Hamilton v. Schriro

• Decision Date: 11 May 1994
• Docket Number: No. 91-4373-CV-C-5.,91-4373-CV-C-5.
• Citation: 863 F. Supp. 1019
• Parties: Mark Juan HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Dora SCHRIRO, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

863 F. Supp. 1019

Mark Juan HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Dora SCHRIRO, et al., Defendants.

No. 91-4373-CV-C-5.

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division.

May 11, 1994.

David G. Ott, Brinker, Doyen & Kovacs, P.C., Clayton, MO, for plaintiff.

Greg A. Perry, Mo. Atty. Gen.'s Office, Jefferson City, MO, for defendants.

ORDER

SCOTT O. WRIGHT, Senior District Judge.

Magistrate Judge William A. Knox entered his Report and Recommendation in the above-styled cause on April 13, 1994. Defendants filed exceptions to the Report and Recommendation on May 2, 1994. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation with the modification set forth below.

Magistrate Judge Knox recommended, and this Court will order by adoption, that accommodations be made by defendants to allow plaintiff to practice his Native American Religion, including the right to have a weekly sweat lodge ceremony. The Court believes the parties are in the best position to fashion the specific means by which this remedy shall be effectuated. Accordingly, the parties will be ordered to meet and arrive at a compromise acceptable to each of the parties. The parties will then submit a summation of the compromise to the Court for approval.

The Court expects the parties to engage in good faith negotiations and arrive at an agreement. However, if the parties are not able to reach an agreement, each party shall inform the Court of its final position and the Court will conduct a telephone conference to resolve the points of dispute.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Knox, entered April 13, 1994, is accepted by this Court with the following modification. On or before June 6, 1994, the parties shall meet and discuss the specific means by which the ordered accommodation shall be effectuated. In the event an agreement is reached, the parties shall submit a joint summation of the compromise to the Court on or before June 13, 1994. In the event an agreement cannot be reached, the parties shall submit their final positions to the Court on or before June 13, 1994.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KNOX, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, an inmate confined in a Missouri penal institution, commenced this action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and its corresponding jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Following the filing of this cause, it was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for processing in accord with the Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and W.D.Mo.R. 22.

A hearing was held March 29 and 30, 1994, on plaintiff's equitable claims¹ relating to the practice of his religion as a Native American Indian. During the pendency of this case, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb (Nov. 16, 1993)². The RFRA provides that the "government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability" except the government may burden the exercise of religion if "(1) it is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b). Two purposes of the RFRA are "to restore the compelling interest test" and "to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened." 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b)(1).

Senate Report No. 103-111, clearly shows Congress intended the law to apply to prisoners. The legislative history acknowledges the difficult and complex challenges encountered in operating prisons and jails in a safe and secure manner, as well as the due deference accorded prison administrators in establishing regulations and procedures necessary to "maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and limited resources." Senate Report No. 103-111 (July 27, 1993) at pp. 10, 11, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1993, pp. 1892, 1900.

At the same time, however, inadequately formulated prison regulations and policies grounded on mere speculation, exaggerated fears, or post-hoc rationalizations will not suffice to meet the act's requirements.

....

The committee is confident that the compelling interest standard established set forth in the Act will not place undue burdens on prison authorities. Instead, it reestablishes a standard that is flexible enough to serve the unique governmental interests implicated in the prison context. Accordingly, the committee finds that application of the act to prisoner-free exercise claims will provide a workable balancing of the legitimate interests of prison administrators with the Nation's tradition of protecting the free exercise of religion.

Id.

In this case, plaintiff Mark Juan Hamilton, an Indian, seeks leave to practice his Native American religion. Plaintiff wants to let his hair to grow, and to use a sweat lodge, sage, cedar, sweet grass, kinnikinnik, pine, mint, medicine bags, eagle feathers, hawk feathers, owl feathers, prayer stick, beads, necklace, dancing belts and sacred pipes for religious purposes. Plaintiff asserts the sweat lodge ceremony is an integral part of his religion and that worship must occur outdoors on the ground.

The Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) enforces institutional and divisional regulations which require inmates to cut their hair. Plaintiff and other Native American Indians have cut their hair pursuant to the regulations. Prior to enactment of the RFRA, these grooming regulations were upheld as constitutional, even when challenged on religious grounds. See Sours v. Long, 978 F.2d 1086 (8th Cir.1992); Campbell v. Purkett, 957 F.2d 535 (8th Cir.1992); Dunavant v. Moore, 907 F.2d 77, 79 (8th Cir.1990); and Iron Eyes v. Henry, 907 F.2d 810 (8th Cir. 1990). The MDOC also has denied plaintiff the use of a sweat lodge and some of the other items requested in this lawsuit.

The federal courts have broad power to grant or deny equitable relief in a civil rights action. Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304 (8th Cir.1971); Knowles v. Board of Public Instruction, 405 F.2d 1206, 1207 (5th Cir. 1969); Johnson v. Lark, 365 F.Supp. 289, 304 (E.D.Mo.1973). A "large degree of discretion is vested in the trial court" in determining whether an injunction should issue. American Home Investment Co. v. Bedel, 525 F.2d 1022, 1023 (8th Cir.1975), cited with approval in Rittmiller v. Blex Oil, Inc., 624 F.2d 857 (8th Cir.1980). Injunctive relief, however, is considered an "extraordinary remedy." See 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2942 at 368 (1973). As such, federal courts should not employ their equitable power to interfere with the internal administration of state correctional facilities absent a clear showing of a violation of federally protected rights. Rogers v. Scurr, 676 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982); Anderson v. Hascall, 566 F.Supp. 1492, 1495 (D.Minn.1983). Traditionally, "the main prerequisite to obtaining injunctive relief is a finding that plaintiff is being threatened by some injury for which he has no adequate legal remedy." 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2941 at 368-69. The burden of proving these prerequisites is on the party seeking the relief. United States v. Dorgan, 522 F.2d 969, 973 (8th Cir.1975). Thus, to obtain permanent injunctive relief, a party must show first, his rights have been violated; second, there is a threat of future violation; and third, such threat is more than a "mere possibility." Rogers v. Scurr, 676 F.2d at 1214. And the federal courts must use restraint "in dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison administration." Id. See also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1878, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979).

In this case, plaintiff has come forward with substantial evidence that he has been denied the right to practice certain important tenets of his religion by corrections personnel. In the absence of court intervention, it appears probable from the evidence that plaintiff will continue to be denied the right to practice these tenets. Thus, plaintiff has met his initial burden of proving the prerequisites to injunctive relief.

Under case law in effect prior to enactment of the RFRA, an inmate's exercise of freedom of religion could be restricted if the restrictions were reasonably related to prison security. Little v. Norris, 787 F.2d 1241, 1244 (8th Cir.1986). See also O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987); Brown v. Delo, No. 92-2051, slip op. (8th Cir. Mar. 17, 1993) (unpublished); Butler-Bey v. Frey, 811 F.2d 449, 451 (8th Cir.1987); Otey v. Best, 680 F.2d 1231, 1234 (8th Cir.1982). Prison officials had to produce evidence that the restriction placed on an inmate's freedom was in response to a security concern. At that point, the burden shifted to the inmate to show by substantial evidence that the prison officials' response was exaggerated. Otey v. Best, 680 F.2d at 1233 (citing Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 827, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2806-07, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974)). See also Salaam v. Lockhart, 856 F.2d 1120 (8th Cir.1988). Without ruling on the issue, the court notes plaintiff has submitted evidence to support his assertion that the response in this case was exaggerated.

After enactment of the RFRA, plaintiff must show that the prison regulations and practices place a significant burden on the exercise of his religion. The burden then shifts to corrections personnel to show the regulations and practices further a compelling governmental interest and that the regulations and practices are the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb.

Based on the evidence presented at the hearing and in the written submissions by the parties, ...