Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Reginald Clarence HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard SKOLNIK, Director (NDOC); Dwight Neven, Warden; Isidro Baca, Warden; Julio Calderin, Chaplain; Dwayne Deal, Caseworker; Awp J. Henson, Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Reginald Clarence Howard, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his right to the free exercise of religion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both summary judgment and an officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity. Hughes v. Kisela, 841 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2016). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Hartmann v. California Dept. of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
An inmate’s First Amendment right of the free exercise of religion is subject to certain limitations. As the Supreme Court said in O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987),
[I]ncarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system. The limitations on the exercise of constitutional rights arise both from the fact of incarceration and from valid penological objectives including—deterrence of crime, rehabilitation of prisoners, and institutional security.
Id. at 348, 107 S.Ct. 2400 (citations and quotations omitted).
The unchallenged factual reason for the Nevada Department of Correction’s cancellation of Nation of Islam services at High Desert State Prison was institutional security. There was no dispute about the legitimacy of this reason sufficient to generate a genuine controversy requiring resolution by a trial.
AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-15679
Decided: April 23, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)