Plaintiff, a parolee, and an atheist, alleged he was forced to participate in religious activities by his parole officer and the director of the Mission where his parole officer directed him to make his residence; genuine disputes of fact on both Establishment and Free Exercise Clause claims precluded summary judgment; parole officer not entitled to qualified immunity on either claim because right to be free from state-sponsored religious coercion was clearly established; evidence sufficient for jury to find that Mission director was a state actor.
Citation
Actionable Conduct Edition