explaining that ordinarily a prisoner’s First Amendment Free Exercise claim should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless the complaint’s allegations show the state has a legitimate justification for regulating a prisoner’s religious practices or the claim is “so facially idiosyncratic” that no state justification is required
How later courts described this case
- explaining that ordinarily a prisoner’s First Amendment Free Exercise claim should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless the complaint’s allegations show the state has a legitimate justification for regulating a prisoner’s religious practices or the claim is “so facially idiosyncratic” that no state justification is required
- noting in appendix to case that generally the court should “permit dismissal of a First Amendment claim only if it involves a religious claim so facially idiosyncratic that neither a hearing nor state justification of its regulation is required”
- involving a section 1983 action alleging violations of prisoner's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and apparently seeking only to be provided with a Muslim minister of the appropriate sect to minister to the prisoner's religious needs
- prisoner’s free exercise claim should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless the complaint’s allegations show the state has a legitimate justification for regulating a prisoner’s religious practices or the claim is “so facially idiosyncratic” that no state justification is required
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FAY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
In my opinion the issues raised by the complaint are controlled by Elam v. Henderson and Walker v. Blackwell cited and discussed by the majority. I would affirm the dismissal.