Clarence Jones v. Max Williams

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that RLUIPA does not authorize suits for money damages against state officials in their official or individual capacities
• holding that prisoner’s verbal complaints and statements of intention to file suit were protected First Amendment conduct
• holding that “summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s retaliation claim was improper because ‘Jones’s [verbal] complaints of discrimination to his supervisors and statements of intention to file suit were conduct protected by the First Amendment”
• finding that “short-term” and “sporadic” interference with plaintiff’s ability to 6 practice his religious does not meet the standard for “substantially burdening” religious 7 practice
• finding that prison official was not entitled to qualified immunity for disciplining inmate for verbal threats to file suit for religious discrimination
• explaining that claims for injunctive relief are moot once the “inmate is removed from the environment in which he is subjected to the challenged policy or practice” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).