Hyde v. Fisher

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Gutierrez
• Citation: Hyde v. Fisher, 203 P.3d 712, 146 Idaho 782 (Idaho App. 2009)
• Decision Date: 28 January 2009
• Docket Number: No. 30648.,30648.
• Parties: Steven Lee HYDE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Greg FISHER, Warden, IMSI, Respondent.

203 P.3d 712

146 Idaho 782

Steven Lee HYDE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Greg FISHER, Warden, IMSI, Respondent.

No. 30648.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

January 28, 2009.

Steven L. Hyde, Boise, pro se appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

GUTIERREZ, Judge.

Steven Lee Hyde appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE

In Hyde v. Fisher, 143 Idaho 782, 783-84, 152 P.3d 653, 654-55 (Ct.App.2007), we summarized the facts and initial procedure of this case:

Hyde is an inmate committed to the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC [or the Department]) under the laws of the state of Idaho. Since 1993, Hyde has been housed at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution (IMSI), under the supervision of respondent, Warden Greg Fisher.... Hyde's religious practices include Odinism and Native American religion. Traditional Native American religious practices were formerly allowed at IMSI. The sweat lodge ceremony was allowed at IMSI from 1992 until 1998, when the sweat lodge was dismantled after former Warden Paskett concluded that the sweat lodge grounds had been desecrated by a group of Native American practitioners who were found roasting wieners over the sweat lodge fire. Smudging ceremonies were permitted from the opening of IMSI in 1989 until 2002 when the IDOC interpreted its "No-Tobacco" policy as prohibiting burning of any kind. IMSI prison officials also prohibit Hyde from using a ceremonial pipe to smoke a tobacco-free form of kinnikinnik, from wearing a choker, from possessing a feather and certain herbs and grasses having spiritual significance to him, and from operating a club designed to facilitate the practice of the Native American religion at IMSI.

On October 30, 2001, Hyde filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he avers that the [IDOC] has violated his rights to practice his religion under the First and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution; Article 1, §§ 3 and 4 and Article 4, § 2 of the Idaho State Constitution; the Religious Exercises in Land Use and by Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.; and the Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA), Idaho Code § 73-401, et. seq. Specifically, Hyde alleges constitutional and statutory violations of his right to exercise the Native American religion by way of the sweat lodge, ceremonial pipe, smudging, and possession of kinnikinnik, sage, feathers, a choker, and a bandana, among others. Hyde proposed numerous methods of accommodating his religious rights.

The [Department] moved the district court to dismiss Hyde's petition for writ of habeas corpus. [It] argued that Hyde had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, that he had not satisfied the security bond requirement of I.C. § 6-610, that habeas corpus is not a vehicle for enforcement of the FERPA and the RLUIPA, and that the Establishment clauses of the United States and Idaho constitutions prohibit the [IDOC] from providing the requested relief. The district court granted in part the [IDOC's] motion to dismiss on the basis that Hyde had failed to post a security bond when filing his claims for relief under the RLUIPA and the FERPA.

As to Hyde's constitutional claims, the court held a bench trial on the merits. At the close of Hyde's case-in-chief, the [Department] moved for dismissal. The district court noted that it had heard sufficient evidence regarding the government's compelling security interest and determined the [IDOC] established without question that security and safety at IMSI represented a compelling interest. The court denied the [Department's] motion to dismiss, however, and allowed additional testimony to determine whether [it] had considered less restrictive alternatives than a complete ban on Hyde's religious practices.

After hearing all the evidence, the district court issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The district court denied Hyde's constitutional free exercise claim, ruling that the IMSI regulations prohibiting the items necessary for Hyde to exercise his Native American religion have a valid, rational connection to a legitimate penological security interest. The district court denied Hyde's petition as to his equal protection claim on the basis that, given the valid penological interest in security and the good order of the prison population, it would constitute an unreasonable and burdensome cost for the [Department] to fully accommodate Hyde's religious practices. The court also held that lack of parity in resources allocated among religions, alone, is not grounds for an equal protection claim....

Subsequently, this Court addressed Hyde's appeal, holding that the district court erred in granting the IDOC's motion to dismiss Hyde's RLUIPA and FERPA claims. Id. at 784, 152 P.3d at 655. Specifically, we held that the security bond requirement of I.C. § 6-610 does not apply to indigent prisoners and that Hyde's statutory claims may be addressed in this habeas corpus action. Id. at 787-88, 152 P.3d at 658-59. Not reaching Hyde's constitutional claims, we temporarily remanded the case back to the district court for issuance of findings and conclusions regarding the RLUIPA and FERPA claims.

On remand, the district court addressed the merits of Hyde's statutory claims and again denied them, concluding that:

The Respondent, Greg Fisher, Warden, IMSI, has met the two-pronged test of both the Federal and State statutes under the facts of this case. The imposition of the burden on Hyde to practice his Native American Religion by the closing of the sweat lodge in the prison and the impact of regulating inmate's possession of personal property were done in furtherance of the compelling governmental interest of insuring safety and security in Idaho's maximum security prison. These actions by prison officials, in conjunction with the provision of places for religious worship, the acquisition and possession of religious materials under the guidance of an independent, outside Native American religious advisor, represent the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest in providing safety and security in Idaho's maximum security prison.

Hyde appeals the district court's denial of his constitutional and statutory claims of relief and also raises several issues arising after our remand to the lower court. We begin by addressing the issues arising after remand.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Issues Arising After Remand

1. Motion to disqualify and motion to stay proceedings

Hyde argues the district court erred by failing to rule on his motion to disqualify the judge for cause as well as his motion to stay the proceedings prior to denying his claims on remand. It is the responsibility of the appellant to provide a sufficient record to substantiate his or her claims on appeal. State v. Murinko, 108 Idaho 872, 873, 702 P.2d 910, 911 (Ct.App.1985). In the absence of an adequate record on appeal to support the appellant's claims, we will not presume error. State v. Beason, 119 Idaho 103, 105, 803 P.2d 1009, 1011 (Ct.App.1991).

Here, while Hyde attached to his brief copies of both motions and the Department's objection to his motion to disqualify, these documents were not made part of the clerk's record on appeal. Simply attaching documents to one's brief does not include them in the record. See Ohman v. Talbot Family Trust, 120 Idaho 825, 820 P.2d 695 (1991) (holding that jury instructions attached to an appeal brief were not part of the record). We will not presume error where we have no record to assess the merits of the motions, nor the court's treatment of them.

2. Allegation of judicial bias

Hyde also argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to "disclose its religious affinity with the defendant." Specifically, he references letters showing that Warden Fisher and the trial court judge in this case attend the same church. Again, the letters to which Hyde refers were not made a part of the clerk's record on appeal— Hyde merely provided them to this Court attached to a document entitled "Memorandum/Complaint Request for Investigation." As we indicated above, such a procedure is not sufficient to place the letters properly before this Court and thus, we do not address the merits of Hyde's argument.

3. Due process

Finally, Hyde contends the district court, on remand, abused its discretion by "improperly assessing the evidence presented at trial." His argument appears to be that the lower court's failure to allow the parties to submit additional briefing on remand violated his right to due process. In support of this contention, Hyde asserts that when remanding the case, this Court ordered the district court "to let the parties brief their arguments" prior to issuing its decision on remand. This, however, is incorrect. We simply ordered the court to made findings and conclusions on Hyde's statutory claims and stated that "[a]dditional taking of evidence is not required in this instance based on the extensive evidentiary record already developed before the district court." Hyde v. Fisher, 143 Idaho 782, 788, 152 P.3d 653, 659 (2007). Nowhere in these directions did we address the issue of supplemental briefing.

Hyde also cites no authority for his contention that he was entitled to file a brief on remand such that his due process rights would be implicated by disallowance of such an opportunity. Most importantly, Hyde has not shown that the opportunity he had to submit briefs to the district court prior to the original appeal was insufficient to afford him due process. See Dallas v. Arave, 129 Idaho 819, 825, 933 P.2d 108, 114 (Ct.App.1997) ("Although the nature and scope of the due process rights afforded to inmates is necessarily limited, procedural due process...