Goff v. Graves

• Decision Date: 30 March 2004
• Docket Number: No. 02-1279.,No. 02-1449.,02-1279.,02-1449.
• Citation: 362 F.3d 543
• Parties: George GOFF, Plaintiff — Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Tom Kane, Plaintiff, William Barbee, Plaintiff — Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Richard G. Shawhan, Plaintiff, Jeff Winters, Tom Yarges, Plaintiffs — Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Lawrence Gladson, Kris Johnson, Plaintiffs, James Hall, Plaintiff — Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Ronnie T. Dunbar, Michael Rinehart, Wayne Berry, Jerry Sumpter, Steve Ragan, Plaintiffs, Michael Dean Gunn, Jr., Plaintiff — Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Timothy M. Jacobson, Plaintiff, Arthur Alan Poyner, Plaintiff — Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Casey Gray, Tim Thompson, Randy Jones, Plaintiffs, Jon J. King, Adam M. Tanner, Sam Archer, Plaintiffs — Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Bryan Keller, Frankie Sutton, Jeff Hass, Plaintiffs, Michael L. O'Donnell, Patrick Cupples, Jim Dorsey, Jeffrey K. Ragland, Plaintiffs — Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Leonard GRAVES, Warden; Bernard Eaves (added per pleading filed 9/9/98, Defs' Status Report); James Helling (added per pleading filed 9/9/98, Defs' Status Report), Defendants — Appellants/Cross-Appellees. John Doe, Intervenor — Intervenor on Appeal.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

362 F.3d 543

George GOFF, Plaintiff — Appellee/Cross-Appellant Tom Kane, Plaintiff William Barbee, Plaintiff — Appellee/Cross-Appellant Richard G. Shawhan, Plaintiff Jeff Winters, Tom Yarges, Plaintiffs — Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Lawrence Gladson, Kris Johnson, Plaintiffs, James Hall, Plaintiff — Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Ronnie T. Dunbar, Michael Rinehart, Wayne Berry, Jerry Sumpter, Steve Ragan, Plaintiffs, Michael Dean Gunn, Jr., Plaintiff — Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Timothy M. Jacobson, Plaintiff, Arthur Alan Poyner, Plaintiff — Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Casey Gray, Tim Thompson, Randy Jones, Plaintiffs, Jon J. King, Adam M. Tanner, Sam Archer, Plaintiffs — Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Bryan Keller, Frankie Sutton, Jeff Hass, Plaintiffs, Michael L. O'Donnell, Patrick Cupples, Jim Dorsey, Jeffrey K. Ragland, Plaintiffs — Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Leonard GRAVES, Warden; Bernard Eaves (added per pleading filed 9/9/98, Defs' Status Report); James Helling (added per pleading filed 9/9/98, Defs' Status Report), Defendants — Appellants/Cross-Appellees. John Doe, Intervenor — Intervenor on Appeal.

No. 02-1279.

No. 02-1449.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 24, 2003.

Filed: March 30, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was H. Loraine Wallace, Des Moines, IA.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the intervenor was Jeffrey M. Lipman, Des Moines, IA.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Patrick E. Ingram, Iowa City, IA.

Before RILEY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs are inmates at the Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP) in Fort Madison, Iowa. They all claim to be members of the Church of the New Song (CONS) at ISP. CONS was founded in the early 1970s by a federal prisoner named Harry Theriault. Though Theriault testified that CONS was initially established as a "game," Theriault v. Carlson, 339 F.Supp. 375, 377 (N.D.Ga. 1972), vacated, 495 F.2d 390 (5th Cir.1974), in that case CONS was recognized as a religion protected by the First Amendment. After a "trial run" in federal penal institutions in Georgia and Texas, however, a federal district court in Texas determined that CONS was "not ... a religion, but rather ... a masquerade designed to obtain First Amendment protection for acts which otherwise would be unlawful and/or reasonably disallowed by the various prison authorities but for the attempts... to classify them as `religious' and, therefore, presumably protected by the First Amendment." Theriault v. Silber, 453 F.Supp. 254, 260, 261 (W.D.Tex.), appeal dismissed, 579 F.2d 302 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 917, 99 S.Ct. 1236, 59 L.Ed.2d 468 (1979). In contrast, this Court in 1974 recognized CONS as a religion protected by the First Amendment and upheld a district court's order mandating its equal treatment with other religions at the prison. Remmers v. Brewer, 494 F.2d 1277 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), aff'g 361 F.Supp. 537 (S.D.Iowa 1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1012 (1974).¹ Because of the Remmers decision, we suspend disbelief and proceed on the assumption, mandated by Remmers, that CONS is a religion.

The current controversy arose when ISP officials refused to permit food trays prepared for CONS' "celebration of life" banquet to be taken to CONS members who were in lock-up at the time of the banquet. Plaintiffs brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) claiming that ISP officials had violated their First Amendment rights and were in contempt of the decree set forth in Remmers. Defendants, all prison officials, counterclaimed and sought a declaratory judgment to prevent plaintiffs from participating in CONS activities.² The District Court denied the counterclaim and entered an order requiring defendants to permit CONS inmates in lock-up to receive trays of food from the banquet. Defendants appeal both the entry of the order and the denial of declaratory relief. Plaintiffs cross-appeal the District Court's decision to allow certain evidence to be admitted under seal and to enter an order protective of confidential informants.

I.

In order to present a valid First Amendment claim against ISP officials, plaintiffs have the burden of establishing that the alleged religious belief or ritual in question — here the receipt of food from a feast for the "celebration of life" — is based on a teaching of the CONS religion, that their belief in the teaching is sincerely held, and that the governmental action in question actually infringes upon the individual prisoners' free exercise of this belief. Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1550 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 874, 117 S.Ct. 193, 136 L.Ed.2d 130 (1996). In its first order, the District Court found that the "celebration of life" feast was rooted in religion and thus was a religious belief protected under the First Amendment. Our review of such a finding is for clear error. Iron Eyes v. Henry, 907 F.2d 810, 813 (8th Cir.1990). Because there is insufficient evidence in the record to show that CONS instructs its adherents to hold such a feast, we conclude the District Court clearly erred in finding that the requirement of a feast for the "celebration of life" is a belief rooted in the CONS religion.

The record is filled with conflicting testimony by plaintiffs regarding the significance of the "celebration of life" feast in the CONS religion. Plaintiffs first claimed that a feast was required for "a Spring Celebration in honor of nature's renewal of life." (Appellants' App. at 61). Plaintiffs then asserted that the "celebration of life" commemorated the day on which the CONS was founded. Finally, plaintiffs contended that it was one and the same as the Sacred Unity Feast referenced in the Paratestament, a partial text of which is the sole written statement of CONS theology and ritual that the record in this case contains.³ Given plaintiffs' conflicting accounts of the meaning of the celebration, it is difficult to credit the claim that the "celebration of life" feast is rooted in the CONS religion. The District Court's finding that it was so rooted was premised upon its clearly erroneous subsidiary finding that the celebration has direct support in the Paratestament. The court arrived at this finding by accepting plaintiffs' argument that the "celebration of life" feast is one and the same as the Sacred Unity Feast.

Having read the portions of the Paratestament that the record on appeal contains with some care, we conclude that without doubt the Sacred Unity Feast is not one and the same as the "celebration of life" feast, which all sides appear to agree is not mentioned as such in the Paratestament. According to the Paratestament, after "the [h]undred and forty-four thousand Revelation ministers have been sealed as prophesied" there will "be held a supper of the great God." (Id. at 240). It is only after the sealing⁴ of these thousands of Revelation ministers that the Sacred Unity Feast is to become an annual occurrence: "After this, each year on the same date the Seminary of the Fountainhead⁵ in all purlieus will hold the Annual Sacred Unity Feast...." (Id. at 241). Plaintiffs point to this reference to the Sacred Unity Feast as support for their annual "celebration of life," but it is apparent that the Sacred Unity Feast is to be held only after the hundred and forty-four thousand Revelation ministers have been sealed. There is no evidence to show that this condition precedent has been satisfied. Inasmuch as the "celebration of life" is not mentioned anywhere in any CONS text to which our attention has been directed, partaking of a banquet for the "celebration of life" cannot be regarded as the exercise of a prescribed ritual of the CONS religion. Accordingly, the prison officials did not violate the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights by denying banquet trays to CONS members in lock-up. If a sincerely-held belief was implicated, it was not a belief grounded in CONS theology or its prescribed rituals as revealed by the materials the parties have put forward for our examination.

Even assuming arguendo that CONS somehow ordains a special "celebration of life" banquet, ISP's ban on providing trays of food to CONS members in lock-up does not violate any prisoner's free-exercise rights. Prison regulations may infringe upon prisoners' constitutional rights so long as such regulations are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). There must be a rational connection between the challenged regulation and the interest put forth to justify it. Id. Three other relevant factors are (1) the continued availability of other means of exercising the right, (2) the effect that accommodation of the right would have on other prisoners, on prison staff, and on prison resources, and (3) the existence of ready alternatives to the challenged regulation. Id. at 90, 107 S.Ct. 2254. We review de novo a district court's application of Turner to the facts before it. Iron Eyes, 907 F.2d at 813. We must accord great deference to the judgment of prison officials, particularly with respect to decisions that implicate institutional security. Turner, 482 U.S. at 84-85, 107 S.Ct. 2254; Iron Eyes, 907 F.2d at 812.

Defendants argue that they prohibited special trays of food from being taken into the lock-up unit in order to keep contraband out of the unit. A security director at the prison testified that health regulations prevented staff from thoroughly searching the food trays to ensure that they were not being used to deliver contraband. The concern about contraband is particularly acute with respect to banquet food for the "celebration of life" because CONS members have previously sent contraband into the lock-up unit through a variety of illicit methods. We have recognized institutional security as ...