Whether a jail facility's ban on the hijab or religious head scarf worn for religious reasons was the least restrictive means of ensuring effective prison administration and security

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE UNDER RLUIPA, AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT 1. | Congress passed RLUIPA because prisons sometimes imposed “‘frivolous or arbitrary’ barriers” on religious exercise. Id. at 716 (quoting 146 Cong. Rec. 16,698, 16,699 (2000) (joint statement of Sen. Hatch and Sen. Kennedy on RLUIPA)). In 2015, the Supreme Court held in Holt that, if most other prisons would accommodate the religious practice a plaintiff has requested and has been denied, prison officials must show why they cannot allow that practice at their prison. Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015). Holt held that RLUIPA’ test “is exceptionally demanding” and “requires the [State] to show that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal.” . The Questions Presented Are: a) Whether a jail facility’s ban on the hijab or religious head scarf worn for religious reasons, was the least restrictive means of ensuring effective prison administration and security; b) Whether, particularly in light of the intervening decision in Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015), the lower court afforded improper due deference to Respondent under RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1(a), since many of the factual assertions was grossly exaggerated in dismissing Petitioner’s hijab case; c) Whether correctional officers should discard inmate's Quran and prayer mat. _ 2. Whether the 9th Circuit's decision on Americans with Disabilities Act conflicted the Supreme Court's decision regarding the due process in ; y NN MS denying access to an inmate with severe food allergies’ to enrollment in an institutional program. 4. a) Whether Scott v. Harris is applicable in a video evidence where the party who presented the video evidence’s own key witness testimony contradicts the video evidence and confirms the victims version of events; b)Whether the Eighth Amendment allow correctional officer to use excessive force to remove handcuffs on an inmate who poses no threat and is locked behind a heavy metal door. 7 y ii. PARTIES TO THE PROCEEEDINGS BELOW Petitioner Lily Cassandra Alphonsis was the plaintiff in the district court and the appellant in the court of appeals. Respondent County of Los Angeles and Joel Garnica were the defendants in the district court and the appellees in the court of appeals. iii.