Opinion ID: 77840
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of a Designated Area of Worship

Text: Smith also argues that the ADOC's decision to deny his request to be granted a designated area of worship in an open area of the prison effectuated a substantial burden on his practice of Odinism. The Committee denied Smith's request for a designated area of worship, due to its concerns that permitting Odinist rites to be performed in a public area of the prison, before all the inmates, could pose security problems. The Committee's decision stated that The Asatru/Odinism religion draws and embraces certain members of the Aryan Nations and Neo-Nazis, which combined with a potentially hostile inmate population and the prevalence of prison gangs, would be detrimental to security and [pose] a strong potential for harm. R2-98, Exh. M at 2. The Committee did grant Smith a secure location to practice his Odinist rites, stating that when a secure place of worship was required, the Warden and Chaplain would designate a suitable location for Smith to engage in his observances. Upon review, we find that Smith has failed to establish that this decisionto allow Smith to practice his religion freely in a secure location while declining to allow his observances in the general prison areasignificantly hampered his religious exercise. As discussed in the previous section, a substantial burden must place more than an inconvenience on [one's] religious exercise. See Midrash, 366 F.3d at 1227. Here, there is no evidence that the ADOC's decision to limit Smith's religious practices to a secure location placed more than an incidental burden on his practice of the Odinist faith. See id. On the contrary, Smith remained free to engage in his religious observances under the Committee's 2003's decision, albeit limited to a secure, rather than an open, area of the prison. In addition, as with the quartz crystal, Smith has failed to demonstrate on appeal how, if it all, the decision to deny Smith a designated worship area, in the open area of the prison, effectuated a substantial burden on his individual practice of Odinism. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). In fact, the outside sources that Smith submitted in connection with his request did not make any mention of the need for a designated worship area in connection with the practice of Odinism. See generally R2-61. Because Smith failed to submit evidence to establish his prima facie case, the defendants-appellees were entitled to summary judgment on Smith's RLUIPA claim based on the denial of a designated worship spot. See Midrash, 366 F.3d at 1228.