P

. 56(c )

. A gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i al fact exi st s i f a reasonab l e j u ry c oul d ent er a ver di c t f ort he non- m ovi ng par t y. A n d ers on v. L i berty L obby, I n c. , 47 7 U

. S. 2 42 , 2 52 ( 19 86 )

. H ow eve r , t o a vo i d s um m ar y j udg m e nt , t he no nm ov a n t m u st go b ey on d the plea d i n gs an d co m e fo r w a rd w i th sp ecif i c fa cts in d ic a tin ga g e n u in e is s u e fo rt r ia l. P i azza’ s Seafood W

orl d, L L Cv. O d om , 448 F

. 3d 744 , 752 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)

. W e m ay “ af f i rm a g ran tof sum m ary j u dg m en ton a n y g r o u n d s s u p p o r te d b y th e r e c o r d a n d p r e s e n te d to th e c o u r t b e lo w .” Hernan d ez v. V

elasqu ez , 5 2 2 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ).

I I I . DI S CU S S I ON O n app eal , Jon es has redu ced his t h i rt y- t h ree al l egati o ns t o el even al l eged
error s r el ati n g t o hi s c l ai m s un der R L U IPA an d t h e F i rstA m en dm en t
. Th ese 2
e l e ve n a l l e ge d e r r o r s ca n be gr o upe d i nt o f ive ca t e go r i e s : 1 ) i s s ue s r e ga r di ng t he

“ t h e f t ” o f J o n e s ’ s v i d e o t a p e s ; 2 ) i s s u e s r e g a r d i n gt h e g e n e r i c n a t u r e o f T DC J M usl i m s er vi c es ; 3) i ss ues reg ar di ng TD C J’ s r ec ogni t i on of r el i gi ous hol i days ; 4) i s s ue s r e ga r di ng TD CJ’ s a l t e r nat ive di et offeri ngs ; a nd 5 ) t he pr o pr i e t y o f t he di s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r r e f u s i n g J o n e s ’ s r e q u e s t t o a m e n d h i s c o m p l a i n t t o ad d a
r e que s tf

o rm o ne t ar y r e l i e f

. W e a ddr e s s e ac h c at e go r y i n t ur n.N o. 08- 20697

Jo nes’s arguments regardingth e religiou s videotapes tends to co nf la t e the variou s 3 incidents healleges. Nonetheless, a careful review of th e record demonstr ates that th e di strict court’s ch aracteri zationof the vi deotape i ssue a s involving three discreteincide nts of alleged theft is correct. 5 A

. Jon es’

s “ R el igi ou s V

i d eot ap es” J on es co n ten d s th a t t h e d efen d a n ts en ga ge d i n a sy stem a ti c con sp i ra cyto de ny N O I a dhe r e nt s a c c e s s t o v i de o t ap e d r e l i gi o us l e c t ur e s ne c e s s ar y t o t he p ra cti ce of the i r fa i th

. M ore sp ecific a l l y, Jon es a l l eg es th a t t h e d efen d a n ts
c o ns pi r e d o n t hr e e s e pa r at e o c c as i o ns t o s t e alr e l i gi o us v i de o t ap e s t hathe 3 cl ai m s w ere hi s propert y. W e agree w i t h t h e di st ri ctcourtt h at–how ever t h ese i n ci den t s are constr u ed–Jon es has fai l ed t o rai se a gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i alfact as t o w h et h er t h e den i alof t h ese vi deotapes consti t u t es a substanti albu rden on Jon es’ s r el i gi ou s exerc i se and w h et h er TD C J poli ci es governi n g i n m ate acc ess t o vi deotapes are l ogi cal l y rel ated t o l egi t i m ate penologi cali n t erest s. R L U IPAp rovi des t h at n o governm en tshalli m pose a sub st an t i albu rden
on t h e rel i gi ou s exerci se of a p erson resi di n g i n or confi n ed t o an i n st i t u t i on even i f t he bur de n r e s ul t s f r o m a r ul e o f ge ne r al ap pl i c ab i l i t y, unl e s s t he g o ve r nm e nt dem on st rat es t h at i m posi t i on of t h e bu rden on t h at person i s i n f u rt h eran ce of
a com p e ll in g govern m en t ali n t erestan d i s t h e l east rest ri ct ive m ean s of f ur t he r i ngt ha tc o m p e l l i ngg o v e r nm e nt a l i nt e r e s t
. 4 2 U

. S. C. § 2 0 0 0 c c - 1 ( a )

. To fal lu n d er R L U IP A , h ow ev er, a n i n m a te m u st f i rst de m on strate tha t a gover nm e ntpr ac t i c e i m po s e s a “ s ubs t ant i alb ur de n” o n hi s r e l i gi o us e xe r c i se. T h i s i n q u i ryreq u i res th i s cou rt t o d eterm i n e (1) w h eth er th e b u rd en ed activi ty
w as i n fac ta “ r el i gi ous ex er c i se ” and, if s o, ( 2 ) w het hert he bur den w as “su b stan ti a l

. ” Adki ns v . Kas par , 3 9 3 F .3 d 5 5 9 , 5 6 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A go ve r nm e nta c t i o n o rr e gul at i o n o nl y c r e at e s a “ s ubs t ant i alb ur de n” o n a
r e lig io u s e x e r c is e if it tr u lyp r e s s u r e s a n a d h e r e n t t o s ig n ific a n tly m o d ifyh is
r e lig io u s b e h a v io ra n d s i g n i fic a n tly v io la te h is re lig io u s b e lie fs

. I d. at570.N o. 08- 20697

6 “ [ T] he e f

fec tof a g ove r nm entact i on or r egul at i on i s s i gni f i c antw hen i tei t her( 1) i nf l uence s t he adher entt o a c ti n a w ay t hatvi ol at es hi s r el i gi ous be l i efs, or( 2) fo r c e s t h e a d h e r e n t to c h o o s e b e tw e e n , o n t h e o n e h a n d , e njo y in gs o m e g e n e r a lly
av ai l ab l e , no nt r ivi alb e ne f i t , a nd, o n t he o t he rha nd, f o l l o w i ng hi s r e l i gi o us b eli efs. ” I

d. Jon es has n otrai sed an i ssue of m ater i alfactas t o t h e substanti albu rden pro ng of

R LU I PA anal ys i s on any o f hi s vi deo t ape- r el at ed c l ai m s. O t hert han a sel f

- servi n g af

f i da vi tcl ai m i n g h e regards vi ew i n g t h e vi deotapes as a
m a n d a t o r yp a r to f

h i s NOI fai t h , J o n e s h a s p r o v i d e d n o e v i d e n c e t h a tT DCJ
con ten t restri cti on s an d scree n i n g p roce sse s “t ru l y [pr ess u re] [h i m ] to
s i gn i f i can t l y m odi f

y h i s r el i gi ou s beha vi or and si gn i f i can t l y vi ol ates hi s r e l i gi o us b eli efs. ” Se eAdki ns , 393 F. 3d at569- 70. A s s u c h , w e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s in d e ta il each of t h e t h ree i n st an ces of al l eged m i scondu ctor w h et h er t h e vi deotapes w ere “s to le n ” a s J o n e s re p e a te d lya lle g e s . Eve n a s s um i ng al lo f J o ne s ’ s a l l e ga t i o ns ag ai ns t the TD CJ w e r e t r ue a nd wer e s upp o r t e d b y s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e , he si m pl y can n otm ak e ou ta g en u i n e is sue of factas t o substanti albu rden un der Adki ns . S i m i l a rl y, Jon es fail ed to crea te a g en u i n e issu e of m a terialfa ct as to
w h et h er t h e T D C J’ s vi deo revi ew pol i cy an d rul es agai n sti n m ate posses si on of vi deotapes vi ol ates t h e F i rstA m en dm en t
. W h en a pri son regu l ati on i m pi n ges o n in m a te s ’co n s tit u tio n a l rig h ts , th e re g u la tio n is v a lid if it is re a s o n a b ly related to l eg i ti m a te p en ological i n teres t. Sc o t tv. Mi s s . D e p'tof Cor r e c t i o ns , 961 F .2d 7 7 , 8 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). The TD CJ’ s s t at e d j us t i f i c at i o n f

o rr e vi e w i ng
r e l i gi o us m at eri al s i s t o i nt e r c e pt , a m o ng o t he rt hi ngs , v i de o t ap e s c o nt ai ni ng da nge r o us o rr ac i s tm e s s ag e s . The TD CJ’ s s t at e d j u st i f i c at i o n f

o rpr o hibi t i ng i n m ate posses si on ( as opp osed t o vi ew i n g) of vi deotapes i n gen erali s t h at s u ch tap es ca n be u s e d a s w ea p on s. T h ese secu ri ty con cern s cl ea rl y co n sti tu te l egi t i m at e g ove r nm enti nt er es t s l ogi c al l y r el at ed t o b ot h pol i c i es . Jo nes hasN o. 08- 20697

7 fai l e d t o pr o duc e a ny e vi de nc e s ugg e s t i ng t hatt he s e j us t i f i c ati on s ar e no tt he t rue m ot ivati on f

or t h e T D C J pol i ci es. A ccor di n gl y, Jon es’ s cl ai m s w i t h res pect to th e v id e o ta p e s a ls o fa il u n d e rth e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. B

. T D CJ ’ s G eneri c Mu sl i m S ervi ces Jones nextasser t s t hatt he TD C J vi ol at ed hi s r el i gi ous l iber t i es by: 1)
r ef usi ng t o a l l ow hi m and ot herN O I adher ent s t o under t ake c er t ai n ri t ual s at th e w ee k l y M u sli m serv i ce; 2 ) refu singto pe rm i t Jon es o r oth er N O I ad h ere n ts t o g iv e s e r mo n s a n d l e c t u r e s a t a l l M u s l i m s e r v i c e s ; 3 ) r e f u s i n g t o a u t h o r i z e NOI ad he r e nt s t o f

o r m r e l i gi o us s t udyg r o ups ; a nd 4 ) r e f us i ng t o a l l ow J o ne s a nd ot h er N O I ad h erents t o pray separatel y at t h e w eekly M u sl i m servi ces. N on e of t hes e c l ai m s have m er i t
. I nst ead, w e a gai n agr ee w i t h t he di st ri c tc our tt hat J o n e s ca n n o t m a k e o u t a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l fa c t a s to a n yo f h is al l egat i ons r egar di ng t he TD C J’ s r el i gi ous s er vi c es pol i c y. F i rst , Jon es c an n otm ak e o u t a R L U IPAcl ai m becau se t h e defen da n t s’
s u m m a r yj u d g m e n te v i d e n c e c o n c l u s iv e lye s t a b l i s h e s t h a tt h e s t r u c t u r e o f T DCJ M us l i m s e r vi c e s c o ns t i t ut e s t he l e as tr e s t r i c t ive m e ans t o a dv anc e a c o m pe l l i ng g o vernm en ti n t erest , an d Jon es has n o com petent c on t rary evi den ce. S p ecif i ca l l y, th e d efen d a n ts clea rl y d em on strate , a s n oted by the distri ct cou rt, t hatt he g e ne r i cs t r uc t ur e of T D C J M u sl i m ser vi ces m axim i zes i n m ates’r e l i gi o us l ib ertyw h i l e a d d ress i n g co m p ell i n g g ov ern m en t i n teres ts in cl u d i n g se cu ri ty p r o b le m s , st a ffin glim ita tio n s , a n d s p a c e co n s tr a in ts
. S i m i l a rl y, Jon es ca n n ot m a k e ou t a F i rst A m en d m en t cl a i m . W e d efer to t h e pol i cy deci si on s of pri son r egu l ator s w h ere l i m i t ati on s on rel i gi ou s l ibert i es are reasona bl y rel ated t o l egi t i m ate penologi cali n t erest s. B aran ow skiv. Hart , 486 F

. 3d 112 , 120 ( 5th C i r. 200 7)

. U n der B aranow s ki , w e ask: ( 1) w h et h er t h ere i s a r at i o nalr e l at i o ns hi p b e t w e e n t he r e gul at i o n a nd t he l e gi t i m at e g o ve r nm e nt i n t erestadv an ced; ( 2) w h et h er t h e i n m ates h ave av ai l able al t erna t ive m ean s of exerci si n g t h e ri gh t ; ( 3) t h e i m pa ct of t h e accom m oda t i on on p ri son st af f, ot h erN o. 08- 20697

Jo nes also cites Exhib its 8 1-91 insupport of hi s religiou s holiday argument. Exhib its 4 8 1 -8 4makeno me ntionof eith erholid ayan d app ear tob e internethomilie s i ssu edb yth e NOI lea dership. Jones’s E xhibits th en skip from Exhib it 84 to E xhibit 1 08. No Exhib it 85, 86, 87, 8 8 , 8 9 , 9 0 , or9 1 app earsinth e record

. 8 i n m ates, an d the al l ocat i on of pri son r esources gen eral l y; an d ( 4) w h et h er t h ere a r e “r e a d ya lte r n a ti v e s ” t o t h e re g u la tio n . I d. H er e, t he def

endant s have provi ded am pl e evi de n ce d em on st rat i n g t h at i t s deci si on t o ref u se s peci al i zed servi ces f

or N O I M u sl i m s w as based u pon both securi t y concerns an d resource l i m i t at i o ns . N O I i nm at e s m ays t i l le xe r c i s e t h ei r rel i gi o us r i ght s t hr o ugh t he
w e e kl y gr o u p wo r s h i p me e t i n g s . M o r e o v e r , a s n o t e d wi t h r e s p e c tt o RL UI PA , T D C J ’ s p la n re p r e s e n ts th e le a s t r e s tr ic t i v e m e a n s o f a d v a n c in gm u ltip le
com pel l i n g govern m e n t inter est s. A s s u ch, Jon es c an n otm ak e out a Fir st A m en dm en tcl ai m un der B aranow s kiw i t h t h e evi den ce h e adv an ced i n sup port
o f h is cla im b e lo w . C

. NO I R el igi ou s Hol i d ays J o n e s c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e T DC J h a s r e f u s e d t o a c k n o wl e d g e t wo NOI obs er vance days

. As t he di st r i c t c our t not es , pl ai nt i f f ’ s ow n exhibi t s sho w t hat h i s r equ estha s been referred t o t h e R el i gi ou s Practi ce C om m i t t ee ( “ R P C ” ) f or d is c u s s i o n a n d a p p r o v a l. J o n e s d id n o t s u b m it e v id e n c e s h o w in gth a t h is requ estw as den i ed. Jones did not s u bm i tevi den ce s h ow i n g t h at he f i l ed ad di t i on algri evan ces t o deter m i n e t h e st atus of t h e R P C ’ s revi ew . Jon es di d n ot
s u b mi t e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e T DC J i n t e r fe r e s wi t h h i s o b s e r v a n c e o f t h e NOI h ol i da ys. I n fact , Jon es di d n otprovi de an y evi den ce t h at observi n g t h ese

“ ho l i da ys ” c o ns t i t ut e s a r e l i gi o us e xe r c i s e b e f o r e f i l i ng hi s a ppel l ate bri e f a nd t h en onl y di d so by concl u sory all e g a ti on an d a n on - speci f i c c i t ati on t o Jet Magaz i ne . W i t houtm or e, Jo nes s i m pl y c annotr ai se a g enui ne i ss ue o f m at er i al 4 fact as to w h eth er th e T D C J h a s i n fri n ge d on h i s F re e E x e r c is e ri gh ts or as toN o. 08- 20697

9 w h e th e rt h e T D C J h a s c r e a te d a s u b s ta n tia l b u r d e n o n h is a b ility t o p r a c tic e h is fai t h. D

. NO I D ieta ry R eq u ire m en ts Jon es r ai ses on e cl ai m w i t h respect t o the T D C J pork

- f ree m en u op t i on f

or N O I adher ent s. H e a ss er t s t hat , w hi l e t he TD C J doe s i n fac tpr ovi de al t er nat ive opti on s, hi s r el i gi ou s bel i efs prohibi tt h e con sum pti on of an y of t h e al t erna t ives p r o v id e d

. In s te a d , h e cla im s h is r e lig io u s b e lie fs r e q u ir e th e T D C J to s e r v e h im
n ot h i n g bu tfr esh f

rui t s, v egetabl es, ch i cken , an d f i sh. Y etJon es has provi ded absol u t el y n o evi den ce t h at t h e al t erna t ive f oods of fered t o N O I in m a te s are proh ibi t ed by h i s fai t h

. Inst ead , h e si m pl y contend s t h at he persona l l y bel i eves t hathe m ayno te att ho s e f o o ds

. Thi s l ac k of

ev i de nc e , al o ne , i s s uf f i c i e ntf o rus to fin d th a t h e h a s n o t cr e a te d a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l fa c t. J o n e s ’ s cla im s a l so failbe ca u se re q u i ri n g th e T D C J to sp ecially a ccom m od a te N O I ad h ere n ts ande ve r y o ne o f

t he o t he r1 40 r e l i gi o us s e c t s i n t he TD CJ w o ul d c r e at e und ue bu rden s on pri son ad m in istr a t i on an d the T D C J poli cy repres en t s t h e l east
r e s tr ic tiv e m e a n s a v a ila b le fo rh a n d lin gr e l ig io u s d ie ta r yis s u e s . S ee B aranow s ki , 4 8 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 (u p h o ld in g T D C J ’ s r e fu s a l to p r o v id e k o s h e rm e a ls to J e w is h in m a te s u n d e rF ir s t A m e n d m e n t a n d R L U IP A). E. Jo ne s ’

s Mo t i o n t o Am e nd F in a lly , J o n e s a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t co u r ts d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to a m e n d h is
c o m p la in t t o a d d a re q u e s t fo r m o n e ta r yd a m a g e s in co n n e c tio n w ith h is R L U I PAc l ai m . As o urde c i s i o n t o da y af f i r m s s um m ar y j udg m e nto n a l lof Jon es’ s t h i rt y- t h ree c l ai m s, w e need not r each t h i s i ssue. I V . C ONC L US I ON A f t er r evi ew in g the record, w e agree w i t h t h e di st ri ctcourtt h at Jones si m pl y has notr ai se d a ge nui ne i ss ue o f m at er i al fac t on any of t he c l ai m s he has
a p p e a l e d t o t h i s c o u r t
. Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED. Ad d i t i o n a l l y , J o n e s ’ s mo t i o n f o ra p p o i n t me n to f

c o u n s e li s DE NI ED

.N o. 08- 20697

10