Canady v. Thaler ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 12, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-20363
Summary Calendar
WARREN P. CANADY, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
WARREN P. CANADY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
M.B. THALER; R.J. PARKER; C.S. STAPLES;
T. MERCHANT; H. HARRIS; D.K. CROWLEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CV-1680
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Warren P. Canady, Texas prisoner # 723784, appeals the
summary judgment in favor of defendant M.B. Thaler on his free
exercise claim. He asserts that he was denied the right to
attend Jumu’ah, the Friday Islamic prayer services, from March of
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-20363
-2-
1997 until March of 1999. He has moved to supplement his
appellate brief; this motion is DENIED.
The district court ruled that the evidence established that
Canady had been serving cell restriction in March and April 1997
based on disciplinary violations. There is no competent summary
judgment evidence establishing that the bar against religious
service attendance for an individual who is punished with cell
restrictions is reasonably related to a legitimate penological
purpose. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987); Powell v.
Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 23 (5th Cir. 1992). Therefore, on the face
of the record Canady has alleged a constitutional violation.
However, this court may affirm the decision of the district
court on any grounds supported by the record. See Esteves v.
Brock, 106 F.3d 674, 676 (5th Cir. 1997). During the time that
Canady was serving his cell restrictions, prison authorities
justified their limitations on religious services by referring to
Administrative Directive 3.70. Because Canady does not allege
that the directive has been rendered invalid, and because the
officers were following a facially valid directive, they are
entitled to qualified immunity. See Morin v. Caire, 77 F.3d 116,
120 (5th Cir. 1996); cf. Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d
913, 925 (5th Cir. 2000). The portion of the district court’s
judgment addressing March and April 1997 is AFFIRMED.
Canady also asserts that he was barred from attending
Jumu’ah from May 1997 to March 1999. The record establishes that
No. 02-20363
-3-
Canady had been punished with cell restrictions or was serving a
special cell restriction for refusing to work for at least some
of that time. To the extent that the prison officials relied on
the administrative directive during periods that Canady was in
fact on cell restrictions, they would be entitled to qualified
immunity. See Morin, 77 F.3d at 120; Wooley, 211 F.3d at 925.
However, it is not clear how much of the 22-month period Canady
spent on cell restrictions. Therefore, the judgment of the
district court is VACATED on this ground and the case remanded to
the district court for the parties to define the amount of time
that Canady faced cell restrictions during the period between May
1997 and March 1999 and, if there is any time during which Canady
was not serving cell restrictions, for the defendants to explain
the reasons that Canady was barred from attending religious
services at those times.
After Canady filed the instant appeal in forma pauperis
(IFP), this court imposed the three-strikes bar against Canady.
See Canady v. Thaler, No. 02-20322 (5th Cir. Aug. 21,
2002)(unpublished). Canady is admonished that, in the future, he
may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he
is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART; MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT DENIED; WARNING GIVEN.