Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Perry, 5:15–CT–3053–BO
| Decision Date | 28 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5:15–CT–3053–BO,5:15–CT–3053–BO |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Parties | AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION and Kwame Jamal Teague, Plaintiffs, v. Frank L. PERRY, et al., Defendants. |
Monica L. Miller, David A. Niose, American Humanist Association, Washington, DC, John Christopher Jackson, John T. Kivus, Morningstar Law Group, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiffs.
Joseph Finarelli, Kimberly D. Grande, Thomas M. Woodward, N.C. Department of Justice, Raleigh, NC, for Defendants.
This matter is before the court upon the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment [DE–68, 83]. The issues raised have been fully briefed and are ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the court grants plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denies defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment.
On February 25, 2015, plaintiffs the American Humanist Association ("AHA")1 and Kwame Jamal Teague ("Teague") filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Frank L. Perry, David Guice, George Solomon, Betty Brown, Gwen Norville, David Mitchell, and Sara R. Cobb in their official capacities only. Defendants are current and former2 employees of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety ("DPS"), and involved in policy decisions related to the recognition of faith groups in the state's prisons. Plaintiffs allege that the DPS's disparate treatment of Humanists violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek the entry of a declaratory judgment, permanent injunctive relief, nominal damages, and attorney's fees. Compl. [DE–1], p. 19–22. Specifically, plaintiffs seek the entry of a declaratory judgment finding, inter alia , that defendants' actions violated the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses. Id. at 19–20. Similarly, plaintiffs request that the court enter a permanent injunction ordering, inter alia , DPS to recognize Humanism as a faith group and to authorize Humanists to meet in a study group on the same terms defendants authorize for inmates of recognized faith traditions. Id. at 20–21.
On July 28, 2017, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment [DE–68, 83]. Both motions were fully briefed, and the court conducted a hearing on January 24, 2018. These matters are now ripe for adjudication.
Teague was a Humanist3 state inmate incarcerated at Lanesboro Correctional Institution ("Lanesboro") when he filed this action, but subsequently transferred to Nash Correctional Institution ("Nash"). Inmates admitted into DPS custody are asked their religious preference during intake. Pl. Ex. 100 [DE–81–5], p. 12. These religious preferences are entered into the Offender Population Unified System ("OPUS"). Id. Inmates may change their OPUS faith group designation, but may only declare a faith group recognized by DPS. Id. at 1558–59.
DPS maintains a list of approved faith groups. Pl. Ex. 6 [DE–72–6], pp. 24–30. DPS provides approved faith groups the resources necessary for group study and worship. Id. Approved faith groups are provided time and space for group study and worship even when neither is a requirement of the religion. Id. DPS policy states that "[i]nmates shall not organize nor conduct group meetings without prior approval of the facility head or designee." Pl. Ex. 6 [DE–72–6], p. 6. There is no minimum number of inmates required for recognition as a faith group.4 Pl. Ex. 107 [DE–82–2], p. 39. Moreover, there are no written standards of any sort outlining the requirements for DPS to recognize a particular faith group. Pl. Ex. 107 [DE–82–2], p. 163. DPS does not recognize Humanism as a faith group. Def. Ex. C [DE–86–3]. Thus, at present, a Humanist inmate cannot assemble with other Humanist inmates to study and discuss Humanist values. Pl. Ex. 107 [DE–82–2], p. 58. Likewise, an inmate cannot designate Humanism as his preferred faith group in OPUS.
Teague first sought recognition of Humanism from DPS officials in 2012.5 Def. Ex. A [DE–86–1], p. 59. After fully exhausting his administrative remedies, Teague was instructed to complete a "Request for Religious Assistance Form (DC–572)." Pl. Ex. 27 [DE–74–2], p. 1. Teague submitted a form DC–572 on September 18, 2012. Pl. Ex. 37 [DE–75–2]. In January 2013, DPS's Religious Practices Committee ("RPC") denied Teague's requests. Def. Ex. C [DE–86–3], p. 6. In support of its decision, the RPC noted: (1) it could not find a contact person for Humanism; (2) Humanism appeared to "be a philosophy of life" rather than a religion; (3) Humanist websites focused more on advocacy than faith practices; (4) Teague was represented by an attorney who worked for an advocacy group; (5) Teague was still listed in OPUS as a Muslim; and (6) Teague participated in religious services provided by other faiths. Id.
The RPC met again on March 5, 2013, to reconsider recognition of Humanism as a faith group. Pl. Ex. 50 [DE–76–5]. First, the RPC noted that Teague's request for recognition of Humanism was moot because Teague was now listed in OPUS as a Buddhist. Id. at 2. That notwithstanding, the RPC further concluded that Humanism failed to meet the standards for approval as a faith group "because there are many disciplines of Humanism," and "[t]here is no evidence ... to conclude that there is a religious structure that includes a hierarchy of religious leaders." Id. at 3. Id. The RPC, however, acknowledged that Humanism promoted "a life of personal fulfillment that aspires to the greater good of humanity," and did not pose a security threat. Id. Ultimately, the RPC declined to recognize Humanism as a faith group, but determined that Teague could individually pursue his study of Humanism through "published literature of his preference at his own expense." Id. at 4.
On March 15, 2013, Teague was advised by DPS officials that his DC–572 request for recognition of Humanism as a faith group was still under review. Pl. Ex. 51 [DE–76–6]. He also was notified that DPS "records determine that you no longer have an interest for Humanism, because ... you changed your faith to Buddhist." Id. However, Teague only changed his OPUS status from Islamic to Buddhist because Humanism was not a valid selection, and Buddhism was the only nontheistic option other than "none." Pl. Ex. 110 [DE–82–5], p. 14.
Teague submitted another DC–572 form requesting recognition of Humanism as a faith group on April 26, 2013. Pl. Ex. 53 [DE–76–8]. After Teague submitted his request, prison officials sent him a series of additional questions beyond what is normally required. Pl. Ex. 53 [DE–76–8], pp. 4–7; Pl. Ex. 108 [DE–82–3], pp. 68–69. During this time, Teague also met with prison officials and provided them additional information regarding Humanism. Def. Ex. C, [DE–86–3], pp. 13–19. On May 15, 2013, Teague was informed by letter that his renewed request was denied. Pl. Ex. 55 [DE–76–10]. Prison officials, instead, indicated they would accommodate Teague "through individual private devotions in [his] cell, with publications that [he] may purchase." Id.
In September 2013, Randy Best, a Humanist chaplain and a leader in the Ethical Humanist Society of the Triangle in North Carolina, sought permission from DPS to visit Teague as his pastor and conduct Humanist services for other inmates. Pl. Ex. 62 [DE–77–7]. It appears that the application was never formally approved. Pl. Ex. 98 [DE–81–3], p. 16.
On October 15, 2013, Teague submitted a third DC–572 form seeking recognition of Humanism as a faith group. Pl. Ex. 64 [DE–77–9]. He also renewed his request for weekly Humanist group meetings. Id. at 1–2. These requests were denied, and prison officials instead decided to accommodate Teague by providing him access to pastoral visits and Humanist publications.6 Pl. Ex, 76 [DE–79–1], p. 3. Of note, in July 2015, the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") officially recognized Humanism as a faith group and provides the group two time slots per week for worship and study. Pl. Ex. 18, [DE–73–3]. Likewise, the Department of Defense, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Veterans Affairs also now recognize Humanism as a religion. Pl. Ex. 20 [DE–73–5].
Defendants argue that plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief are moot because the actions described in the complaint primarily occurred at Lanesboro, and Teague has since been transferred to Nash. "[A]s a general rule, a prisoner's transfer or release from a particular prison moots his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to his incarceration there." Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286–87 (4th Cir. 2007) ); Taylor v. Rogers, 781 F.2d 1047, 1048 n. 1 (4th Cir. 1986) ). However, an exception to the mootness doctrine exists for cases that are "capable of repetition, yet evading review." The "capable of repetition, yet evading review" doctrine "applies only in exceptional situations" where "two circumstances [are] simultaneously present: (1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to a cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subject to the same action again." Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17–18, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) (quotation omitted).
Thus, a transfer to a separate prison facility moots an inmate's requests for injunctive relief, so long as the transfer prevents the inmate from encountering those same allegedly unconstitutional prison conditions that gave rise to his original grievances. Turner v. Clelland, No. 1:15CV947, 2016 WL 6997500, at *13 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 30, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Turner, Jr. v. Clelland, No. 1:15CV947, 2017 WL 913630 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2017...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glob. Impact Ministries v. Mecklenburg Cnty.
...noting that an award for compensatory damages requires participation of individual members in the lawsuit); Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Perry, 303 F. Supp. 3d 421, 427, 433 (E.D.N.C. 2018) (finding representational standing and allowing nominal damages); see also Clark v. McDonald's Corp., 213 F.......