OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
The appellant, Daniel R. Smith (“Smith”) is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (“SCIP”). Smith commenced this civil action against appellees Philip L. Johnson, Superintendent (“Johnson”), and Tim G. Coffins, Publication Review Committee (“Coffins”), alleging that they denied him the ability to practice his religion of Yoruba/Palero/Vodun. Smith purchased by mail two volumes of a religious text entitled “El Libro,” by Carlos Montenegro, a Palero Priest, in November of 1999. Three months later, Smith received a form notice
from
Coffins informing him that the Publication Review Committee (“PRC”) had disapproved “El Libro,” in accordance with Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) policy. The notice stated that “El Libro” fell into the category of publications that “advocate, assist or are evidence of criminal activity or institution misconduct.” Smith timely appealed the decision. Johnson replied that “El Libro” was “obscene.” Smith wrote to Johnson
and requested reconsideration of the PRC decision. Johnson replied that, although “El Libro” was not, in fact, obscene, it did “refer to issues of control over other individuals, which is not permissible within a correctional setting,” and that Johnson would not overrule the PRC.
Smith continued to appeal and secured additional review by the PRC. Johnson wrote to the DOC Executive Deputy in May of 2000, stating that “El Libro” contained “spells and rituals” and that, “there are individuals within these settings who are capable of believing that such spells are possible.” Therefore, “conflict that could arise because of this aspect makes this publication inappropriate.” Smith was informed that his final appeals were denied and that he could have “El Libro” returned to the publisher, mailed home, or destroyed. Smith informed Johnson and Collins that he wanted “El Libro” sent to Mrs. Charlotta Smith. Smith was instructed to provide a postage slip as well as a request to mail the text, which he did. In August of 2000, Smith asked Johnson about the status of his request and was informed that the texts had been destroyed because he had not provided the postage slips and mailing request in a timely manner.
Smith filed a standard form 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 30, 2000, after the final decision that “El Libro” would not be permitted within the SCIP. Smith alleged violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights stemming from the withholding and subsequent destruction of his religious text. Johnson and Collins filed a motion to dismiss, which the Magistrate Judge construed as a motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommended summary judgment against the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, but denied it for the First Amendment claim. The District Court agreed and entered an order to that effect on March 28, 2002. After limited written discovery, Johnson and Collins again filed a motion for summary judgment against the First Amendment claim. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be granted, and the District Court entered an order granting summary judgment against all Smith’s claims on March 26, 2003. Smith timely appealed to this Court, which granted his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis.
This Court appointed counsel to brief and argue the First Amendment claim.
Smith argues on appeal that the District Court should have construed his complaint as also stating a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a).
We will remand to the District Court for consideration of Smith’s claim under RLUIPA.
The Magistrate Judge and District Court analyzed Smith’s claim under the framework laid out by the Supreme Court in
Turner v. Safley,
482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). The
Turner
Court articulated a “reasonableness” test for federal court review of First Amendment challenges to prison practices or regulation.
Id.
at 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254. The Court stated that, “when a prison regula
tion impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
Id.
The Court then articulated four factors to weigh in determining a regulation’s reasonableness: (1) whether there is a rational connection between the regulation and the asserted government interest; (2) whether the prisoner has alternative means to exercise the affected right; (3) what impact accommodation of the right would have on prison administration and resources; (4) whether there is a ready alternative to the regulation that accommodates the prisoner’s rights with a
de minimis
impact on penological interests.
Id.
at 89-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254.
The Magistrate Judge and District Court correctly applied the
Turner
factors. We will affirm the District Court’s judgment with respect to Smith’s First Amendment claim. However, the District Court erred by not accounting for the heightened statutory protection prescribed by Congress in RLUIPA. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a). RLUIPA states that, for state correctional facilities receiving federal funds:
No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution ... even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Id.
The District Court should evaluate Smith’s claim under the more stringent RLUIPA test, as his claim may benefit from the heightened standard.
Johnson and Collins contend that, because Smith did not allege a RLUIPA violation in his
pro se
complaint, we should deem Smith to have waived his RLUIPA claim. However, this Court has often observed that “we have an obligation” to liberally construe
pro se
civil rights complaints.
Holley v. Department of Veteran Affairs,
165 F.3d 244, 248 (3d Cir.1999).
See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). We apply the relevant law, regardless of whether the
pro se
litigant has identified it by name.
Small v. Lehman,
98 F.3d 762
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
The appellant, Daniel R. Smith (“Smith”) is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (“SCIP”). Smith commenced this civil action against appellees Philip L. Johnson, Superintendent (“Johnson”), and Tim G. Coffins, Publication Review Committee (“Coffins”), alleging that they denied him the ability to practice his religion of Yoruba/Palero/Vodun. Smith purchased by mail two volumes of a religious text entitled “El Libro,” by Carlos Montenegro, a Palero Priest, in November of 1999. Three months later, Smith received a form notice
from
Coffins informing him that the Publication Review Committee (“PRC”) had disapproved “El Libro,” in accordance with Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) policy. The notice stated that “El Libro” fell into the category of publications that “advocate, assist or are evidence of criminal activity or institution misconduct.” Smith timely appealed the decision. Johnson replied that “El Libro” was “obscene.” Smith wrote to Johnson
and requested reconsideration of the PRC decision. Johnson replied that, although “El Libro” was not, in fact, obscene, it did “refer to issues of control over other individuals, which is not permissible within a correctional setting,” and that Johnson would not overrule the PRC.
Smith continued to appeal and secured additional review by the PRC. Johnson wrote to the DOC Executive Deputy in May of 2000, stating that “El Libro” contained “spells and rituals” and that, “there are individuals within these settings who are capable of believing that such spells are possible.” Therefore, “conflict that could arise because of this aspect makes this publication inappropriate.” Smith was informed that his final appeals were denied and that he could have “El Libro” returned to the publisher, mailed home, or destroyed. Smith informed Johnson and Collins that he wanted “El Libro” sent to Mrs. Charlotta Smith. Smith was instructed to provide a postage slip as well as a request to mail the text, which he did. In August of 2000, Smith asked Johnson about the status of his request and was informed that the texts had been destroyed because he had not provided the postage slips and mailing request in a timely manner.
Smith filed a standard form 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 30, 2000, after the final decision that “El Libro” would not be permitted within the SCIP. Smith alleged violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights stemming from the withholding and subsequent destruction of his religious text. Johnson and Collins filed a motion to dismiss, which the Magistrate Judge construed as a motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommended summary judgment against the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, but denied it for the First Amendment claim. The District Court agreed and entered an order to that effect on March 28, 2002. After limited written discovery, Johnson and Collins again filed a motion for summary judgment against the First Amendment claim. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be granted, and the District Court entered an order granting summary judgment against all Smith’s claims on March 26, 2003. Smith timely appealed to this Court, which granted his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis.
This Court appointed counsel to brief and argue the First Amendment claim.
Smith argues on appeal that the District Court should have construed his complaint as also stating a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a).
We will remand to the District Court for consideration of Smith’s claim under RLUIPA.
The Magistrate Judge and District Court analyzed Smith’s claim under the framework laid out by the Supreme Court in
Turner v. Safley,
482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). The
Turner
Court articulated a “reasonableness” test for federal court review of First Amendment challenges to prison practices or regulation.
Id.
at 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254. The Court stated that, “when a prison regula
tion impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
Id.
The Court then articulated four factors to weigh in determining a regulation’s reasonableness: (1) whether there is a rational connection between the regulation and the asserted government interest; (2) whether the prisoner has alternative means to exercise the affected right; (3) what impact accommodation of the right would have on prison administration and resources; (4) whether there is a ready alternative to the regulation that accommodates the prisoner’s rights with a
de minimis
impact on penological interests.
Id.
at 89-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254.
The Magistrate Judge and District Court correctly applied the
Turner
factors. We will affirm the District Court’s judgment with respect to Smith’s First Amendment claim. However, the District Court erred by not accounting for the heightened statutory protection prescribed by Congress in RLUIPA. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a). RLUIPA states that, for state correctional facilities receiving federal funds:
No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution ... even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Id.
The District Court should evaluate Smith’s claim under the more stringent RLUIPA test, as his claim may benefit from the heightened standard.
Johnson and Collins contend that, because Smith did not allege a RLUIPA violation in his
pro se
complaint, we should deem Smith to have waived his RLUIPA claim. However, this Court has often observed that “we have an obligation” to liberally construe
pro se
civil rights complaints.
Holley v. Department of Veteran Affairs,
165 F.3d 244, 248 (3d Cir.1999).
See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). We apply the relevant law, regardless of whether the
pro se
litigant has identified it by name.
Small v. Lehman,
98 F.3d 762, 766 (3d Cir.1996). We followed this approach for RLUIPA’s predecessor statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).
Id.
We stated that because RFRA was then “in force and as it was the applicable law, the district court was required to apply the compelling interest test to the facts,” even though the parties had not brought RFRA to the Court’s attention.
Id.
This approach is in accord with our sister Circuits.
See Hammons v. Saffle,
348 F.3d 1250, 1258 (10th Cir.2003) (noting that
pro se
plaintiffs are only “required to allege the necessary underlying facts to support a claim under a particular legal theory,” and remanding to the district court for consideration of a RLUIPA claim);
McEachin v. McGuinnis,
357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir.2004) (noting that, “when the plaintiff proceeds
pro se,
as in this case, a court is obliged to construe his pleadings liberally, particularly when they allege civil rights violations,” and remanding to the district court for consideration of a RLUIPA claim). We will remand to the District Court for consideration of Smith’s complaint under RLUIPA.