Tony D. Penwell v. REED HOLTGEERTS, Director of RJC

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TONY D. PENWELL,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
REED HOLTGEERTS, Director of RJC;
MICHAEL WOODBURY, RJC; KING
COUNTY REGIONAL JUSTICE
CENTER; SUE BELT, RJC Supervisor;
WILLIAMS HAYES, Head of Operations,
RJC; HERB MYERS, Commander of the
Regional Justice Center; SUE RAHR,
King County Sheriff; BRIAN
O’FARRELL, Program Administrator,
Defendants–Appellees.
No. 07-35638
D.C. No. CV-05-02106-TSZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Thomas S. Zilly, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 6, 2010
Seattle, Washington
FILED
JUL 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 5 --

The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit**
Court of Appeals, sitting by designation.
-2-
Before: HAWKINS, LUCERO, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.**
Tony D. Penwell appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary
judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims regarding the conditions of his pre-
conviction confinement. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we
affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand to the district court for further
proceedings consistent with this disposition.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Buono v. Norton,
371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there
are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Gizoni v. Sw. Marine, Inc., 909 F.2d 385, 387 (9th Cir. 1990).
Pretrial detention conditions violate due process if they are punitive. See
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-37 (1979). But because Penwell did not
demonstrate an actual intent to punish, the district court was required to consider
whether the restrictions were reasonably related to legitimate government
objectives, and whether the restrictions were “excessive in relation to the

-- 2 of 5 --

-3-
[legitimate government] purpose assigned.” Id. at 538 (quotation omitted); see
Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying Bell).
Penwell argues that the district court failed to consider Bell’s excessiveness
prong. We disagree. The magistrate made a single comment that could be
construed to support Penwell’s argument when considered in isolation. However,
the magistrate’s report clearly considers excessiveness when evaluated as a whole.
It quotes the appropriate standard, specifically references excessiveness, and
evaluates the potential excessiveness of various conditions of Penwell’s
confinement.
Penwell’s next argument, however, is meritorious. He contends we should
remand to the district court to reconsider whether restrictions on his religious
practice burdened his free exercise rights under a standard announced after the
district court entered its order. In evaluating Penwell’s free exercise claims, the
district court employed the so-called “centrality test” enunciated in Freeman v.
Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 1997), by considering whether conditions of
Penwell’s confinement substantially interfered “with a tenet or belief that is central
to religious doctrine,” id. at 737 (quotation omitted). After the district court issued
its order, this circuit clarified that the “sincerity test,” and not the centrality test,
applies to prisoners’ free-exercise claims. See Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878,

-- 3 of 5 --

“[W]hen a court applies a rule of law to the parties before it, ‘that rule is1
the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive
effect in all cases still open on direct review . . . .’” Morales-Izquierdo v. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., 600 F.3d 1076, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Harper v. Va. Dep’t
of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 97 (1993)).
Even if the district court concludes that the restrictions burdened Penwell’s2
free exercise rights, the restrictions may nonetheless be valid if they are
“reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.
78, 89 (1987).
-4-
884-85 (9th Cir. 2008). Under the sincerity test, a prisoner’s religious concern
implicates the free exercise clause if it is (1) “sincerely held” and (2) “rooted in
religious belief,” rather than in secular philosophical concerns. Malik v. Brown, 16
F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 1994) (quotations omitted); see also Shakur, 514 F.3d at
885 (adopting Malik’s formulation of the sincerity test). Because the district court
applied an incorrect rule of law, we cannot uphold its grant of summary judgment.
See Gizoni, 909 F.2d at 389. We therefore vacate the grant of summary judgment1
on Penwell’s free exercise claim and remand to the district court for
reconsideration under the sincerity test.2
Finally, Penwell argues that disputed issues of material fact exist regarding
whether certain conditions of his confinement: (1) were reasonably related to
legitimate government objectives; (2) were excessive in light of those objectives;
or (3) burdened his free exercise rights. However, these issues are legal, not

-- 4 of 5 --

To the extent that Penwell’s filings could be recharacterized as arguing that3
the district court misapplied these legal standards, we decline to consider the
argument: Penwell neither identifies errors in the manner the district court applied
these standards nor explains how the standards should have been applied. “This
court deems issues unsupported by argument to be abandoned.” United States ex
rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009).
-5-
factual, in nature. See Demery, 378 F.3d at 1028-29; Shakur, 514 F.3d at 884-85.
Because Penwell has not cited any evidence in the record indicating a factual
dispute, he has failed to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists.3
For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the grant of summary judgment
with respect to Penwell’s free exercise claim; AFFIRM the district court’s grant of
summary judgment with respect to Penwell’s remaining claims; and REMAND to
the district court for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

-- 5 of 5 --