Myron v. Terhune

1 Citing case

  1. Daker v. Ferrero

    475 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (N.D. Ga. 2007)   Cited 9 times
    Finding RLUIPA to be "ambiguous on the question of whether it authorizes a private right of action seeking monetary damages," but rejecting a recovery of monetary damages, inasmuch as they are sought in an individual capacity lawsuit

    To be entitled to summary judgment, Defendants must respond by producing evidence that demonstrates that each challenged denial was reasonably related to valid penological interests and comports with the other three Turner factors.SeeThornburgh, 490 U.S. at 419 (remanding for individual challenges to denials of 49 books); Beard v. Banks, 126 S. Ct. 2572, 2576, 165 L. Ed. 2d 697 (2006) (plurality) (awarding summary judgment to prison officials because "prison officials have set forth adequate legal support for the policy" of denying prisoner publications); id. at 2581 ("Turner requires prison authorities to show more than a formalistic logical connection between a regulation and a penological objective.); see also Myron v.Terhune, 196 Fed. App'x 601, 604 (9th Cir. 2006) (reversing district court's dismissal of prisoner's First Amendment claims because "the record does not yet contain any justification for the restriction"); cf. Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957, 983-84 (11th Cir. 1984) (reversing and remanding First Amendment challenge to prison regulations because the "district court will clearly need to hear evidence on these matters to arrive at the proper balance between the government's interest in security and the [plaintiff's] interest in exercising its first amendment rights."). Because the Court finds that the present record provides an insufficient basis to award either party judgment as a matter of law, the Court declines to award summary judgment on this claim until hearing from the parties further.