Alexander v. Michigan

• Decision Date: 11 June 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:13-cv-1372
• Parties: JOHN ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

JOHN ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-1372

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: June 11, 2014

Honorable Robert Holmes Bell

OPINION

This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 et seq., and state law. Plaintiff has paid the entire filing fee. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's action against Defendants Snyder, Hilfinger, Heyns, Killough, Martin and the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Commercial Services (LARA) for failure to state a claim and on immunity grounds. In addition, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's § 1983 claims and RLUIPA claims for monetary damages against theState of Michigan and the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) on immunity grounds. Also, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's RLUIPA claims against Defendants Hoffner and Tompkins on immunity grounds. The Court will serve the remainder of Plaintiff's action on Defendants Hoffner, Tompkins, State of Michigan and MDOC.

Discussion

I. Factual allegations

Plaintiff John H. Alexander-Bey presently is incarcerated at the Lakeland Correctional Facility. Plaintiff purports to bring a class action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated prisoners, who are members of the "Reincarnate Temple, MSTA, Inc." (Compl., docket #1, Page ID#2; Mot., docket #3, Page ID#129.) In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff sues the State of Michigan, LARA¹ (LARA), Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), LARA Director Steven Hilfinger, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, and the following employees of the MDOC, in their official and individual capacities: Director Daniel Heyns, Special Litigation employee Norma Killough, Chaplain Administrator Michael Martin, Warden Bonita J. Hoffner and Chaplain D.A. Tompkins.

Plaintiff alleges that he is the "Michigan Republic Representative for the Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc., of the Reincarnate Temple, MSTA" (Reincarnate Temple, MSTA). (Compl., docket #1, Page ID#11.) Plaintiff claims that all Moorish Americans do not practice the same form of Islam, and provides:

Ismaili, the sacred way of the Plaintiffs also known as "Ismaili Sevener's," is the Islam of the Muurs. That the Moorish American under the 1926 corporate anddivine Charter are representatives of the original Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc., and sacred community and religious estate who have been deprived of bona fide recognition and the right to practice our faith; for we are enrollee(s) of the Washitaw Nation of Muurs United Nations IPO #215/93 U.S. Land Grants No. 922 & 923 1802 . . . and are original members of the Chicago Moorish Temple(s) within the Prophet's biological Washitaw family of [Muslims], in society have our Religious Services on Fridays from 8:00 pm until 10:00 pm and Sunday school from 9:00 AM until 1:00 PM. . . . .

(Id. at Page ID#11.) Plaintiff states that the Ismaili Muslim is separate from the "Sunni religion of Islam and as well other Moorish Science Temples in America" and protected under the United States Land Patents for the Washitaw Nation. (Id. at Page ID#7.) Plaintiff has filed grievances with the MDOC and complaints with LARA and the Office of Legal Affairs to have his religion recognized as a separate religion to no avail. (Id. at Page ID#9.)

Plaintiff alleges that MDOC prison officials have retaliated against Washitaw Ismaili Muslim inmates for filing grievances by harassing them, confiscating and/or destroying "religious and nationality documents" and other materials, and by transferring them to other prisons. (Id. at Page ID#10.) Plaintiff also states that Ismaili Muslims are denied Friday prayer, Sunday school, sacred ceremonies, the wearing of religious medallions and attire, and the accommodation of a vegetarian diet in violation of his First Amendment rights. Plaintiff further claims that MDOC prison officials have issued misconduct tickets, increased security levels and seized property without hearings and placed Ismaili Muslims in segregation for seeking permission to worship in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In addition to the above constitutional claims, Plaintiff lists the following nine claims (summarized):

1. Plaintiff states that Governor Snyder, MDOC Director Heyns, LARA Director Hilfinger, Chaplain Martin and other MDOC officials have violatedthe Establishment Clause and MDOC Policy Directive 05.03.150, ¶C² because Ismaili Muslims are compelled to attend other religious services.

2. Plaintiff claims that Governor Snyder, MDOC Director Heyns, wardens, chaplains and prison guards and other state employees acted in concert under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and 42 U.S.C. §1986 to violate his constitutional rights by failing to establish minimum standards for recognition of all religious groups.

3. Plaintiff asserts that LARA Hilfinger conspired with the Chaplainry Board to disregard Plaintiff's November 30, 2006 registration and allow an amendment to the Washitaw's registration by an unauthorized individual in violation of the "[Louisiana] Cession Treaty of 1803 and the First & Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution." (Id., Page ID#13.) Plaintiff also states that Hilfinger failed to correct the mistake despite repeated attempts by Plaintiff. Plaintiff further provides that Hilfinger along with the MDOC's Chaplainry Board Members negatively influenced Governor Snyder and MDOC Director Heyns so the Ismaili Muslims could not obtain the benefits of their registration as a foreign corporation.

4. Plaintiff argues that MDOC Director Heyns and Chaplain Administrator Martin conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his First Amendment rights and Article III of the Louisiana Treaty of 1803 by failing to recognize the Reincarnate Temple, MSTA and by not allowing Plaintiff to have religious services.

5. Plaintiff complains that Special Litigation Officer Killough and the Chaplainry Department conspired to deprive Plaintiff and other Ismaili Muslims of registering their religion with the U. S. Government. Because of Defendant Killough's actions, Plaintiff states that articles, papers and other religious effects were confiscated from Plaintiff in violation of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff further argues that Defendants conspired to deny Plaintiff of access to his religion by not allowing Ismaili Muslims to meet or assemble privately. Because Defendants allegedly destroyed religious and nationality documents without due process of law, Plaintiff claims that they violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights.

6. Plaintiff asserts that Warden Hoffner and Chaplain Tompkins denied Plaintiff access to his religion and the use of religious symbols. Plaintiff also asserts a RLUIPA claim against "the MDOC and its respective agencies (Lakeland Correctional Facility's Officials)." (Id. at Page ID#17.)

7. Plaintiff argues that he was denied his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion when Defendants refused to grant him religious accommodations, including the use of traditional sacred garments, medallions and sacred beads.

8. Plaintiff states that the MDOC prison facilities, chaplains and prisons guards have denied religious services for prison inmates of the Reincarnate Temple, MSTA, in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and the State of Michigan's constitution.

9. Plaintiff claims that the Reincarnate Temple, MSTA, should be recognized under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

(Id. at Page ID##12-16.)

For relief, Plaintiff requests declaratory and injunctive relief as well as monetary damages.

II. Class Action

On December 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification (docket #3) to bring this action along with similarly-situated prisoners, who are members of the Reincarnate Temple, MSTA. Plaintiff, however, is the only person who signed the complaint. Plaintiff lacks standing to assert the constitutional rights of other prisoners. Newsom v. Norris, 888 F.2d 371, 381 (6th Cir. 1989); Raines v. Goedde, No. 92-3120, 1992 WL 188120, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 6, 1992). As a layman, Plaintiff may only represent himself with respect to his individual claims, and may not act on behalf of other prisoners. Thus, absent class certification, he may not bring claims on behalf of any other prisoners.

For a case to proceed as a class action, the Court must be satisfied on a number of grounds, including the adequacy of class representation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). It is well established that pro se litigants are inappropriate representatives of the interests of others. See Garrison v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 333 F. App'x 914, 919 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)); see also Dodson v. Wilkinson, 304 F. App'x 434, 438 (6th Cir. 2008); Ziegler v. Michigan, 59 F. App'x 622, 624 (6th Cir. 2003); Palasty v. Hawk, 15 F. App'x 197, 200 (6th Cir. 2001); Howard v. Dougan, No. 99-2232, 2000 WL 876770, at *1 (6th Cir. June 23, 2000); Ballard v. Campbell, No. 98-6156, 1999 WL 777435, at *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 21, 1999); Marr v. Michigan, No. 95-1794, 1996 WL 205582, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 1996)....