Mayfield v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that pro se plaintiff’s claims were barred by § 1997e(e) where complaint sought only compensatory damages and did not allege physical injury
• holding that the principle applies to claims brought under the First Amendment and RLUIPA
• noting that \prison security could be seriously compromised by the need to remove personnel from their usual security posts\
• stating that a RLUIPA inquiry “normally requires two separate assessments, first whether the burdened activity is ‘religious exercise,’ and second whether that burden is ‘substantial’”
• noting that “prison security could be seriously compromised by the need to remove personnel from their usual security posts”
• finding that prisoner did not incur a strike because some of his claims should have survived through the summary judgment stage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).