James E. Bryant v. James H. Gomez, Director, Department of Corrections, Charles D. Marshall, Warden
Opinion
Opinion
James E. Bryant appeals the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Bryant contends that the district court erred by refusing to grant him relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , requiring the defendants to provide full religious Pentecostal services at the prison where Bryant is an inmate. We reject this contention and affirm.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Jesinger v. Nevada Federal Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994).
In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2000bb-4, which states in relevant part:
The purpose of the RFRA is “to restore the compelling interest test ... in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b)(l). Given this broad purpose, it is clear that the RFRA applies to prisoners’ claims. Thus the issue of whether the prison violated Bryant’s religious rights must be analyzed using the “substantial burden” test rather than the less stringent “reasonable opportunity” test previously employed.
Even under the more stringent “substantial burden” test, Bryant’s § 1983 claim fails, because…