Reginald Howard v. Howard Skolnik

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 23, 2018
Docket16-15679
StatusUnpublished

This text of Reginald Howard v. Howard Skolnik (Reginald Howard v. Howard Skolnik) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reginald Howard v. Howard Skolnik, (9th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REGINALD CLARENCE HOWARD, No. 16-15679

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00728-GMN- GWF v.

HOWARD SKOLNIK, Director (NDOC); MEMORANDUM * DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden; ISIDRO BACA, Warden; JULIO CALDERIN, Chaplain; DWAYNE DEAL, Caseworker; AWP J. HENSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding

April 19, 2018**

Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

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

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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 (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 (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.

2 16-15679

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz
482 U.S. 342 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Shawna Hartmann v. California Department of Corr.
707 F.3d 1114 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Amy Hughes v. Andrew Kisela
841 F.3d 1081 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Reginald Howard v. Howard Skolnik, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reginald-howard-v-howard-skolnik-ca9-2018.