Gawlik v. Semple
| Decision Date | 31 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | NNHCV165036776 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Jan GAWLIK v. Scott SEMPLE, Comm’r of Correction et al. |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought by an inmate at the Cheshire Correctional Institution against various prison officials and staff. Plaintiff, Jan Gawlik claims that defendants have violated his constitutional and statutory rights to religious freedom by refusing to deliver incoming mail containing blank religious "prayer cards" and matching envelopes, used religious books, and religious newspapers sent from a source other than the publisher. He seeks a declaratory judgment holding that his religious rights have been violated by defendants’ practices and policies governing delivery of these items, and an injunction requiring the Commissioner of Correction to delete those portions of the Department of Correction ("DOC") administrative directives that prohibit the delivery of such items. He also seeks a judicial declaration that the administrative directives at issue were promulgated illegally because the DOC adopted them without complying with the procedural requirements of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, General Statutes § 4-166 et seq.
A bench trial was held before the undersigned judge on January 25, 2017, January 31, 2017, and March 22, 2017. Extensive post-trial briefs were submitted by the parties.[1] For the reasons that follow. judgment is entered in favor of defendants.
Plaintiff Jan Gawlik is serving a sixty-year sentence for murder. He is incarcerated at Cheshire Correctional Institution (Cheshire), which houses approximately 1300 inmates. Gawlik describes himself as a devout Catholic. His family is from Poland. He speaks Polish, and was raised as a "Polish Catholic." Gawlik has decided that he wants to become a Catholic priest, and is engaged in a self-directed course of study toward that end.[2] He also takes part in many religious practices and activities at Cheshire. He participates in daily mass services, and also attends a collective weekly mass on Wednesdays. On Mondays, he attends a weekly Bible study class run by volunteers from the Legion of Mary. He attends a weekly confirmation class conducted by one of the prison chaplains, Deacon Robles. Gawlik also reads religious texts and books about religion; he has access to many religious books including various bibles and other texts, and keeps approximately fifteen (15) different religion-related books in his cell. He also donates money from his prison account to outside religious organizations that aid poor, hungry, homeless, and/or disabled individuals.
Plaintiff’s present lawsuit complains that his religious freedom, and other legal rights, are being violated by DOC employees at Cheshire as a result of their refusal to deliver certain types of incoming mail to him. Four types of incoming mail are at issue. The first is used books. Three used books ordered by plaintiff were rejected by DOC staff: (1) a used copy of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II; (2) a book entitled "The Book of Angels"; and (3) a book entitled "International Eucharistic Congress Pictorial Album."[3] See Pl. Exs. 22, 33, 36, 37, 38, 56, 56-A. All three books were purchased by plaintiff from a company called Preserving Christian Publications, Inc. See Pl. Ex. 35 (company catalogue, August-September 2016). All three books are religious in nature.
Upon delivery to the mailroom at Cheshire, the books were rejected by DOC personnel under the authority of either or both of two provisions of DOC Administrative Directive 10.7 ("Inmate Communications"). The first directive, A.D. 10.7(4)(G)(1) ("Review, Inspection and Rejection"), includes the following general authorization to reject mail after the mandated inspection: "All incoming general correspondence may be rejected if such review discloses correspondence or material(s) which would reasonably jeopardize legitimate penological interests, including, but not limited to ... (a) [preventing] the transport of contraband in or out of the facility." The second directive, A.D. 10.7(4)(N) ("Incoming Publications and Educational Materials"), states in relevant part: "An inmate may order books in new condition only from a publisher, book club, or book store [emphasis added.]"[4] The DOC’s underlying security concerns are discussed below at pp. 15-16.
The second type of rejected material consists of newspapers mailed to Gawlik from outside sources other than the publisher. The newspapers included "The Catholic Transcript," which is a publication of the Archdiocese of Hartford, "Narod Polski," a bilingual publication of the Polish Roman Catholic Union of America, and various Polish-language newspaper editions published by the New Britain Herald. See Pl. Ex. 6. The newspapers evidently were forwarded to plaintiff by someone associated with the Cyril and Methodius Church, in Hartford. Connecticut, and perhaps other sources; they were not mailed to plaintiff directly from the publisher or a commercial vendor.[5] DOC staff explained to plaintiff at the time that the newspapers were rejected by DOC personnel on the ground that "magazines and newspapers [are] allowed only by subscription or if mailed directly from the bookstore/bookseller/vendor." Pl. Ex. 47 (rejection form dated January 6, 2017).
The third type of rejected materials consists of large quantities of "blank" religious "prayer cards" and matching envelopes sent to plaintiff, free of charge, as a gesture of gratitude, by the churches, missions, and other religious organizations to which he has made monetary donations. Apparently it is not unusual for these organizations to respond to a donation by sending a note of thanks, accompanied by a set of blank greeting cards of the type sold in stationary stores and gift shops. The cards typically are embossed with religious icons, symbols, prayers, biblical quotations, and the like. Matching envelopes are included. The idea is that the donor can use the cards to communicate religious messages to friends and loved ones on holidays and other occasions. Plaintiff wanted to use the cards for that purpose because he liked their religious messages, in contrast to what he called the "pagan" or "non-religious" cards available from the prison commissary. Compare Pl. Ex. 4 (). A combination of considerations under Administrative Directives 10.7 and 10.8 formed the basis of DOC’s rejection of these cards and envelopes. See below at pp. 20-22.
The fourth type of rejected mail includes religious and non-religious greeting cards or home-made cards (relatively few in number) containing glitter, crayon, lipstick, or similar decorative materials. Some of these were holiday cards for Christmas or Easter sent by correspondents in Poland; one rejected item was a decorative drawing made by plaintiff’s god-daughter. These cards and other items were rejected by DOC staff, under the authority of A.D. 10.7, based on concerns that illegal drugs, including a substance known as "suboxone," have been found in similar decorative features of incoming correspondence sent to other prison inmates, both at Cheshire and elsewhere. DOC has no means by which to conduct drug testing on each piece of incoming mail with these decorative features. See below at pp. 17, 22.
Before commencing the present lawsuit, plaintiff filed numerous administrative grievances and appeals concerning the staff’s refusal to deliver the used books, blank prayer cards and envelopes.[6] Administrative Directive 9.6 sets forth procedures governing inmate requests for administrative relief from adverse decisions regarding various conditions of confinement, including everything from allegations of improper disciplinary action to the unjustified rejection of incoming mail. See A.D. 9.6(4)(A)-(M). The DOC administrative review process varies somewhat depending on the subject-matter at issue, but in general begins with an attempt at informal resolution, moves to a procedure involving a formal written grievance by the inmate, and then provides for one or more sequential levels of review ascending the administrative hierarchy.
The principal target of plaintiff’s complaints was defendant Simone Wislocki, a DOC employee who works as a "mail-handler" at Cheshire. Mail-handlers are responsible for reviewing and inspecting incoming mail to determine whether the incoming item will be delivered to the addressee inmate under applicable DOC policy, including A.D. 10.7(4)(G) ("Incoming Correspondence") and A.D. 10.7(4)(N) "Incoming Publications and Educational Materials"). The record reflects that Wislocki rejected plaintiff’s incoming mail containing blank prayer cards and envelopes on many occasions in 2015 and 2016. Plaintiff was made aware of the rejections when he received a DOC form entitled "Returned Letter or Funds Notification," which was completed by Wislocki in connection with some (but not all) of the rejected cards and envelopes. The three used books were rejected in 2016 and early 2017. The newspapers were rejected in early 2017.
Of plaintiff’s numerous administrative grievances and appeals relating to these rejections of incoming mail, some complaints focused on substantive issues involving the alleged violation of his religious freedom under federal and state law. See, e.g., Pl. Ex. 16, 17, 28, 36, 43, 45, 46 46A, 48, 48-A. Other complaints were procedural in nature, and claimed, for example, that Wislocki was rejecting prayer cards without providing plaintiff with notice of rejection required by A.D. 10.7(4)(G)(2)...
To continue reading
Request your trial