Blair-Bey v. Nix, BLAIR-BEY
| Decision Date | 15 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | BLAIR-BEY,No. 91-3397,91-3397 |
| Citation | 963 F.2d 162 |
| Parties | J.; Duane Wright-Bey; Michael Taylor-El, Appellees, v. Crispus NIX, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
William A. Hill, Asst. Atty. Gen., Des Moines, Iowa, for appellant.
Paul C. Thune, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellees.
Before FAGG, Circuit Judge, LAY, Senior Circuit Judge, and HANSEN, Circuit Judge.
Iowa State Penitentiary inmates James Blair-Bey, Duane Wright-Bey, and Michael Taylor-El (the prisoners) brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action contending the penitentiary's policy of providing only a single Islamic religious advisor violates their First Amendment right to exercise freely their religious beliefs. Following a hearing, the district court ordered the penitentiary to hire a part-time religious advisor to serve the prisoners' particular Islamic sect. Crispus Nix, the penitentiary's warden, appeals the district court's order. We reverse.
The prisoners are members of the Moorish Science Temple (MST), which is an Islamic sect. The penitentiary employs Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, and Native American representatives to advise inmates belonging to those religions. The penitentiary does not employ separate representatives to advise individual sects within the designated religions. For example, the Islamic representative advises the prisoners belonging to the Islamic sects in the penitentiary.
The prisoners contend they are entitled to their own MST advisor separate from the Islamic advisor already provided. Although the prisoners express dissatisfaction with the current Islamic advisor, they are not seeking to replace him in this lawsuit. Instead, in their complaint, the prisoners seek a court order requiring the penitentiary to hire a separate Islamic advisor. Specifically, the prisoners request "a Moorish representative from the founding Grand Temple." The prisoners are not entitled to this relief.
The Constitution does not require that a religious advisor be provided for every sect represented in a penitentiary. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 n. 2, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 1081 n. 2, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972) (per curiam); Tisdale v. Dobbs, 807 F.2d 734, 740 (8th Cir.1986). Nor does the Constitution require that prisoners be provided the religious advisor of their choice or one that belongs to their individual religious sect. Reimers v. Oregon, 863 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir.1988). See SapaNajin v. Gunter, 857 F.2d 463, 465 (8th Cir.1988) (). Rather, prisoners must simply be given a reasonable opportunity to exercise their religious freedom guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Cruz, 405 U.S. at 322 n. 2, 92 S.Ct. at 1081 n. 2; Tisdale, 807 F.2d at 740.
Although the prisoners characterize the MST sect as an orthodox Islamic sect, Appellee's Brief at 6, the prisoners contend the MST sect is sufficiently different from other Islamic sects to warrant their own MST advisor. To support their contention, the prisoners cite SapaNajin. In SapaNajin, we held unconstitutional a penitentiary's policy of hiring a medicine man from an aberrant Native American sect whose religious beliefs and practices were diametrically opposed to those of the Native American inmates he advised. 857 F.2d at 464-65.
A review of the record shows this case is not like SapaNajin. Although the district court found the MST's tenets differ from other Islamic sects--and noted the current Islamic advisor does not believe or follow all the MST's practices--the district court did not find the advisor deficient in his understanding of the MST's tenets, incapable of ministering to the MST inmates, or unwilling to do so because of his personal skepticism about the MST sect. It is apparent to us the district court's sparse findings about the advisor do not support the court's conclusion that the advisor's efforts may "undermine [the prisoner's] efforts to practice their religion with the same freedoms that other derivative sects of other major religious groups at [the penitentiary] enjoy." Indeed, the record shows the current advisor is an authority on the Islamic religion; he is qualified by education and experience to serve all the Islamic inmates at the penitentiary; and he understands the nuances of the MST sect. Moreover, the advisor testified he has ministered to MST inmates in the past and has never encountered a problem or received a complaint. Thus, this case simply does not involve the situation present in SapaNajin.
In sum, we conclude the penitentiary's policy of providing a single Islamic advisor does not unreasonably impinge on the MST inmates' ability to practice their religion. Although the Islamic advisor may not be the religious leader the prisoners prefer, his employment by the prison does not interfere with the MST inmates' ability to exercise freely their religious beliefs. The MST inmates enjoy the same religious freedoms as the other inmates. The penitentiary permits the MST inmates to pray and worship together, receive and read MST literature, possess religious artifacts, receive MST advisors as visitors, and otherwise follow their religious beliefs within the bounds of the penitentiary's operating rules. We thus conclude the prisoners have failed to establish a violation of their First Amendment right to exercise their religious beliefs. See Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 520 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we reverse.
I wholeheartedly concur in the court's opinion. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, does not require the penitentiary to hire a separate MST advisor as requested by the MST inmates. As discussed in the last paragraph of the court's opinion, the MST inmates have the ability to freely exercise their religious beliefs. The Free Exercise Clause does not require the penitentiary to make further "special accommodations" for the MST inmates' religious beliefs, nor does it require the prison authorities to provide for the proper education of the MST inmates in their religion as the district court seems to hold. I write...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jihad v. Comm'r Joan Fabian
... ... a constitutional right to the religious advisor of their choice. See Blair-Bey v. Nix, ... 963 F.2d 162, 163-64 (8th Cir.1992), cert, ... denied 506 U.S. 1007, 113 S.Ct ... ...
-
Rouser v. White
...that case was decided long before Turner and does not engage in the type of analysis described by the Turner Court. In Blair-Bey v. Nix, 963 F.2d 162, 163 (8th Cir. 1992), the court held that there was insufficient evidence that the prison's current chaplains were inadequate for the plainti......
-
Davis v. Powell
...right to the religious advisor of their choice.” Id. at *16, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41522 at *46 (citing Blair–Bey v. Nix, 963 F.2d 162, 163–64 (8th Cir.1992)). Similarly, Davis does not have a constitutional right to a vendor of his choice. A “satisfactory accommodation” is the touchstone. ......
-
Burke v. Dept. of Correction and Rehabilitation
...prisoners be provided the religious advisor of their choice or one that belongs to their individual religious sect." Blair-Bey v. Nix, 963 F.2d 162, 163-64 (8th Cir.1992).1 "Only when a prisoner's sole opportunity for group worship arises under the guidance of someone whose beliefs are sign......
-
The Supreme Court's "prisoner Dilemma:" How Johnson, Rluipa, and Cutter Re-defined Inmate Constitutional Claims
...some courts evaluated prisoners' free exercise claims referencing neither O'Lone's use of Turner nor Smith. See, e.g., Blair-Bey v. Nix, 963 F.2d 162 (8th Cir. 1992); Fominas v. Kelly, 739 F. Supp. 139 (W.D.N.Y. 1990). 190. O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 (1987) (emphasis add......