Case Explained: KANE V. WALDO, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-23 Docket: 2:23-cv-00368-TOR The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing Ali Kane’s § 1983 claims regarding First Amendment retaliation and free exercise of religion. The court applied de novo review to the summary judgment decisions, requiring that there be no genuine dispute of material fact and that the movant be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Regarding the retaliation claims, the court held that Kane failed to establish a causal connection between his protected conduct (filing grievances) and the adverse actions taken by Correctional Officer Waldo, noting that timing alone is insufficient and Waldo lacked knowledge of the grievance at the time of the alleged retaliatory acts. The court further determined that any adverse actions, such as cell searches or orders to “cell in,” were motivated by legitimate penological interests like security and contraband prevention rather than retaliation. As to Defendant Stull, the court found that an isolated question and a disputed threat did not constitute an “adverse action” sufficient to chill First Amendment rights, evidenced by Kane’s continued filing of grievances immediately following the alleged threats. On the free exercise claim, the court applied the *Turner v. Safley* balancing test to evaluate whether prison regulations limiting religious practice were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. The court concluded that the search and confiscation of books lacking proper DOC identification numbers were rationally connected to security and order goals. Additionally, the court found that Kane had alternative means to exercise his religion, as he could have obtained a compliant English Quran through proper channels, rendering the restriction permissible under the First Amendment. The practical consequence is that the judgment in favor of the defendants stands, and Kane’s lawsuit is dismissed without further proceedings. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.