Chriceol v. Phillips
| Decision Date | 24 March 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-30380,98-30380 |
| Citation | 169 F.3d 313 |
| Parties | Michael S. CHRICEOL, Reverend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael PHILLIPS, Warden, Winn Correctional Center; Marcell Mills, Assistant Warden, Winn Correctional Center; Lou Coleman, Assistant Warden, Winn Correctional Center; Robert Gariflo, Chief of Security, Winn Correctional Center; Ann Maxey, Mail room censor/screening officer, Winn Correctional Center; Hayood Hossler, Chaplain, Winn Correctional Center, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Michael S. Chriceol, Cottonport, LA, pro se.
Ronald E. Corkern, Jr., Natchitoches, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Before DAVIS, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Michael S. Chriceol ("Chriceol"), Louisiana Prisoner # 313675, filed a civil rights action, pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the prison officials at Winn Correctional Center burdened his right to free exercise of religion by repeatedly denying him mail from various religious organizations. Further, Chriceol alleges the prison officials denied him access to the courts by denying his requests for a withdrawal from his prison account to pay court costs. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, entered summary judgment in favor of the prison officials. Chriceol now appeals.
Chriceol was an inmate at the Winn Correctional Center 1 ("WCC") in Winnfield, Louisiana from August 1, 1994, to November 7, 1997. Chriceol claims he is an ordained minister. As a minister, he received religious and political material from various religious leaders, publishers, and organizations relating to his beliefs. In particular, Chriceol was sent materials from Aryan Nations/Church of Jesus Christ Christian ("CJCC").
In August 1996, Chriceol contends WCC hired a new mail room supervisor who withheld mail sent from the Aryan Nations and CJCC. From August 1996 to January 1997, the mail room withheld at least sixteen different items of mail to Chriceol.
The WCC mail room supervisor, Ann Maxey ("Maxey"), withheld Chriceol's mail under Section 16-1.5 of the Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA") Corporate Facility Policy. Section 16-1.5 states, in relevant part: "Books, magazines, newspapers and other printed matter may be approved for inmates/residents unless deemed to constitute an immediate and tangible threat to the security or order of the facility or to inmate/resident rehabilitation by meeting one or more of the following criteria...." One of the criterion is whether "[t]he material advocates racial, religious, or national hatred in such a way so as to create a serious danger of violence in the facility." Section 16-1.5 H.2 (d).
WCC gives notice to an inmate when the delivery of mail addressed to the inmate is withheld. Furthermore, the inmate is allowed an opportunity to file a grievance to protest WCC's decision to withhold the mail. Chriceol appealed WCC's decisions to withhold mail on each occasion he received a notice. On each occasion, Chriceol's appeal was denied. Chriceol also made allegations that individual(s) in the WCC mail room opened his legal mail.
In January 1997, Chriceol filled out a request to withdraw money from his prison account to file this action against the WCC prison officials. Later that month, Chriceol was told that his withdrawal request had been denied. Chriceol contends he relied on his parents to pay the necessary filing fees and on February 28, 1997, Chriceol filed this civil rights action, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officials at WCC.
The complaint alleged that the prison officials: (1) burdened Chriceol's right to free exercise of religion; (2) violated Chriceol's right to free speech; (3) denied Chriceol access to the courts by denying his requests for withdrawals from his prison account; (4) unconstitutionally interfered with Chriceol's legal mail; and (5) retaliated against Chriceol for filing grievances. The WCC officials filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, granted summary judgment in favor of the prison officials.
Proceeding on appeal pro se, Chriceol argues the district court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of the WCC officials. Chriceol's argument, construed liberally, 2 is that the district court erred in concluding the WCC officials did not violate (1) his right to freedom of religion or (2) his right to access to the courts. This court reviews the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. See Brewer v. B. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 819 (5th Cir.1993). We are not bound by the reasons articulated by the district court for granting summary judgment and may affirm the judgment on other grounds. See id. at 820. Summary judgment is proper only if the record discloses that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
Chriceol argues that prison officials at WCC violated his rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Specifically, Chriceol contends the WCC mail policy of withholding mail from organizations such as Aryan Nations and CJCC infringes on his rights to practice his religion. The prison officials, in turn, argue Chriceol's withheld mail advocated racial violence and hatred. Thus, the prison officials contend the mail policy is legitimately related to ensuring the safety of prisoners and employees.
This court has been faced with other civil rights claims relating to infringements on prisoners' rights to free exercise of religion. See, e.g, Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322 (5th Cir.1996) (); Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22 (5th Cir.1995) (); Matthews v. Morales, 23 F.3d 118 (5th Cir.1994) (). This Court, however, has not faced the issue of whether a prison mail policy that withholds potential violence producing materials violates an inmate's right to exercise his religion.
Other circuits have considered the extent to which prisons can withhold materials sent their inmates. The Ninth Circuit has held that a total ban on literature advocating racial purity "cannot be constitutionally banned as rationally related to rehabilitation." McCabe v. Arave, 827 F.2d 634, 638 (9th Cir.1987). The McCabe court, however, did recognize that literature advocating violence or illegal activity could be banned. See id. See also Murphy v. Missouri, 814 F.2d 1252, 1256-57 (8th Cir.1987) (); Winburn v. Bologna, 979 F.Supp. 531, 534 (W.D.Mich.1997) (); Thomas v. United States Secretary of Defense, 730 F.Supp. 362 (D.Kan.1990) (). This Court agrees with the reasoning of the other Circuits and holds that a prison mail policy restricting access to potential violence producing materials is valid.
In O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987), the Supreme Court established the test for evaluating the constitutionality of regulations that infringe on prisoners' First Amendment Rights. "[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." O'Lone, 482 U.S. at 349, 107 S.Ct. 2400. To determine whether a challenged regulation is valid, we are directed to four factors relevant for determining whether a challenged regulation is valid: (1) whether the regulation has a logical connection to the legitimate government interests invoked to justify it; (2) whether there are alternative means of exercising the rights that remain open to the inmates; (3) the impact that accommodation of the asserted constitutional rights will have on other inmates, guards, and prison resources; and (4) the presence or absence of ready alternatives that fully accommodate the prisoner's rights at de minimus cost to valid penological interests. See O'Lone 482 U.S. at 350-52, 107 S.Ct. 2400 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987)).
Applying the Turner factors, as elaborated in O'Lone, WCC's policy of withholding mail that advocates racial, religious, or national hatred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Driskel, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-874-P
...of the defendant's alleged unconstitutional conduct. Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998); Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313, 317 (5th Cir. 1999). Application of the actual injury requirement to the instant case supports a finding that Plaintiff's access to court claims......
-
Carpenter v. Itawamba Co. Jail
...with a prisoner's right to access to the courts, such as delay, may result in a constitutional deprivation." Chriceol v. Phillips , 169 F.3d 313, 317 (5th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). However, "[a] denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim is not valid if a litigant's position is not prejudic......
-
Lee v. Louisiana
...of the defendant's alleged unconstitutional conduct. Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998); Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313, 317 (5th Cir. 1999). Application of the actual injury requirement to the instant case supports a finding that Plaintiff's claims are frivolous. ......
-
Prescott v. Johnson
...to his position as a litigant) (citations omitted). He has also wholly failed to allege any specific harm. See Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313, 317 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that inmate alleging denial of access to courts must demonstrate actual injury). He has therefore failed to state a......
-
A blessing in disguise: protecting minority faiths through state religious freedom non-restoration acts.
...as Five Percenters, 174 F.3d 464, 469-70 (4th Cir. 1999); Spies v. Voinovich, 173 F.3d 398, 403 (6th Cir. 1999); Chirceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313, 316 (5th Cir. (230.) See Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 475 (2d Cir. 1996); Hamilton v. Schiro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1551-52 (8th Cir. 1996); Hicks ......
-
27-c-3 Examples of Common Challenges to Prison Restrictions
...prisoners was reasonably related to legitimate security concerns of prison officials and was not invalid). 165. Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313, 314-15, 317 (5th Cir. 1999). 166. Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Murphy v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 814 F.2d 1252......
-
B. Your Right to Practice Your Religion
...ban on tobacco use violated the rights of Native American religious practitioners to use tobacco in ceremonies. In Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 1999), a court held that the prison could ban a piece of religious mail because it had the potential to produce violence by advocat......
-
A. Your First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech and Association
...and violence against people of another race or religion. Stefanow v. McFadden, 103 F.3d 1466 (9th Cir. 1996); Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 1999). One court allowed special inspection of a prisoner's mail after he received a book with a suspicious title, even though the book ......