Summary
The Seventh Circuit considers whether prison officials violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) or the First Amendment by declining to provide Muslim inmates with accurate prayer schedules. The court holds that the de minimis cost of obtaining a prayer schedule did not substantially burden the plaintiff’s religious exercise and discusses whether RLUIPA requires states to purchase religious items for prisoners. The opinion also addresses the plaintiff’s related Free Exercise claims arising from inaccurate schedules and the refusal to provide replacement schedules.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether declining to use government funds to provide an accurate prayer schedule substantially burdened Childs's religious exercise under RLUIPA.
- Whether RLUIPA requires a state prison to purchase religious items or devotional accessories for inmates.
- Whether the prison's neutral policy against purchasing personal property for inmates violated the Free Exercise Clause.
- Whether the distribution of inaccurate prayer schedules violated the Free Exercise Clause under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Holdings
- The de minimis and unquestionably affordable cost of obtaining one's own prayer schedule, when prison officials do not prevent the inmate from obtaining or possessing one, does not substantially burden religious exercise under RLUIPA.
- RLUIPA does not require a state to purchase devotional accessories or religious items, including prayer schedules, for inmates.
- The neutral and generally applicable policy prohibiting the use of government funds to purchase inmate personal property, religious or secular, did not violate the Free Exercise Clause because Childs failed to show a substantial burden on his religious exercise.
- Childs waived his claim concerning the inaccurate prayer schedules because he did not develop an appellate argument alleging intentional or reckless conduct in response to the district court's ruling that negligence is not actionable under § 1983.
Key quotations
“This language in footnote 8, which we refer to as Cutter’s rule, is part of the Court’s holding and is thus binding.” (at 15-16)
“RLUIPA therefore does not require states to purchase religious accessories for inmates.” (at 19)
“For these reasons, Childs’s RLUIPA claim fails.” (at 23)
Factual background
Shareef Childs, a Muslim inmate at Stanley Correctional Institution, believed that Salah prayers had to begin at precise times and relied on prison-distributed prayer schedules. A chaplain initially distributed schedules that were inaccurate because the wrong location had been entered into the scheduling website; after the error was discovered, officials did not distribute revised schedules to inmates. The prison permitted inmates to possess prayer schedules, receive them by donation, or purchase them from outside vendors, and Childs eventually received an accurate schedule by donation. The cost of obtaining a schedule was described as de minimis, and Childs did not show that paying for one would cause financial hardship.
Procedural history
Childs, a Muslim inmate, sued prison officials after inaccurate prayer schedules were distributed and officials declined to print and distribute accurate schedules using prison funds. The Western District of Wisconsin granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims, concluding that the failure to provide prayer schedules did not violate RLUIPA or the First Amendment and that qualified immunity independently protected defendants. The Seventh Circuit reviewed the summary judgment decision de novo and affirmed.