BLAND v. KERNAN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-21No. No. 20-16565

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Bland's First Amendment and RLUIPA claims because he failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that the prison's ban on pornographic materials lacked a reasonable relationship to legitimate penological interests or substantially burdened his religious practice.

Joshua Bland, a California state prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit claiming religious discrimination under federal civil rights law and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Bland challenged a state prison policy that prohibits incarcerated individuals from possessing pornographic materials, asserting the policy violated his religious freedoms. The appellate court reviewed the dismissal and found that Bland's complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to support his claims.

To succeed on his religious freedom claims, Bland needed to show either that the pornography ban had no reasonable connection to prison security or that it substantially interfered with his religious practice. The court determined that Bland failed to plead facts meeting either requirement. The court also declined to consider arguments Bland raised for the first time on appeal rather than in his initial filing.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a prison policy prohibiting possession of pornographic materials violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion
Whether the pornography ban violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
Whether the policy is reasonably related to legitimate prison security interests
Sufficiency of factual allegations in the complaint

Procedural posture

Bland appealed pro se from a district court's dismissal of his § 1983 and RLUIPA action, which the appellate court reviewed de novo.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Joshua Davis Bland appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) action alleging religious discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district courts dismissal of a complaint as frivolous. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Blands First Amendment and RLUIPA claims was proper because Bland failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the policy of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation prohibiting incarcerated persons from possessing pornographic materials bore no reasonable relationship to the legitimate penological interest of prison security, or that the policy substantially burdened his religious practice. See Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth elements of a § 1983 free exercise claim); Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth elements of a RLUIPA claim); Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that prisons ban on sexually explicit material did not violate the First Amendment).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Blands motion for exigent adjudication (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.