9th Circuit upholds dismissal of Hawaii prisoner's lawsuit, finding prison officials did not violate his…
Christian v. Corecivic, Inc.
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds dismissal of Hawaii prisoner's lawsuit, finding prison officials did not violate his First or Eighth Amendment rights over Passover meal access and dietary concerns.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against Taryn Christian, a prisoner who sued officials at Saguaro Correctional Center under federal civil rights law. Christian claimed his right to religious free exercise was violated when he was excluded from Passover meals in 2019, 2020, and 2021, and that prison food violated the Eighth Amendment's protections. The court found that the officials either lacked personal involvement in the Passover exclusions or made only an inadvertent, short-term error that was later corrected, and that the prison's dietary accommodations were adequate to maintain his health.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Taryn Christian and his ability to pursue these specific claims. More broadly, it is relevant to prisoners who bring civil rights lawsuits over religious accommodation or dietary conditions in correctional facilities, as it illustrates the legal standards courts apply to those claims.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 20, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 20, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Taryn Christian, a prisoner housed at Saguaro Correctional Center, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against numerous prison officials and the private prison company CoreCivic. He raised two main claims: first, that prison officials violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by refusing to allow him to participate in Passover meals in 2019, 2020, and 2021; and second, that the prison's dietary options violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. On the First Amendment claim, the court applied the rule that a free exercise violation requires showing the government placed a 'substantial burden' on religious practice, meaning more than a mere inconvenience, and something that coerces a person to act against their beliefs or pressures them to change their religious behavior. The court also noted that a civil rights lawsuit under Section 1983 requires evidence that each individual defendant personally participated in the alleged violation. Two of the named defendants, Griego and Thomas, had left the facility before the 2020 and 2021 Passover events, and their involvement in the 2019 event came only after Christian had already been removed from the participation roster. A third defendant, Lopez, had no involvement in the 2019 or 2020 exclusions. Regarding 2021, Lopez mistakenly listed Christian's religion as Christianity rather than Judaism, which caused him to miss Passover meals. When Christian filed a grievance, Lopez corrected the error, but Passover had already ended. The court treated this as an inadvertent and short-term interference that was later fixed, concluding it did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. On the Eighth Amendment claim, the court applied the standard that prisons must provide food adequate to maintain health. Christian had been placed on a special Food Allergy Intolerance Diet due to sensitivity to MSG. The court found that Christian provided no evidence the approved diet items contained MSG, no evidence the meals lacked adequate nutrition or calories, and that medical reports indicated he had maintained his health. Summary judgment on this claim was therefore also upheld. The court also addressed a procedural issue: Christian had listed only the denial of his reconsideration motion in his notice of appeal, not the original summary judgment order. However, the court inferred from his briefing that he intended to appeal the underlying judgment, and found the defendants were not prejudiced because they had fully briefed those issues. The court reviewed the summary judgment itself rather than just the reconsideration denial. There was no dissent noted in the opinion. Christian's pending motions for miscellaneous relief and for sanctions were also denied.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TARYN CHRISTIAN, No. 24-4596 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:21-cv-00733-DWL v. MEMORANDUM* CORECIVIC, INC.; TODD THOMAS, Former Warden; BENJAMIN GRIEGO, Former Assistant Warden; JODY BRADLEY, Assistant Warden; MICHAEL HEGMANN, Former Head Doctor Medical Department; J VALENZUELA, Grievance Officer; MICHELLE MCCRAY, Former Nurse Practitioner; CATHY FULLER, Former Nurse Practitioner; LADEANA MORGAN, Nurse Practitioner; E BARAJAS, Nurse Medical Supervisor; CAROLINE MEE, Doctor Medical Director; HOWARD KOMORI, Hawaii Contract Monitor; JENNIFER BECHLER, Onsite Contract Monitor; UNKNOWN PARTY, Esparza: Trinity Food Service Supervisor, Previously known as: Trinity Food Service Supervisor Unknown, name changed, per Order at Doc. 17; M. LOPEZ, Chaplain; UNKNOWN, Pitz: Trinity Food Service Supervisor at Saguaro Correctional Facility, aka per Doc 47 also known as Rubi Pitz; UNKNOWN PARTY, Powell: * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Assistant Warden at Saguaro Correctional Facility; SEAN WEAD, Warden at Saguaro Correctional Facility; UNKNOWN PARTY, Named as: Dietitian at Saguaro Correctional Facility; MARGARET GIUNTA, Saguaro Facility Dietitian, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2026** Before: BERZON, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Taryn Christian appeals pro se the district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration of summary judgment in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers of Saguaro Correctional Center (“SCC”). Christian alleges a Free Exercise Clause violation arising from prison officials’ refusal to allow him to participate in Passover meals in 2019, 2020, and 2021. Christian also asserts a violation of the Eighth Amendment stemming from the prison’s inadequate dietary options. We affirm. 1. “The denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. In contrast, we review a grant of summary judgment de novo.” Lolli v. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 24-4596 Cnty. of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 414 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Christian did not list the order granting summary judgment in his notice of appeal. But a “mistake in designating the order being appealed is not fatal ‘as long as the intent to appeal a specific judgment can be fairly inferred and the appellee is not prejudiced or misled by the mistake.’” McCarthy v. Mayo, 827 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. One 1977 Mercedes Benz, 708 F.2d 444, 451 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1071 (1984)). Christian’s intent to appeal the summary judgment order can be inferred because he focused his appellate brief on the underlying judgment rather than “why he believes the denial of reconsideration . . . was in error.” Lolli, 351 F.3d at 415. Further, the appellees “cannot claim prejudice because they also fully briefed the issues.” McCarthy, 827 F.2d at 1314. We thus review the grant of summary judgment.1 2. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Christian’s First Amendment claim against SCC employees Griego, Thomas, and Lopez. A free exercise claim requires a showing that the challenged action places a “substantial” burden on one’s exercise of religion. Naoko Ohno v. Yuko Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984, 1011 (9th Cir. 2013). “A substantial burden places more than an 1 We do not review the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Christian did not articulate the standard of review, nor did he present any reasons “why he believes the denial of reconsideration . . . was in error. This is insufficient to preserve the matter for appeal.” Lolli, 351 F.3d at 415. 3 24-4596 inconvenience on religious exercise; it must have a tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs or exert substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031–32 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation modified). A successful claim under § 1983 requires “a showing of personal participation by the defendant.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Defendants Benjamin Griego and Todd Thomas left SCC prior to Passover in 2020 and 2021. Their involvement in Passover 2019 began only after Christian had already been removed from the participation roster. There is no evidence that Defendant Lopez had any involvement in Christian’s inability to participate in Passover 2019 and 2020. Lopez denied Christian the opportunity to participate in Passover meals in 2021 because he had erroneously listed Christian’s religion as Christianity, not Judaism. Christian filed a grievance, and Lopez fixed the error, but only after Passover had ended. As far as the record shows, Lopez’s error was an inadvertent and “relatively short-term and sporadic” interference that he later corrected, and so did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Canell v. Lightner, 143 F.3d 1210, 1215 (9th Cir. 1998). 3. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Christian’s Eighth Amendment basic necessities claim. “The Eighth Amendment requires only 4 24-4596 that prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain health.” LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993). Christian was placed on the Food Allergy Intolerance Diet (“FAID”) because of his sensitivity to monosodium glutamate (“MSG”). Christian did not provide any evidence that the food items approved on the FAID contained MSG, nor did he provide evidence that the FAID meals overall had inadequate nutritional or caloric value. Medical reports further indicate that Christian has “maintain[ed] health.” Id. We thus affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment issue. AFFIRMED.2 2 Appellant’s motion for miscellaneous relief, Dkt. No. 27, and motion for sanctions, Dkt. No. 34, are denied. 5 24-4596
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.