Anderson v. Angelone, No. 94-15319

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL
• Citation: 86 F.3d 932
• Parties: 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4442, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7181 Charles Oren ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron ANGELONE, et al., Defendant-Appellee.
• Decision Date: 20 June 1996
• Docket Number: No. 94-15319

Page 932

86 F.3d 932 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4442, 96 Daily Journal
D.A.R. 7181 Charles Oren ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Ron ANGELONE, et al., Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-15319. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 12, 1996.
Decided June 20, 1996.

Page 933

Barry L. Breslow, Robison, Belaustegui, Robb & Sharp, Reno, Nevada, for plaintiff-appellant.

Susan B. Weingarten, Deputy Attorney General, Las Vegas, Nevada, for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-93-00933-PMP(RLH).

Before: HALL and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, District Judge. ^*

CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge:

Charles Oren Anderson, a minister of the Universal Life Church, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge three Department of Prisons Administrative Regulations which forbade him from leading a congregation of inmates. The district court dismissed Anderson's action, finding that it did not state a claim under the First Amendment as set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). Anderson appealed, contending: (1) that the district court treated the government's motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment without explaining how motions for summary judgment operate; (2) that the district court erred in any event by dismissing his claim under Turner; and (3) that the district court should address his claim under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq. In response, the Prison Director Ron Angelone argues that RFRA is unconstitutional as it violates both the Establishment Clause and the separation of powers doctrine. We reverse on the first ground raised by Anderson.

I.

Charles Anderson is an inmate at the Southern Desert Correctional Center in Nevada. On March 1, 1993, he was ordained a

Page 934

minister by the Universal Life Church of Modesto, California, and has since formed his own church, called the Most Holy Temple of God. When Anderson sought permission to form and lead his own congregation, Ron Angelone, the Prison Director, denied his request. Angelone explained that Administrative Regulations 810, 811, and 812 prevented inmate-led religious services, but that Anderson was free to assist the prison chaplain in his services.

Regulation 810 provides that "[t]he institution should allow adequate times and places for religious activities" and defines "religious activities" as those "conducted by or under the auspices of the [prison] Chaplain." Regulation 811 authorizes the Chaplain to develop religious programs and makes him "responsible for all religious programs in the institution." Regulation 812 states that the prison "may provide worship opportunities for the inmates on a voluntary basis" but defines "worship" as "an activity conducted by or under the auspices of the Chaplain." Taken together, these Regulations appear to prohibit inmate-led religious services.

Anderson, acting pro se, challenged these Regulations in District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they abridged his free exercise rights under the First Amendment. The defendants moved to dismiss Anderson's action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); with their motion, they submitted an affidavit prepared by Angelone which incorporated a copy of the challenged Regulations. Before the district court ruled on the...