Opinion
Argued and Submitted June 14, 2001.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Inmate brought action asserting violation of his First Amendment free exercise rights. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Roger G. Strand, J., denied relief, and appeal was taken. The District Court held that: (1) The Court of Appeals held that relevant issue was whether inmate's proffered belief was sincerely held.
Reversed and remanded.
Page 452.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roger G. Strand, District Judge, Presiding.
Before B. FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
A court must determine whether a claimant's proffered belief is "sincerely held" when evaluating whether a religious claim merits protection under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Callahan v. Woods, 658 F.2d 679, 683 (9th Cir.1981). Here, the district court found that Luckette's alleged church is a "sham" created for the purpose of obtaining special privileges and waiver of prison rules, but made no finding as to whether Luckette's proffered belief in the tenets of the "sham" church are sincerely held. Although the sham finding may well bear on the court's determination of Luckette's sincerity, it is not, alone, determinative of the issue. Because a clear finding of sincerity or lack thereof is required by our case law, we reverse and remand for the district court to make this essential determination. The record appears well developed. There may be no need for a further evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.