Edwards v. Washington
| Decision Date | 19 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20-cv-908 |
| Parties | MICHAEL EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), 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 complaint because it is frivolous and/or fails to state a claim.
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Lakeland Correctional Facility (LCF) in Coldwater, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility and the Newberry Correctional Facility (NCF) in Newberry, Michigan, the Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF) in Kincheloe, Michigan, the Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF) in New Haven, Michigan, the Alger Correctional Facility (LMF) in Munising, Michigan, and the Oaks Correctional Facility (ECF) in Manistee, Michigan. Plaintiff sues MDOC Director Heidi Washington, MDOC Emergency Management Section Manager Larry Brown, NCF Security Threat Group (STG) Coordinator A. Hubble, NCF Corrections Officer G. Moore, URF STG Coordinator Lieutenant Unknown Brown, MRF STG Coordinator Inspector Unknown Steece, LMF STG Coordinator Inspector Unknown Rutter, ECF STG Coordinator Unknown Dunn, and LCF STG Coordinator Lieutenant Unknown LaMontagne.
Plaintiff alleges that he "espoused to the Declaration of Faith and religious tenets of the Melanic Islamic Palace of the Rising Sun (Melanics) in 1990." (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.5.) Plaintiff reports that the MDOC recognized the Melanics as an official religion pursuant to a consent judgment in Martin v. Boles, No. 2:82-cv-72083 (E.D. Mich.). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan terminated that consent judgment by order entered February 19, 1998. Id. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's termination of the consent judgment on September 24, 1999. Islamic Palace of the Rising Sun v. Johnson, No. 98-1361, 1999 WL 775801 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 1999).
In January 2000, the MDOC classified the Melanics as a security threat group (STG). Johnson v. Martin [Johnson I], 223 F. Supp. 2d 820, 823 (W.D. Mich. 2002). That classification followed a riot at URF involving a number of Melanic inmates. Johnson v. Martin [Johnson II], No. 2:00-cv-75, 2005 WL 3312566, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2005).
The Johnson Plaintiffs raised several constitutional challenges to the MDOC's actions, including violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, violation of theReligious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, and violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
The Johnson Plaintiffs challenged the classification of the Melanics as an STG, the ban of Melanic group worship, the confiscation of Melanic written materials and symbols, and a ban of Melanic written materials. Court certified the following classes:
(1) those current prisoners of the Michigan Department of Corrections who were members of the Melanic Islamic Palace of the Rising Sun ("Melanic") when it was designated as a security threat group by the Department of Corrections on January 7, 2000 and who either renounced membership in Melanic and/or were treated as members of a security threat group for not effectively renouncing membership in Melanic; (2) those current prisoners of the Michigan Department of Corrections who were members of Melanic as of January 7, 2000 and who have not been allowed to practice their religion in the same manner after the security threat group designation; and (3) those current prisoners of the Michigan Department of Corrections who were members of Melanic on January 7, 2000 and whose religious materials were confiscated after January 7, 2000 and/or who presently cannot possess Melanic religious materials.
Johnson I, 223 F. Supp. at 822 n.4. Based on Plaintiff's allegations, it appears he was a member of the second class. Indeed, Plaintiff indicates that class counsel communicated with him by correspondence as the litigation proceeded. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.)
The Court found that the Melanics espoused violence and racism and created a hierarchical structure that was different than, and potentially contrary to, the MDOC hierarchical structure. The Court rejected the Melanics' claims regarding the designation of the group as an STG1 and denied the claim that confiscation of Melanic materials as contraband violated the groupmembers' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion; however, the Court concluded that under the RLUIPA, the MDOC could not simply ban all Melanic Literature.2 The Court held that the MDOC would have to review the materials to determine whether they were a threat to the safety and security of the prison. Johnson v. Martin [Johnson IV], No. 2:00-cv-75, 2006 WL 223108, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2006) ().
The MDOC then proceeded to review and reject each of the "five lengthy writings." The Johnson Plaintiffs moved to enforce the injunction; but the Court denied relief because the Court concluded that the MDOC had reviewed and made a good faith determination as required by the injunction. The Johnson Plaintiffs then moved to modify the injunction so that the MDOC would be required to permit Melanic Literature with the objectionable material redacted. The Court denied relief and, with that order, ended the 8-year long litigation.
Although Plaintiff's allegations suggest that he was an adherent of the Melanic faith as early as 1990, it appears that he was not classified as an STG member because of his Melanicadherence until almost two decades later. On January 7, 2011, Defendant Moore shookdown Plaintiff's cell and confiscated 48 pages of Melanic material, apparently part of the Melanic Literature. Moore wrote a misconduct for Plaintiff's possession of contraband. Plaintiff pleaded guilty to the charge. Later that day, Defendant Hubble designated Plaintiff as a member of an STG because he used/possessed symbols and logos, possessed documents, possessed membership documents, and served as a leader, enforcer, recruiter of an STG.
An STG is defined under MDOC Policy as "a group of prisoners designated by the Director as possessing common characteristics which distinguish them from other prisoners or groups of prisoners and which, as an entity, pose a threat to staff or other prisoners or to the custody, safety and security of the facility." Mich. Dep't of Corr. Policy Directive (PD) 04.04.113(B) (eff. Feb. 26, 2015). The policy provides for a Correctional Facilities Administration (CFA) manager who coordinates STG tracking and monitoring for the entire MDOC; in addition, the warden of each facility appoints a local STG coordinator for the institution. PD 04.04.113(H-I).
A prisoner may be designated an STG I by the local STG Coordinator if there is sufficient documentation of the prisoner's membership in the STG and the prisoner fails to make a credible renunciation of his membership. PD 04.04.113(S). The CFA STG manager makes the final determination on designating a prisoner as an STG member. PD 04.04.113(T). A prisoner may be designated an "STG II" member if: (1) he is an STG I member and is found guilty of major misconduct related to his STG activity, (2) was previously an STG I member, and currently presents a threat to prisoners or staff, or (3) is identified as a leader, enforcer, or recruiter in an STG. PD 04.04.113(W).
A prisoner designated as an STG I member must be housed in security level II or higher. STG I prisoners are also subject to the following restrictions: prisoners are generally limited to three visits per month (the limit does not apply to counsel or clergy); classification to a school or work assignment only as approved by the CFA STG manager; no attendance at group meetings of prisoners, except for approved religious services; and cell search at least once a week. PD 04.04.113(BB).3 A prisoner designated as an STG II member must be housed in security level IV or higher. STG II members are also subject to the following restrictions: prisoners are generally limited to two non-contact visits per month (the limit does not apply to counsel or clergy); classification to a school or work assignment only as approved by the CFA STG manager; no attendance at group meetings of prisoners, except for approved religious services; no participation in group leisure time activities, except for yard; cell search at least once per week; and out-of-cell movement not to exceed one hour per day, excluding showers, meals, work, etc. PD 04.04.113(CC).
The STG policy requires local STG coordinators to review each prisoner with an STG designation at least annually to determine whether the designation should be removed or modified. If the local coordinator believes the designation should be removed or reduced, he or she can make that recommendation to the warden. If the warden approves, the matter proceeds to the CFA STG Coordinator. Only that...
To continue reading
Request your trial