Hudson v. Dennehy, Civil Action No. 01-CV-12145-RGS.

• Decision Date: 05 March 2008
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 01-CV-12145-RGS.
• Citation: Hudson v. Dennehy, 538 F.Supp.2d 400 (D. Mass. 2008)
• Parties: Mac HUDSON and Derrick Tyler v. Kathleen DENNEHY, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

Page 400

538 F.Supp.2d 400

Mac HUDSON and Derrick Tyler v. Kathleen DENNEHY, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction.

Civil Action No. 01-CV-12145-RGS.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

March 5, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Charles W. Anderson, Jr., Richard C. McFarland, Nancy Ankers White, Department of Correction, Boston, MA, for Defendants.

Benjamin A. Goldberger, Michael Kendall, James J. Marcellino, Neal E. Minahan, Jr., McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs.

FINDINGS OF FACT, RULINGS OF LAW, AND ORDER AFTER A NON-JURY TRIAL

STEARNS, District Judge.

On May 4, 2001, state prison inmates Mac Hudson and Derick Tyler, who adhere to the religious teachings of Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam, brought this civil rights suit against Kathleen Dennehy, the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC), and other DOC defendants, seeking money damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Hudson and Tyler are incarcerated at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution — Cedar Junction (MCI-CJ), a maximum security prison in Walpole, Massachusetts. The Complaint as originally filed alleged an abridgment of plaintiffs' rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as violations of 103 CMR 471.00 et seq. Plaintiffs claimed that the DOC had violated their religious rights by refusing to provide Muslim inmates with halal meals,¹ by requiring Muslim inmates to use a prayer "towel" rather than a traditional prayer rug while performing salat,² and by refusing to allow Muslim inmates confined in the Special Management Unit (SMU)³ to participate in Jum'ah⁴ services. Plaintiffs also argued that the DOC's policy of accommodating the dietary requirements of Jewish, Seventh Day Adventist, Buddhist, and other observant prisoners, while denying a similar accommodation to Muslim inmates, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.⁵

BACKGROUND

This action began with a pro se complaint filed in 2001 by inmates Hudson, Tyler, Antwan Crawford, Darrick Wilson, and Anthony Tucker.⁶ Named as defendants were Michael Maloney, the Commission of the DOC; Peter Allen, Superintendent of MCI-CJ; Peter Pepe, former Superintendent of MCI-CJ; Andrea Emodi, former Director of Program Services; and Sherry Elliot, Director of Treatment at MCI-CJ. On March 29, 2004, the court entered an order denying plaintiffs' request for interim injunctive relief. On May 12, 2004, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.⁷ On July 23, 2004, the court issued a Memorandum and Order finding defendants exempted by qualified and official immunity from any claims for monetary damages. Hudson, 326 F.Supp.2d at 214. The court further determined that under the test of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987),⁸ plaintiffs were not entitled to relief as a matter of law with regard to the DOC's ban on prayer rugs or its policy of assigning prisoners to kitchen service jobs on a nondiscriminatory basis. However, the court found that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the DOC's refusal to provide Halal meals to Muslim inmates constituted an undue burden on plaintiffs' exercise of their religious beliefs. The court did not address plaintiffs' claims regarding Jum'ah services. The court then appointed counsel to represent plaintiffs.⁹ Newly appointed counsel thereafter, on May 26, 2005, filed an Amended Complaint.¹⁰

The Amended Complaint, in addition to First and Fourteenth Amendment free exercise and equal protection claims, pled new causes of action under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a) (RLUIPA), the State Civil Rights Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11, and the Inmate Right of Worship Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, § 88, and related regulations. Discovery then proceeded.

On April 14, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion urging the court to revisit the prayer rug issue based on "newly discovered" evidence. After a hearing, on August 31, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, thereby framing the three issues to be decided at trial: whether the DOC's refusal to provide regular Halal meals, its ban on traditional prayer rugs, and its refusal to permit inmates in the SMU to participate in Jum'ah services, substantially and unjustifiably burdened plaintiffs' exercise of their religious rights. In January of 2007, a six-day non-jury trial was held. Final arguments were heard in February of 2007. The parties were then given leave to file further pleadings.

Defendant's Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings

At the close of plaintiffs' case, Commissioner Dennehy filed a "motion for judgment on partial findings," arguing that all but one (the Halal meal issue) of plaintiffs' three claims were barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (PLRA). The Commissioner contended that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as required by the PLRA. More specifically, she claimed that plaintiffs had failed to make a direct presentment of their religious grievances to the DOC's Religious Services Review Committee (RSRC) (they filed their grievances instead with the Superintendent of MCI-CJ), and had failed to use the proper Religious Service Request Form (RSRF) (they used the standard prisoner grievance form instead). The Commissioner argued that these procedures are mandated by the DOC's Religious Services Handbook (Handbook). The Handbook contemplates a process by which a request regarding the accommodation of a religious practice is first considered by the RSRC, which then forwards a recommendation to the Commissioner for a final determination. The court provisionally denied the motion, but deferred a final ruling until after the close of evidence and an opportunity for plaintiffs to reply to the newly asserted jurisdictional claim.

The Commissioner's exhaustion argument is unpersuasive. She does not dispute that Hudson and Tyler submitted repeated grievances regarding Halal meals, prayer rugs, and access to Jum'ah services. She also concedes that the DOC never distributed the Handbook to inmates, and moreover, that the Handbook was created to give guidance to prison administrators and not to inmates seeking to file grievances. Finally, the record shows that Dennehy's predecessor, Commissioner Michael Maloney, denied Hudson's and Tyler's three requests for accommodation, even though two of the requests were never formally reviewed by the RSRC. If the Commissioner failed to follow the procedures outlined in the Handbook, it is difficult to fault plaintiffs for failing to do better. See Shaheed-Muhammad v. DiPaolo, 393 F.Supp.2d 80, 96-97 (D.Mass.2005). Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on partial findings will be DENIED.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following findings of fact are drawn from the evidence and testimony adduced at trial as well as from the stipulations entered prior to trial by the parties.

1. Plaintiff Mac S. Hudson is serving a lengthy custodial sentence at MCI-CJ. At various times, Hudson has been confined in the SMU.

2. Plaintiff Derick Tyler is serving a lengthy custodial sentence at MCI-CJ. At various times, Tyler has been confined in the SMU.

3. Defendant Kathleen Dennehy was at the time of the filing of the Amended Complaint the Commissioner of the DOC.¹¹

4. MCI-CJ is a maximum security prison owned and managed by the DOC, a department of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The prison is located in South Walpole, Massachusetts.

5. The DOC receives federal financial assistance.

6. Plaintiffs Hudson and Tyler belong to the Nation of Islam¹² and regard themselves as members of the worldwide Muslim community (umma). They subscribe to the teachings of the Qur'an as revealed by the Prophet Muhammad and by Elijah Muhammad. These teachings include dietary laws specifying the foods that a Muslim is permitted to eat (Halal) and those that are forbidden (haram).¹³ Plaintiffs also believe that traditional prayer rugs should be used in performing salat and that they are obligated to participate in the weekly Jum'ah services. The court has previously found that plaintiffs' beliefs, while deviating from those of orthodox Islam, are sincerely held. The Commissioner does not challenge this finding.

7. The DOC permits Muslim inmates to fast during the month of Ramadan,¹⁴ to celebrate the two annual feasts of Eid,¹⁵ to pray five times daily (salat) using a "prayer towel,"¹⁶ to wear a kufi (skull cap), and to possess prayer beads, prayer oil, and a Qur'an. The DOC provides Halal meat for the Eid feasts.

8. The DOC houses over 10,000 inmates who are served three meals daily. The DOC offers four basic menus: the regular menu, which does not include pork or pork by-products; an alternative vegetarian menu;¹⁷ a Kosher menu; and a medical menu (which requires a doctor's prescription). All of the menus, including the alternative vegetarian menu, are served in twenty-one day cycles. Pork products are not permitted in any of the DOC's institutional kitchens.

9. The meals comprising the four menus are prepared under the supervision of a registered dietician. They meet the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) standards of the Food and Nutrition Board, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Resource Council, and the American Correctional Association. The alternative vegetarian menu contains meatless items made of wheat, soy, and other vegetable products that provide RDA nutritional values comparable to those of the meat-inclusive menus.¹⁸

10. The DOC offers daily Kosher meals, including meat, to Jewish inmates who request a Kosher diet. The DOC provides the alternative vegetarian diet to Muslim inmates who request it. The DOC does not offer Muslim inmates a strictly Halal diet. The DOC provides Muslim...