Adkins v. Kaspar
| Decision Date | 08 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-40028.,03-40028. |
| Citation | 393 F.3d 559 |
| Parties | Donald M. ADKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Don KASPAR, Chaplaincy Department; Roy A. Garcia, Warden, Coffield Unit; Michael W. Sizemore, Assistant Warden, Coffield Unit; Kenneth M. Reynolds, Chaplain, Coffield Unit; Larry Hart, Assistant Chaplain, Coffield Unit; Kevin Moore, Senior Warden, Coffield Unit; Leonard Sanchez, Senior Chaplain, Coffield Unit, Defendants-Appellees, |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Donald M. Adkins, Atlanta, GA, pro se.
Marjolyn Carol Gardner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Donald M. Adkins, a Texas state prisoner incarcerated at all relevant times in the Coffield Unit ("Coffield") and proceeding pro se, filed suit in district court alleging violation of his First and Fourteenth amendment rights, as well as violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA").1 Made defendants were Don Kaspar of the Chaplaincy Department of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ") and the following Coffield personnel: Roy A. Garcia, Michael Sizemore, Kenneth Reynolds, Larry Hart, Kevin Moore, and Leonard Sanchez (collectively, "defendants"). Following a Flowers2 hearing, the magistrate judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommended dismissing Adkins's action with prejudice. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the suit. Adkins advances four claims on appeal: (1) The district court erred in concluding that there was no violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of his religion; (2) the district court erred in concluding that he suffered no Equal Protection violation; (3) defendants' actions violated the RLUIPA's prohibition of substantially burdening religious exercise without specifying a compelling governmental interest and a narrowly tailored solution; and (4) the magistrate judge's denial of Adkins's witness subpoena requests was an abuse of discretion. We affirm.
Adkins is a member of the Yahweh Evangelical Assembly ("YEA"). The gravamen of his complaint is that he has not been permitted to observe particular days of rest and worship (each Saturday for the Sabbath and a number of specific holy days), which is a requirement of his faith. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who conducted an evidentiary hearing consistent with Flowers. Adkins's witnesses at the Flowers hearing included (1) Jerry Healan, a YEA elder who went to Coffield once a month to preside over observance of the Sabbath, (2) David and Nancy McEnany, who work with YEA inmates in the Oklahoma prison system and trained to be YEA volunteers at Coffield, and (3) Adkins himself.3 Defendant Sanchez, the Senior Chaplain at Coffield, was the only witness for the defendants.
Healan testified that the YEA requires its adherents to meet together on every Sabbath and to congregate and make particular observations on specific holy days. He further testified that he has been permitted to go to Coffield and hold a baptismal service for Adkins and other inmates, and that, following volunteer training, he has gone to Coffield once a month to oversee Sabbath observances. Healan estimated that approximately 25 to 30 Coffield inmates regularly attend these meetings. Healan stated that he is unable to attend more often because of the distance he must travel to and from Coffield, and the travel time's effect on his other religious and personal obligations. Healan also testified that he and Adkins correspond regularly and that he sends religious materials to Adkins in prison. Healan stated that Adkins has a solid understanding of YEA beliefs, and has authored several articles that were published in newsletters and on the Internet.
The McEnanys testified that they went through the Coffield religious volunteer program so that they could attend and oversee Sabbaths at Coffield. At the time of the Flowers hearing, however, neither of them had been cleared by prison officials to lead meetings on their own.
Adkins acknowledged he has been granted "lay-ins" for holy days and the Sabbath, but testified that he and other YEA members had been denied the right to assemble and hold services on their own. He also acknowledged that he and other YEA members had been allowed to attend tape sessions and listen to tapes sent by Healan, but that they are only allowed to do this on Mondays. Adkins averred that he was told that the tape sessions cannot be held on Saturdays unless an accredited religious volunteer is present.
Sanchez testified in response that YEA members are allowed to congregate on the Sabbath when Healan is present at Coffield, and that if Healan were able to attend more frequently on Sabbaths and holy days, arrangements would be made for the YEA members to congregate, conditioned only on availability of space and time. Sanchez confirmed that thus far the McEnanys had not been allowed to lead YEA services at Coffield without the supervision of Healan because of a concern that "some things that were going on" were "inmate driven." Sanchez added, however, that if the McEnanys would attend several more sessions with Healan, they would be accredited to lead YEA services on their own. Sanchez also testified that there are some 3200 inmates at Coffield and approximately 150 recognized faith groups in the prison system.
The magistrate judge concluded that the defendants had not denied Adkins a reasonable opportunity to exercise his religion. Applying the definition of "substantial burden" enunciated by the Seventh Circuit in Mack v. O'Leary,4 the magistrate judge concluded that the defendants had not burdened Adkins's religious exercise in violation of the RLUIPA. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Adkins's action; and, after considering the record, the magistrate judge's recommendations, and the objections raised by Adkins, the district court dismissed the case.
An evidentiary hearing consistent with Flowers v. Phelps5 "amounts to a bench trial replete with credibility determinations and findings of fact."6 A district court's legal conclusions at a bench trial are reviewed de novo and its findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.7
Adkins's original complaint alleged that defendants non-compliance with the TDCJ's religious accommodation policy impinged on the free exercise of his faith. Citing Turner v. Safley,8 Adkins argues on appeal that defendants' violations of the TDCJ policy are not the basis of his First Amendment claim, just evidence to be considered in evaluating it. Our review of the district court's factual findings regarding defendants' compliance with the TDCJ policy reveals no clear error. Adkins's only viable free exercise claim lies in his challenge to the constitutionality of the TDCJ policy.
Turner established a four-factor "rational relationship" test for analyzing the constitutionality of regulations that burden a prisoner's fundamental rights.9 Under Turner's test, courts must consider (1) whether a "valid, rational connection [exists] between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it," (2) whether there exist "alternative means of exercising the fundamental right that remain open to prison inmates," (3) what "impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally," and (4) whether there is an "absence of ready alternatives" to the regulation in question.10
We recently upheld the constitutionality of the TDCJ's religious accommodation policy in Freeman v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice.11 In that case inmates filed a class action suit alleging that the TDCJ failed to provide them adequate opportunity to practice their faith, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Applying Turner, we affirmed the district court's grant of those defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the inmates' case. Like the inmates in Freeman, Adkins seeks a permanent injunction requiring the TDCJ to make provisions for additional YEA services.
In Freeman, we held that the TDCJ's religious accommodation policy is rationally related to legitimate government objectives, the first and "paramount inquiry under Turner."12 Addressing the second prong of the Turner test — whether "alternative means" of exercising the group's religious beliefs exist — Adkins argues, and the record reflects, that he and the other YEA members were not permitted to assemble on every Sabbath day and on particular holy days because no volunteer deemed acceptable by defendants was available to supervise the meetings. In analyzing the availability to inmates of "alternative means" of exercising their religion, however, "[t]he pertinent question is not whether the inmates have been denied specific religious accommodations, but whether, more broadly, the prison affords the inmates opportunities to exercise their faith."13 The magistrate judge found, and the record confirms, that (1) Adkins had access to religious materials; (2) he and other YEA inmates were not required to work on the Sabbath; (3) video and audio tapes were made available on Mondays to all YEA members; and (4) YEA members were permitted to hold and attend live services when Healan was able to attend. These supplemental services, materials and other accommodations furnish Adkins and the YEA members with "alternative means" of exercising their religion.14
Adkins contends that the tape sessions were no longer allowed following the filing of this suit. Contrary to this, though, the magistrate judge's findings, which the district court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mathis v. Brazoria Cnty. Sheriff's Office
...as "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, asystem of religious belief." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A). In Adkins v. Kaspar, the Fifth Circuit defined "substantial burden" as follows:[A] government action or regulation creates a "substantial burden" on a religiou......
-
Couch v. Jabe
...the adherent to significantly modify his religious behavior and significantly violate his religious beliefs." Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559, 569-70 (5th Cir.2004). The Seventh Circuit has held that a substantial burden results from a regulation that "necessarily bears direct, primary, and ......
-
Smith v. Dunn
...that he will engage in a religious exercise, and (2) that his religious exercise will be substantially burdened. See Adkins v. Kaspar , 393 F.3d 559, 567 (5th Cir. 2004) ; 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc–1(a). If Smith succeeds in demonstrating a prima facie case, the ADOC must then show that the challe......
-
Jihad v. Comm'r Joan Fabian
... ... Smith v. Kyler, 295 Fed.Appx. 479, 483 (3rd Cir.2008), cert, deniedU.S., 129 S.Ct. 2837, 174 L.Ed.2d 561 (2009); ... Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559, 571 (5th ... Cir.2004)(no substantial burden where volunteers available); cf., May field v. Texas ... Dept. of Criminal ... ...
-
"a Fresh Look": Title Vii's New Promise for Lgbt Discrimination Protection Post-hively
...§ 2000bb-1(a).130. Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. at 2772, 2792.131. See Mack v. Warden, 839 F.3d 286, 304 (3d Cir. 2016); Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559, 570 (5th Cir. 2004).132. Eternal Word TV Network, Inc. v. Sec'y, U.S. Health & Human Servs., 818 F.3d 1122, 1146-47 (11th Cir.) (finding that r......
-
Born-Again RFRA: Will the Military Backslide on its Religious Conversion?
...at 42 U.S.C. [section][section] 2000bb-2000bb-4) invalidated by City of Borne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). (169) See Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559, 567 n.34 (5th Cir. (170) 42 U.S.C. [section] 2000bb-2(4) (2000) ("As used in this chapter... the term 'exercise of religion' means religiou......
-
Adkins v. Kaspar.
...Court OPPORTUNITY TO PRACTICE RESTRICTIONS SERVICES RLUIPA -- Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2004). A Texas state prisoner who was a member of the Yahweh Evangelical Assembly (YEA) filed a pro se action against the chaplaincy de......
-
Adkins v. Kaspar.
...Appeals Court RELIGIOUS SERVICES Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2004). A Texas state prisoner who was a member of the Yahweh Evangelical Assembly (YEA) filed a pro se action against the chaplaincy department of a state corrections agency. The prisoner alleged violation of his fede......