Smith v. Halstead

Background

Donnie P. Smith moved for a preliminary injunction—an immediate court order issued before final judgment—directing the Orange County Correctional Facility (OCCF) to lift restrictions on his ability to practice Santeria. Smith said his religion requires him to have eleven beaded necklaces and two religious chains, religious books in his cell, and a religious altar that includes pictures on the walls and above the doorway.

Legal standards

The court explained that a preliminary-injunction applicant ordinarily must show likely irreparable harm, either a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions supporting the claims combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships, and that the injunction would serve the public interest. Because Smith sought a mandatory injunction that would change the existing conditions rather than preserve them, he had to meet the more demanding standard of showing a clear or substantial likelihood of success.

The court considered claims under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Under RLUIPA, the government generally may not substantially burden religious exercise unless the burden furthers a compelling government interest and uses the least restrictive means. Under the First Amendment standard discussed by the court, a generally applicable prison policy is permissible if it is reasonably related to legitimate prison-management interests.

Necklaces and books

The court found no actual harm requiring preliminary relief concerning the necklaces. OCCF’s policy generally allowed one religious medal, but exceptions could be granted. Smith requested permission to keep eleven beaded necklaces and two religious chains, and OCCF granted that request shortly after he arrived. Smith said his necklaces were destroyed during an April 2024 incident, but the evidence showed that he later received a package containing eight beaded necklaces and OCCF approved those eight for his cell. Smith did not claim that OCCF denied a later request for additional necklaces, and the County’s evidence stated that he had made no such request.

The court reached a similar conclusion about religious books. OCCF’s policy allowed inmates to keep up to four books in their cells, all of which could be religious books. Smith did not allege that his religion required more than four religious books, and he had never made a request for more that OCCF denied. OCCF had approved his only request concerning religious reading materials: permission to keep a package containing Santeria-related tarot cards and a religious book.

Pictures and religious altar

The court recognized that OCCF had denied Smith’s request to place pictures on his cell walls. It nevertheless found that he was not likely to succeed on either the First Amendment or RLUIPA claim concerning the pictures.

For the First Amendment claim, the court said OCCF’s ban on attaching pictures to cell surfaces likely burdened Smith’s religious belief. But the court found the policy reasonably related to legitimate safety and security interests. The County said pictures could conceal wall defects or intentional damage, including holes used to store contraband or create an escape route. Allowing Smith’s request would also require officials to regularly inspect behind pictures for damage. The court noted that Smith could still display religious pictures in his cell if he did not attach them to the wall.

For the RLUIPA claim, the court found that Smith had not shown a substantial burden on his religious exercise. Smith said that images near the doorway could provide spiritual protection, and his declaration indicated that images placed by any entrance or doorway, or behind the entrance door, could serve that purpose. Because he could place images near the doorway without hanging them on the wall, the court concluded that the policy did not appear to substantially burden his beliefs. The court also noted that Smith had provided no evidence that OCCF prohibited him from maintaining a religious altar. The County stated that he had been permitted to have, and did have, an altar with pictures in his cell.

Ruling

Judge Cathy Seibel denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF Nos. 121 and 125. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of Smith’s underlying claims; it addressed whether immediate preliminary relief was warranted.