Heid v. Mohr

• Decision Date: 07 February 2023
• Docket Number: 2:18-cv-311
• Parties: RAY SCOTT HEID, et al., Plaintiff, v. GARY MOHR, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

1

RAY SCOTT HEID, et al., Plaintiff, v. GARY MOHR, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-311

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

February 7, 2023

Algenon L. Marbley Chief Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Undersigned for a Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 227 (“Defendants' Motion”) and Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 229 (“Plaintiffs' Motion”). For the following reasons, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court GRANT Defendants' Motion DENY Plaintiffs' Motion, and award summary judgment in Defendants' favor on all of Plaintiffs' claims.

I.

Plaintiffs are inmates under the supervision of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (“ODRC”), and they allege that “[t]he resistance of ODRC officials to make an exception for Aryan-American symbolism has placed a substantial burden upon [their] practice of religion.” (ECF No. 37 at PAGEID # 1158.) Specifically, Plaintiffs aver that they are devout Christian Separatists,^[1] a religion they state is tied to their ethnic identity as Aryan-Americans, and that Defendants have unconstitutionally infringed upon their right to practice CS by limiting their ability to use swastikas and espouse separatist views. (See generally ECF No. 37.)^[2]

Plaintiffs initiated this action on April 9, 2018, alleging that Defendants^[3] violated their rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in 2015 by removing their “religious literature” - specifically three books, entitled Positive Christianity in the Third Reich, Was Adolf Hitler a Bible Christian?, and Christian Principles of National Socialism, as well as certain CS-related CDs and an additional piece of literature entitled Christian Principles of National Socialism - from the Ross Correctional Institute (“RCI”) library.^[4] (See generally ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants removed these materials because they contain images of swastikas and espouse separatist messages,^[5] all of which Plaintiffs acknowledge are prohibited by the ODRC. (Id.) Plaintiffs also allege that on October 20, 2015, Defendants set a Rules Infraction Board (“RIB”) hearing (related to the confiscation of a birthday card in Plaintiff Heid's possession which included the image of a swastika) without affording Plaintiff Heid twenty-four hours to prepare, depriving him of due process. (Id.)

Plaintiffs moved for a Preliminary Injunction, so in January 2019 the Court held a two-day Preliminary Injunction hearing. (See ECF Nos. 58-59.) On March 4, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 57.) On June 17, 2019, the Undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted in part, with respect to Defendants Mohr and Wilson under a theory of respondeat superior, and denied in part, with respect to the statute of limitations, Eleventh Amendment, qualified immunity, failure to state a claim under § 1983, and with respect to Defendant Clark under a theory of respondeat superior. (ECF No. 75.) On March 31, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court's March 4, 2019 Order. (ECF No. 127.) On April 22, 2020, the Court adopted the Undersigned's June 17, 2019 Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed Defendants Mohr and Wilson. (ECF No. 128.)

On July 15, 2022, the parties filed their respective Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 227, 229.) On August 8, 2022, Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion. (ECF No. 231.) On August 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their objections to Defendants' Motion. (ECF No. 234.) On August 26, 2022, Defendants filed a reply brief in further support of Defendants' Motion. (ECF No. 235.) Plaintiffs did not timely file a reply brief, so on September 15, 2022 the Court directed Plaintiffs to file a status report detailing the status of their reply brief. (ECF No. 236.) On September 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Status Report in the Aderholt case, advising the Court that “they rest on the summary judgment arguments asserted in their Motion for Summary Judgment [] and Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion [].” (See Aderholt, Case No. 2:20-cv-901, ECF No. 87.) The subject Motions are therefore ripe for judicial review.

II.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists falls on the moving party, “and the court must draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Stransberry v. Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp., 651 F.3d 482, 486 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Vaughn v. Lawrenceburg Power Sys., 269 F.3d 703, 710 (6th Cir. 2001)); cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2) (providing that if a party “fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact” then the Court may “consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion”).

“Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmovant must ‘designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'” Kimble v. Wasylyshyn, 439 Fed.Appx. 492, 495 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317-324 (1986)); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) (requiring a party maintaining that a fact is genuinely disputed to “cit[e] to particular parts of materials in the record”). “The nonmovant must, however ‘do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,' . . . there must be evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party to create a ‘genuine' dispute.” Lee v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 432 Fed.Appx. 435, 441 (6th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).

In considering the factual allegations and evidence presented in a motion for summary judgment, the Court “must afford all reasonable inferences, and construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Cox v. Kentucky Dep't of Transp., 53 F.3d 146, 150 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). “When a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported and the nonmoving party fails to respond with a showing sufficient to establish an essential element of its case, summary judgment is appropriate.” Stransberry, 651 F.3d at 486 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23).

III.

In the operative Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims arising under the RLUIPA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See generally ECF No. 37.) All of these claims are at issue in the underlying cross-briefing. The Undersigned will analyze each in turn below, but first must discuss whether some of Plaintiffs' claims are moot.

A. Plaintiffs' Claims Regarding CS-Related CDs and Christian Principles of National Socialism.

As a preliminary matter, two of Plaintiffs' specific claims were that Defendants removed certain CS-related CDs and a piece of literature entitled Christian Principles of National Socialism from the RCI library. (See ECF No. 37.) Plaintiffs therefore sought the return of such materials to the RCI library. (Id.) In its March 31, 2020 Order, however, the Sixth Circuit held that Plaintiffs' claims regarding these materials were moot:

But even if we assume the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the denial of access to the CDs and Christian Principles of National Socialism substantially burdened their religious exercise, the plaintiffs' grievance was that these materials were not available in the RCI library. They do not allege that ODRC banned these materials in all its facilities or that these materials were in their personal possession and were permanently confiscated from them. Indeed, Damron testified at the preliminary-injunction hearing that Christian Principles of National Socialism has not been excluded from possession within the ODRC and that he can still access it. Although Heid testified at the preliminary injunction hearing that he still could not access the CDs at his new facility, which at the time was Southeastern Correctional Complex, he has since moved to another facility-Lebanon Correctional Institution. Damron has also been transferred to another facility-Trumbull Correctional Institution.

There is no allegation in the complaint nor evidence in the record that either Heid or Damron is being denied access to the CDs or to Christian Principles of National Socialism at his new facility. Thus, because the plaintiffs' claims about these materials were specific to their former places of confinement, their request for injunctive relief related to these materials is moot. See Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996).

(ECF No. 127 at PAGEID ## 2168-2169 (emphasis added).) Plaintiffs did not challenge the Sixth Circuit's finding on this point.

This Court is bound by the Sixth Circuit's holding that Plaintiffs' claims regarding the CS-related CDs and Christian Principles of National Socialism are moot. Moody v. Michigan Gaming ControlBd., 871 F.3d 420 425 (6th Cir. 2017) (“The law-of-the-case doctrine precludes reconsideration of issues decided at an earlier stage of the case.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Caldwell v. City of Louisville, 200 Fed.Appx. 430, 433 (6th Cir. 2006)); see also Daunt v. Benson, 999 F.3d 299, 308 (6th Cir. 2021) (noting that the law of the case doctrine “is primarily intended to enforce a district court's adherence to an...