Booker v. Graham
| Decision Date | 26 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | 9:13-CV-1342 (GTS/ATB) |
| Parties | AMIN B. BOOKER, et al., Plaintiff, v. HAROLD GRAHAM, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
AMIN B. BOOKER, Plaintiff pro se
PAUL COLON, Plaintiff pro se
ADRIENNE J. KERWIN, Asst. Attorney General for Defendants
This matter has been referred to me for Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and LOCAL RULES N.D.N.Y. 72.3(c). In their amended civil rights complaint, plaintiffs Booker and Colon1, both practicing members of the Nation of Islam ("NOI") and inmates at Auburn Correctional Facility ("Auburn") at the time relevant to this action, allege that defendants violated their First Amendment right to practice their religion and their rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a) by interfering with their observance of the holy month of Ramadan during a facility-wide lockdown from July 29, 2013 through August 4, 2013. (Dkt. No. 178, Am. Compl.). Plaintiff Booker also alleges a separate violation of his rights under the First Amendment and RLUIPAthat occurred when he was denied access to weekly congregate religious services while administratively segregated in the Auburn Special Housing Unit ("SHU") for approximately thirty days in August and September 2013. (Am. Compl. at 14-152). Plaintiff Booker further alleges that the charges which prompted his SHU confinement were made in retaliation for his grievance of the Ramadan lockdown. (Am. Compl. at 13). Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief. (Am. Compl. at 25-26).
Presently before the court is the defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. (Dkt. No. 201). Only plaintiff Booker has responded in opposition to the motion. (Dkt. No. 216). Plaintiff Booker also filed a separate motion for sanctions in which he alleged that defendants' summary judgment motion was frivolous. (Dkt. No. 215). Defendants responded in opposition to the sanctions motion and in further support of their motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 217). Defendants also requested that they be permitted to submit certain confidential exhibits under seal for in camera review, if necessary to the determination of the summary judgment motion. (Dkt. No. 218). Plaintiff Booker opposed the request for in camera review and restated his arguments in favor of sanctions. (Dkt. No. 219, 220).
For the following reasons, this court recommends that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted as to all of plaintiffs' First Amendment and RLUIPA claims. This court further recommends that defendants' motion for summary judgment be denied as to plaintiff Booker's retaliation claim. Because this court has found thatdefendants' summary judgment motion was appropriate, it further recommends that plaintiff Booker's motion for sanctions be denied. Finally, this court denies defendants' request for in camera review of additional confidential documents in support of their motion.
In 2013, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan took place from July 8 to August 7. (Dkt. No. 201-17, ¶ 1). During this period, plaintiffs, as members of the NOI, had certain spiritual obligations: (1) to fast from sun up to sundown; (2) to congregate at sundown with other members of the community for prayer and a communal Halal3 meal; (3) to consume the contents of a Sahoor bag4 before sunrise; and (4) to engage in ritualistic washing prior to prayer. (Dkt. No. 201-2, Booker Dep. at 10-19).
From July 8, 2013 through the evening of July 28, 2013, the Muslim inmates at Auburn were provided hot halal meals to break their fast, Sahoor bags to eat prior to sun up, an opportunity to shower, and permission to congregate in a designated room. (Dkt. No. 201-17, ¶ 3). On July 29, 2013, Auburn Superintendent Harold Graham, a named defendant, instituted a lockdown order so that security staff could conduct a facility-wide frisk for contraband. (Graham Decl. ¶¶ 13, 22-23). The lockdown orderwas issued with the permission of New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") Deputy Superintendent Joseph Bellnier. (Graham Decl. ¶ 20). The lockdown lasted from approximately 2 p.m. on July 29, 2013 until 1:45 p.m. on August 3, 2013. (Id. ¶ 22).
During the lockdown, most inmate movement within the facility ceased. (Id. ¶ 7). No inmate programs were run for the general population, no religious ceremonies or congregate prayer services were held, and inmates remained confined to their cells for all meals. (Id. ¶ 8). There were certain exceptions: movement to a "clean cell" for urinalysis testing; escorts to the infirmary for insulin injections; and previously scheduled family visits. (Id. ¶¶ 9-12). The facility also accommodated the needs of approximately fifty Auburn inmates who were receiving mental health treatment in an Intermediate Care Program ("ICP") unit that was separate from the general population. (Dkt. No. 217-1, Graham Reply Decl. ¶¶ 5-10). The ICP unit was searched at the beginning of the lockdown, so that those inmates could resume their mental health programs with minimal interruption. (Graham Reply Decl. ¶ 11).
Because of the lockdown, plaintiffs were not permitted to meet for communal meals or prayer with fellow NOI inmates. (Graham Decl. ¶ 24). They were also not provided the customary hot halal meal to break their fast at sundown. (Id. ¶ 24). Instead, Auburn provided the same bagged meal three times a day to all inmates, regardless of religious affiliation. (Dkt. No. 201-12, Martin Decl. ¶ 7). These meals, which had been approved by the DOCCS Office of Nutritional Services, contained non-pork meat, cheese, condiments, fruit or a cookie, bread, and juice. (Martin Decl. ¶ 8).Sahoor bags were provided on the first day of the lockdown, but after that, plaintiffs were expected to use one of the bagged meals as a substitute. (Dkt. No. 201-17, ¶¶ 7, 66). Due to the movement restrictions, no inmates were allowed to use the showers. (Dkt. No. 201-17, ¶ 27). Standard lockdown policy called for hot water to be distributed to inmates to wash in their cells once the frisk of their cell block was completed, but plaintiff Booker denies that any hot water was ever delivered to his cell. (Dkt. No. 201-17, ¶ 27; Dkt. No. 216-2, ¶ 27). When the lockdown was fully concluded on August 3, plaintiffs were able to resume their traditional observance of Ramadan for the remainder of the holy month. (Graham Decl. ¶ 26).
On August 13, 2013, defendant Fagan issued a recommendation that plaintiff Booker be confined to administrative segregation in SHU because his "presence in general population would have a detrimental effect to the safety and security of this facility." (Dkt. No. 216-4, at 80). This recommendation was based on defendant Fagan's conclusion, drawn largely from confidential material, that plaintiff Booker was involved in the production and distribution of a flyer that encouraged an inmate strike and the potential use of violence in response to alleged inhumane treatment at prisons nationwide, including the Ramadan lockdown at Auburn. (Dkt. No. 201-9, Fagan Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12-13; Dkt. No. 216-4, at 105). After an administrative hearing, defendant Robinson, who served as hearing officer, agreed with the recommendation that plaintiff Booker be administratively segregated in SHU. (Dkt. No. 216-4, at 114-115). While confined in SHU, defendant Graham, in accordance with DOCCS policy, prohibitedplaintiff from attending weekly Jumah religious services. (Am. Compl. at 14, 25; Graham Decl. ¶¶ 35-36). Approximately thirty days after plaintiff Booker was assigned to administrative segregation, defendant Graham transferred him to another facility. (Booker Dep. at 75).
Summary judgment is appropriate where there exists no genuine issue of material fact and, based on the undisputed facts, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 272-73 (2d Cir. 2006). "Only disputes over ["material"] facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). It must be apparent that no rational finder of fact could find in favor of the non-moving party for a court to grant a motion for summary judgment. Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219, 1224 (2d Cir. 1994).
The moving party has the burden to show the absence of disputed material facts by informing the court of portions of pleadings, depositions, and affidavits which support the motion. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party must move forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Salahuddin, 467 F.3d at 273. In that context, the nonmoving party must do more than "simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). However, in determining whether thereis a genuine issue of material fact, a court must resolve all ambiguities, and draw all inferences, against the movant. See United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962); Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d at 272.
Inmates have the right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to freely exercise a chosen religion. Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582, 588 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974)). However this right is not limitless, and may be subject to restrictions relating to legitimate penological concerns. Benjamin v. Coughlin, 905 F.2d 571, 574 (2d Cir. 1990). The analysis of a free...
To continue reading
Request your trial