inmates do not receive time credits or as many privileges as others working in a higher workgroup; (4) lost his phone call privileges; [and] (5)[was] expelled from print shop and landscaping classes,” among other punishments. Id. at 996. Rejecting the argument that the prisoner’s religious practice was not substantially burdened because he had not been physically forced to cut his hair, we held that the grooming policy constituted a significant burden because it put “significant pressure” on him to conform. Id. Walker’s asserted burden is closely analogous to the one at issue in Warsoldier. Like the plaintiff in Warsoldier, Walker faced a prison regulation impairing his ability to conform to a religious ritual. See Holt v. Hobbs, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 853, 862, 190 L.Ed.2d 747 (2015) (<HOLDING>). Taking Walker at his word, as we must at this
holding that prohibited secondary pressure involves coercion or threats holding a tenured state employee has a property right to continued employment and must be accorded due process before serious disciplinary sanctions holding that an inmates mandamus petition challenging a disciplinary report imposing 15 days disciplinary confinement was a collateral criminal proceeding because the disciplinary confinement limited petitioners ability to earn gain time holding that threat occurring 36 days before possession of firearm not present threat holding that a threat of serious disciplinary action constituted pressure to conform