Opinion ID: 6968454
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Officer Lightner

Text: Canell contends that Officer Light-ner’s actions which included bringing Christian literature to work, singing Christian songs, mock-preaching, and belittling other religions constituted a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause to mean that the “government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization [and] may not discriminate among persons on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices .. County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 590, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 3099, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989). Canell asserts that Lightner’s preaching and endorsement of the Christian religion while acting as a prison guard constituted government promotion of religion. Lightner argues that any violation that occurred was de min-imis. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Lightner but advised him to “more sharply delineate between his functions as a correctional officer and as a minister in the Christian faith.” The principal problem with Canell’s' claim is that he has not alleged facts or offered supporting evidence tending to show that Lightner’s actions constituted government endorsement or sponsorship of religion. As we have already noted, Canell has not alleged that Lightner was acting pursuant to any official policy or custom of the facility. Nor has Canell alleged that Lightner had the authority to make policy or that the government ratified or endorsed his actions. In fact, it is undisputed that Lightner was transferred soon after Canell complained of his conduct. For the purpose.of an Establishment Clause violation, a state policy need not be formal, written, or approved by an official body to qualify as state sponsorship of religion. Our decision in American Jewish Congress v. City of Beverly Hills, 90 F.3d 379 (9th Cir.1996), however, offers guidance as to what constitutes a state policy that violates the Establishment Clause. In that case, we held that the city’s ad-hoc method for granting permits to display religious symbols in a local park violated the Establishment Clause. We reached that conclusion despite the fact that the city officials who authorized the permits made the decisions individually and without substantial oversight from an official body. What distinguishes American Jewish Congress from the instant case is the fact that the city officials in that case were vested with the actual authority to issue the official permits. Id. at 383. Once issued, the permits carried the force of an official municipal policy. By contrast, here, Officer Lightner’s actions were not sanctioned in any way-by a policy of the correctional facility or otherwise. There is no indication that the facility’s other staff condoned his proselytizing or were aware of it before Canell complained; Lightner’s activities continued over only a brief period during which he was on duty in Canell’s unit for a maximum of eighteen days. Shortly after Canell complained, Lightner was transferred. Under the circumstances, we hold that Lightner’s activities were not sufficiently imbued with the state’s authority to constitute state endorsement of religion. Therefore, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Light-ner with respect to Canell’s Establishment Clause claim.
Canell also argues that Lightner’s actions infringed upon his rights under the Free Exercise Clause when Lightner’s mock-preaching and espousal of religious views interfered with Canell’s efforts to pray. We disagree. First, as we discussed above, Ca-nell has not alleged that Lightner acted pursuant to any state or prison policy authorizing prison, staff to interfere with the religious freedoms of inmates. See O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 2404-05, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987) (holding that prison policies may interfere with the exercise of a constitutional right if they are based on valid penological objectives). Second, Lightner’s alleged activities do not constitute a substantial burden on Canell’s free exercise of his religion. See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir.1997) (burden must be substantial and interfere with a tenet or belief that is central to religious doctrine). Canell’s only allegation is that on some occasions Lightner interfered with his prayer activities by preaching about Christian gospel. While Lightner’s evangelizing may have constituted an intrusion upon Ca-nell’s prayers on some occasions during the brief period involved, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that these intrusions were “relatively short-term and sporadic” and did not constitute a substantial interference. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Light-ner.