Green v. White, 78-1144C(2).

• Decision Date: 10 August 1981
• Docket Number: No. 78-1144C(2).,78-1144C(2).
• Citation: 525 F. Supp. 81
• Parties: Clovis Carl GREEN, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Carl WHITE, etc., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

525 F. Supp. 81

Clovis Carl GREEN, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Carl WHITE, etc., Defendant.

No. 78-1144C(2).

United States District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.

August 10, 1981.

P. Terence Crebs, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.

Steven W. Garrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

NANGLE, District Judge.

Clovis Carl Green, Jr., the spiritual and litigational leader of the Human Awareness Life Church¹ has had the privilege of receiving the "evidentiary hearing" which the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals directed to be held. Green v. White, 605 F.2d 376 (8th Cir. 1979) (Green I); Green v. White, 628 F.2d 1126 (8th Cir. 1980) (Green II). And once again this Court is constrained to dismiss this lawsuit, as frivolous, as malicious, and as totally lacking in evidentiary support. See Orders of October 28, 1978, April 24, 1980, and June 18, 1980.

Plaintiff initially brought this lawsuit as a class action on October 24, 1978, ostensibly for the purpose of requiring the Missouri Training Center for Men in Moberly, Missouri, to recognize his "religion". Plaintiff named Carl White, the Superintendent of M.T.C.M., as defendant in this lawsuit. The Eighth Circuit, subsequently approved this Court's dismissal of plaintiff's class action allegation; however, several of plaintiff's individual claims against defendant are still in dispute. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) in damages, a sum he testified is fair compensation for the horrible wrongs inflicted upon him during the five weeks he was confined in March and April 1976. Plaintiff claims that during his brief stay at Moberly in 1976 defendant denied him his constitutional right to freely practice his religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Plaintiff asserts that prison officials failed to provide him with conjugal visits, banquets on designated church holidays, payment for his services as chaplain of his church, the ability to have long hair and a beard, and finally the right to hold church services, bible study classes, or to distribute the church newspaper. In addition, plaintiff claimed that prison officials denied him access to Moberly as a full-time state-paid minister of his church upon his release from custody.

This Court sua sponte dismissed this action as frivolous, Order of October 28, 1978: the Court of Appeals subsequently reversed this dismissal. Green I. The Eighth Circuit found certain of plaintiff's claims to be non-frivolous, and ordered an evidentiary hearing thereon. Upon remand, this Court reviewed recent decisions in district and appellate courts across this country which recognized the malicious and abusive nature of plaintiff's litigation practices, and ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action too should not be dismissed as malicious. Order of April 24, 1980. As a result of plaintiff's failure to meet this burden this Court again dismissed plaintiff's complaint. Order of June 18, 1980. The Eighth Circuit again reversed, Green II, and ordered an "evidentiary hearing" on certain issues.

I.

Upon remand this case was set for trial. Shortly before the date for trial, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendant premises his motion on a qualified immunity that is warranted by his official position. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity in actions brought by prisoners. Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 98 S.Ct. 855, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978); Jihaad v. O'Brien, 645 F.2d 556 (6th Cir. April 9, 1981); Chapman v. Pickett, 586 F.2d 22 (7th Cir. 1978). A plaintiff may recover damages only if he or she can show that the official acted in bad faith or that the prison officials took action that they knew or should have known violated the prisoner's constitutional rights. Procunier, supra; Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). Injunctive relief is inappropriate in this case because plaintiff is no longer in defendant's custody, Wycoff v. Brewer, 572 F.2d 1260 (8th Cir. 1978). Therefore, if plaintiff's claim for damages is barred by defendant's qualified immunity, this cause must be dismissed.

According to the mandate of the Eighth Circuit, plaintiff has been brought to this district pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for purposes of the trial. An evidentiary hearing was held and plaintiff was given the opportunity to present any evidence he might have to counter defendant's assertion that he acted in good faith.

The evidence presented showed that there was serious dispute as to the events which occurred during plaintiff's five-week stay at M.T.C.M. in 1976. Defendant asserted that plaintiff was free to hold bible study classes or church services whenever he wished; plaintiff said that he was instructed otherwise. Defendant claimed that prison officials allowed plaintiff to distribute his church newspaper as long as it did not incite violence among the inmates. Plaintiff argues that prison officials prohibited the distribution of his church literature. Defendant said plaintiff never personally discussed with him his demands or grievances; plaintiff claims he did have discussions with the Warden.

Despite the existence of contradictory evidence concerning the events at Moberly prison during plaintiff's confinement, plaintiff failed to prove that defendant did not act in good faith. As defendant benefits from a qualified immunity, it is essential that plaintiff make a showing that defendant acted with malice or with an unexcused ignorance of plaintiff's rights. When plaintiff came to M.T.C.M. in early 1976, his reputation preceded him, and defendant as superintendent of M.T.C.M. was well aware of that reputation. In addition, plaintiff did not add to his own credibility when he demanded that prison officials provide him with conjugal visits, banquets, and payment as a chaplain, among several other requests. Defendant responded in good faith and proceeded in the same manner that any other responsible prison official would have proceeded; he denied several of these requests. Plaintiff has not presented credible evidence that would convince this Court that defendant should have responded otherwise. It is clear that defendant believed at the time, and still believes, that the HALC is a sham and bogus religion concocted by plaintiff for the sole purpose of extracting from prison officials privileges not available to the general prison population. It is this Court's view, until such time as plaintiff obtains judicial approval of his "religion," it would have been irresponsible for defendant to have granted the requests of plaintiff at the time of his imprisonment at Moberly.

It has already been shown that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant acted in bad faith. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this Court that defendant did not maliciously intend to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights. However, the issue remains as to whether defendant Carl White deprived plaintiff of his First Amendment rights in denying plaintiff's requests, and if so, whether he should have known that his actions might have this effect. At the time of the events in question in this case, the right of prisoners to exercise their First Amendment rights was well recognized. However, it does not necessarily follow that plaintiff's beliefs constituted a religion under the First Amendment, or that defendant denied the plaintiff the ability to exercise his religion in violation of the Constitution by denying him conjugal visits, banquets, or the ability to distribute his newspaper. In light of plaintiff's reputation and his actions a responsible person would very well conclude his religion was no more than a sham. Defendant's actions must be evaluated in light of the specific requests involved, not in light of a general, omnipresent First Amendment right to the exercise of one's religion. Procunier, supra; Jihaad, supra, 645 F.2d at 562; Chapman, supra, 586 F.2d at 25.

There has never been and, hopefully, never will be any "clearly established" constitutional right, Procunier, supra, 434 U.S. at 564, 98 S.Ct. at 861, for a prisoner to devise a religion in order to obtain concessions from the prison officials. It is clear from the evidence that defendant believed plaintiff's religion to be a sham and that it would...