Hadi v. Horn

• Decision Date: 02 October 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-1098,86-1098
• Citation: 830 F.2d 779
• Parties: Khabir Ramzi HADI, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert W. HORN, John Wright, and Errol Grant, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 779

830 F.2d 779

Khabir Ramzi HADI, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert W. HORN, John Wright, and Errol Grant, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 86-1098.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued May 28, 1987.

Decided Oct. 2, 1987.

David S. Fleming, Karon, Morrison & Savikas, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants.

William Frazier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees.

Before CUMMINGS, CUDAHY and COFFEY, Circuit Judges.

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.

The appellants in this case are inmates in a state prison who adhere to the Islamic faith. They sued three state prison administrators for allegedly interfering with their First Amendment right to exercise their religious beliefs. After a bench trial, the district court found for the defendants. The prisoners appeal that decision. We affirm.

I.

This class action was brought on behalf of all present and future inmates at the Pontiac Correctional Center ("Pontiac") who adhere to the Muslim or Al-Islam faith. Pontiac is a maximum security prison operated by the Illinois Department of Corrections (the "IDC"). The defendants were two administrators at Pontiac and one official of the IDC. ¹ The plaintiffs brought suit under section 1983, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, ² claiming that the defendants interfered with their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religious beliefs by, inter alia: (1) cancelling their prayer service, Jumah, because of scheduling conflicts; ³ (2) cancelling services when a Muslim chaplain was unable to be present rather than allowing an inmate to conduct services under the supervision of a non-Muslim chaplain; and (3) impeding the ability of inmates who wished to attend Jumah to secure release from work. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that these practices violated their First Amendment rights, damages and a permanent injunction.

The district court held for the defendants after a bench trial. Hadi v. Horn, No. 80-2207, Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (C.D.Ill. Nov. 27, 1985) ("Order"). ⁴ The court treated this case as a suit against the defendants solely in their official capacities. To establish a claim in an official capacity suit, a plaintiff must show that the actions on which liability is predicated took place pursuant to a government policy or custom. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3106, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985). With respect to the cancellation of services due to scheduling conflicts with other prison activities, the court stated that no important state objective was promoted by giving priority to these other activities--such as movies or concerts--rather than to the prayer service. The court, however, found that there were at most a half-dozen such cancellations over a five-year period and thus cancellations were too infrequent to amount to a state policy. Order at 4-5, 7-8. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not introduce sufficient evidence to show a state policy prohibiting Muslim inmates from leaving their work assignments to attend services. Id. at 5. Finally, the court found that the cancellation of services when a chaplain was unavailable to conduct them occurred only occasionally and represented a reasonable security measure. Id. at 5-6, 7.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in framing its analysis in terms of the defendants being sued in their official capacities. The plaintiffs instead claim that the defendants were sued in their individual capacities and that the district court therefore was mistaken insofar as it based its decision on the absence of a state policy. The plaintiffs also have dropped their claim based on the alleged difficulties that Muslim prisoners have had in securing release from work to attend Jumah and instead focus on the cancellation of services. ⁵

II.

The first issue we must address is the capacity in which the defendants have been sued. The plaintiffs have not clearly articulated either in their complaint or on appeal in exactly what capacity they sued the defendants. In their opening brief, they suggest that they sued the defendants in both their official and individual capacities. Appellants' Brief at 13, 22. On the other hand, in their reply brief, the plaintiffs state clearly that this suit is an individual capacity action only. Appellants' Reply Brief at 3, 5-6, 7 ("[T]his is an individual-capacity action. It is not an action against a state or municipality, or against state or municipal employees in their official capacities."). We take plaintiffs at their last word and accordingly, conclude that plaintiffs are seeking to hold the defendants liable only in their individual capacities.

This does not end our inquiry, however, because the defendants argue that the complaint states a claim against them only in their official capacities. As noted, the district court treated this action as simply an official capacity suit. Before addressing the defendants' argument, we shall note briefly significant characteristics of these two types of suits.

An individual capacity suit (like an official capacity suit) is an action against a government official for acts committed by that official under color of state law. But an individual capacity action seeks to impose personal liability on the official; any recovery of damages by the plaintiff can be obtained only against the official's personal assets. An official sued in his or her individual capacity can raise relevant personal immunity defenses, such as objectively reasonable reliance on existing law. Graham, 473 U.S. at 165-67, 105 S.Ct. at 3105-06; Brunken v. Lance, 807 F.2d 1325, 1329 (7th Cir.1986).

An official capacity suit is essentially one against the government entity of which the defendant is an official, and any damage award must be satisfied by the entity itself. In such a suit, a plaintiff must establish that the government entity's policy or custom played a part in the violation of federal law. Graham, 473 U.S. at 166, 105 S.Ct. at 3106. Although personal immunity defenses are unavailable in an official capacity action, Graham, 473 U.S. at 167, 105 S.Ct. at 3106; Duckworth v. Franzen, 780 F.2d 645, 649 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 71, 93 L.Ed.2d 28 (1986), the Eleventh Amendment restricts the nature of the relief a plaintiff can recover in an official capacity suit. This constitutional provision protects the state from paying its own funds as damages for past conduct, unless the state has waived this defense or Congress has validly overridden it. The Eleventh Amendment, however, does not bar the award of injunctive or declaratory relief requiring a state official to conform his or her behavior to the requirements of federal law in the future, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), nor does it bar the award of monetary relief that is merely ancillary to injunctive relief, Graham, 473 U.S. at 169 n. 18, 105 S.Ct. at 3107 n. 18.

In support of their claim that they were sued solely in their official capacities, the defendants point to paragraph four of the amended complaint which reads as follows:

4. Each and all of the acts of Defendants alleged herein were done by Defendants not as individuals, but under the color and pretense of the statutes, regulations, customs and usages of the State of Illinois, and under the authority of their offices in the Pontiac Correctional Center.

Amended Complaint, Count 1, p 4. We agree with the plaintiffs, however, that this allegation does not resolve the question. This paragraph simply alleges a prerequisite of any 1983 suit, whether official or individual, that the conduct complained of be committed by the defendant acting under color of state law.

The totality of circumstances here suggests that the plaintiffs did seek to sue the defendants in their individual capacities. These circumstances include the fact that, although the defendants left office during the course of this suit, their successors in office were not substituted as defendants. See Graham, 473 U.S. at 166 n. 11, 105 S.Ct. at 3105 n. 11 ("In an official-capacity action in federal court, death or replacement of the named official will result in automatic substitution of the official's successor in office. See Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 25(d)(1); Fed.Rule App.Proc. 43(c)(1); this Court's Rule 40.3."); Duckworth v. Franzen, 780 F.2d at 650. If this were an official capacity suit, one would have expected the parties to point out to the district court the need to alter the named defendants. In addition, the plaintiffs here sought monetary damages which, as noted, are not generally available in an official capacity suit. Finally, the defendants apparently never raised a defense based on the Eleventh Amendment; they, however, did raise a qualified immunity defense in the district court, which is available only in individual capacity suits. Amended Answer & Jury Demand, at 6. This last point provides some evidence that the defendants themselves believed that they were sued in their individual capacities. And on appeal the plaintiffs have clearly abandoned their official capacity claims and with them their claim to forward-looking relief. We shall now therefore consider whether the plaintiffs have established a claim against the defendants in their individual capacities.

III.

In cases like this one, prisoners' rights to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to exercise their First Amendment rights must be balanced against the legitimate goals of the penal institution. See Caldwell v. Miller, 790 F.2d 589, 596 (7th Cir.1986); Madyun v. Franzen, 704 F.2d 954, 958 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 996, 104 S.Ct. 493, 78 L.Ed.2d 687 (1983). In two recent cases, the Supreme Court has clarified the standard to be used in reviewing prisoners' constitutional claims that require such a balancing. Turner v. Safley, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2261, 96 L.Ed.2d...