Hunter v. Corr. Corp.

• Decision Date: 09 August 2016
• Docket Number: CV 314-035
• Parties: CURTIS HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; JASON MEDLIN, Warden; RON DAY, Chaplain; JAY PHILLIPS, Faithbased Facilitator; and DAMON HININGER, President, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

CURTIS HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; JASON MEDLIN,Warden; RON DAY, Chaplain; JAY PHILLIPS, Faithbased Facilitator;and DAMON HININGER, President, Defendants.

CV 314-035

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION

August 9, 2016

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pro se Plaintiff, a former inmate at Wheeler Correctional Facility, commenced the above-captioned case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Defendants' and Plaintiff's cross-motions for summary judgment. (Doc. nos. 90, 97.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART (doc. no. 90) and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be DENIED (doc. no. 97).

I. FACTS

Plaintiff's complaint alleges he is a Muslim forced to participate in Christianity while living in Wheeler Correctional Facility's faith-based dormitory. (See generally doc. no. 11.) Plaintiff contends Christianity was the only religion taught in the dormitory and he was forced to live in the dorm and participate in the faith-based program when he first arrived at the prison because of limited bunk space. (Id.)

The Georgia Department of Corrections assigned Plaintiff to Wheeler Correctional Facility on April 3, 2012, and reassigned Plaintiff to Dooly State Prison on August 26, 2014. (Affidavit of Staci Benson ¶ 4, Doc. no. 90, p. 32; doc. no. 11, p. 7.). During his assignment at Wheeler Correctional Facility, Plaintiff participated in the Life Principles Program, now the subject of his complaint. (Doc. no. 11, pp. 7-11; Declaration of Jay Phillips, ¶ 7; doc. no. 90, p. 35.) Defendant Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA") operates the prison pursuant to a contract with the Georgia Department of Corrections. (Doc. no. 97-4, p. 12.) CCA operates the Life Principles Program, but no federal funds or state funds are received by the facility specifically for conducting the program, and it is free to the prisoners at Wheeler Correctional Facility. (Declaration of Medlin; ¶ 4, doc. no. 90. P. 23.).

The Life Principles Program uses Biblical texts to teach life principles and skills. (Phillips Decl. ¶ 4). The Life Principles Program has the following stated objectives:

A. To facilitate one's self-image as a worthwhile human being;

B. To gain respect for authority within family, religious organizations, businesses, or civil jurisdictions;

C. To encourage participants to resolve guilt;

D. To instill an appreciation for sorrow as a catalyst for growth and maturity;

E. To teach the value of relationships are more important than possessions;

F. To instill a desire to do right and offer positive reinforcement of that;

G. To impart the importance of having a purpose in life;H. To teach basic principles of financial responsibility;

I. To suggest positive solutions for family issues;

J. To introduce skills for relationship building and positive parenting;

K. To teach character qualities fundamental to success;

L. To explain cause-and-effect sequence in human thought and action and to discuss the concept of moral law.

(Day Decl. ¶ 5.) The program has religious content and expresses the values of Christianity used as a teaching model in the program materials. (Day Decl. ¶ 7; Phillips Decl. ¶ 7.) However, participants are not required to adopt any particular religion, religious philosophy, or doctrine in order to be in the program. (Day Decl. ¶ 7; Phillips Decl. ¶ 6.) Daily group sessions teaching the program materials are mandatory during a prisoner's stay in the program. (Id. )

Plaintiff asserts the program involved three sessions per day. (Declaration of Curtis Hunter ¶ 5, doc. no. 96.) In the first session, inmates memorized Romans 6:1-2¹ and read that day's verse from Proverbs or Psalms. (Hunter Decl. ¶ 5.) In the second session, guests preached from the Bible. (Id.) In the third session, a character coach preached from the Bible, the prisoners watched a DVD on Christianity, or the group learned a lesson from one of the program books. (Id.) On Fridays at 7:30 a.m., the group praised and worshipped Jesus for one hour. (Id.)

Ron Day, Chaplain at Wheeler Correctional Facility, explained that the Life Principles Program came prepackaged from a vendor. (Day Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8.) The program has no effect on an inmate's parole, time credits, custody status or classification. (Id., ¶ 6.) The program goal is one of strictly self-improvement, and prisoners must qualify for the program by their good conduct. (Id.) Chaplain Day testified that program participants must view program videos, read program material, and attend group sessions, but participants are allowed to discuss issues of concern to them, including their religious philosophies, and Muslims are allowed their customary prayer times. (Id., ¶ 9.) In the concluding paragraph of his declaration, Chaplain Day asserts (1) prisoners were encouraged to participate in separate religious activities of their choice because the Life Principles Program did not teach religion; (2) inmates were given adequate free time to do so; (3) the program did not offer worship or religious opportunities because inmates were allowed this opportunity on their own time and through other prison facilities; (4) Plaintiff was never denied the opportunity to pray, read, study, or participate in Islamic activities; and (5) the Life Principles Program did not incorporate Plaintiff's Islamic religion due to its prepackaged nature. (Id., ¶ 10.)

According to Jay Phillips, the facilitator of the program, participants could stop their participation in the program and leave with no adverse impact on their record at any time. (Phillips Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7). However, Plaintiff testified through a sworn declaration that he entered the program because it was the only dorm where a bottom bunk was available when he first arrived, and he had a bottom bunk profile at the time. (Hunter Decl. ¶ 3.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges prison officials falsely promised he could teach Islam in theprogram, and completing the program would allow him to receive time off his tentative parole month eligibility. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 11.) Documentation from Plaintiff's first complaint shows that Wheeler Correctional Facility gave him a safety profile for a bottom bunk on April 30, 2012, three weeks after he transferred to the prison. (Doc. no. 1, p. 21.) Plaintiff asserts he had a bottom bunk profile at his previous prison and that it should have been renewed more quickly by Wheeler Correctional Facility. (Hunter Decl. ¶ 3.) Facilitator Phillips does not deny Plaintiff may have been initially placed in the program due to bottom bunk availability but testified he talked to Plaintiff after he entered the program, and Plaintiff expressed his desire to stay in the program despite the availability of bottom bunks in other dormitories. (Id., ¶ 7.) A sworn declaration from Defendant Medlin, Warden at Wheeler Correctional Facility, indicates that Plaintiff would not have been exempted from the program sessions even during his initial placement caused by the lack of bunk space in other dorms. (Medlin Decl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff successfully completed the Life Principles Program and was transferred out of the dorm into general population. (Phillips Decl. ¶ 9.) Once an inmate successfully completes the program, he is not allowed to remain in or return to the program. (Phillips Decl. ¶ 13.) There are no Islamic, Catholic, Muslim or other religious items purchased for the program. (Phillips Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff never personally received any disciplinary reports for failing to attend the mandatory group sessions. (Benson Decl. ¶ 4)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate only if "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When seeking summary judgment, the movant must show that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be decided at a trial. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). "The mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat summary judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the outcome of the case." McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1244 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

If the burden of proof at trial rests with the movant, to prevail at the summary judgment stage, the movant must show that, "on all the essential elements of its case . . . , no reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party." United States v. Four Parcels of Real Prop., 941 F.2d 1428, 1438 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc). On the other hand, if the non-moving party has the burden of proof at trial, the movant may prevail at the summary judgment stage either by negating an essential element of the non-moving party's claim or by pointing to specific portions of the record that demonstrate the non-moving party's inability to meet its burden of proof at trial. Clark, 929 F.2d at 606-08 (explaining Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)).

If the moving party carries the initial burden, then the burden shifts to the non-moving party "to demonstrate that there is indeed a material issue of fact that precludes summaryjudgment." Clark, 929 F.2d at 608. The non-moving party cannot carry its burden by relying on the pleadings or by repeating conclusory allegations contained in the complaint. Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032, 1034 (11th Cir. 1981). Rather, the non-moving party must respond either by affidavits or as otherwise provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. "The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 (quoting Adickes, 398 U.S. at 158-59). A genuine dispute as to a material fact is said to exist "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a...