Mr. Merrick alleged that he had a right to practice his sincerely held personal religious beliefs, especially when inmates of other religious farths were already allowed these practices by prison officials, without having to belong to a church with a religiou's leader who would confirm Merrick the opportunity. The United States District court later held on defendant's matcon for Summary Judgement that Merrick was insincere for not haveng a chorch or it's leadership come frward to verify his clains. They also found Merrick failed to raise any genoine disputes reganding religious sincerity eguel protection, and at~ establishment of religion regardless of the affidaiucts and evidence he submntled to dispute defendants clains. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth ciricuit disregarded precedent of this court cand concurrent wirth the ditrit court. This case Thos Aresents the following questions

1. Does the lack of a workable test for determinaticn of religious sincerity crecte arbitrary decisions based on bias that effectively violate the Establishment clause.

2. The Court's Missapplication of Mason v. New Yorker Magcizine INC, 501 U.s, 496 (199i); cind Anderson v. Liberty Lobby., 477 0s, 242 (1a8d) holdings that court's are not to decide between disputed facts or assess credibility on a mation for Sommany Judgment warrants this Court's attention

3. Did the Court err in finding that Merrick did not raise a genuine dispute a matericel feact with respect to Merrick having the opportunicty to practice his faith when he demonstrated t other inuiates were allowed to practice the exact same practices while he wsces denied the oppartunity

4. Did the Court err in finding Merrick did not raise a genuine disipute of matericl facts when the three pronged tast this courd:set forth in Lemen v. Kurtzman, 403 U.s.602 (1a7i) was ne followed by the court.

5. Did the court's misapplicction of Matushita Electncal Industrial CO., Ltd., v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.s, 574 (1986) standards that the court's must view all facts and recscnable inferences in favor of Merrick warrant this court's attention.

6, Does the government have cuthority to arbitrarly and capriciously determine an adherents religious sincerty based on their Bias' and thereon deny relijious freedom.

Does the lack of a workable test for determination of religious sincerity create arbitrary decisions based on bias that effectively violate the Establishment Clause?