McFaul v. Valenzuela

• Citation: 684 F.3d 564
• Decision Date: 18 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–10218.,11–10218.
• Parties: Anson McFAUL, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Daniel VALENZUELA, Chaplain–Preston Smith Unit, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Bill Pierce, Director of Chaplaincy Department, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Gary Griggs, Assistant Warden–Preston Smith Unit, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Richard D. Vogelgesang, Warden–Preston Smith Unit, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Brad Livingston, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, in His Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

684 F.3d 564

Anson McFAUL, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Daniel VALENZUELA, Chaplain–Preston Smith Unit, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Bill Pierce, Director of Chaplaincy Department, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Gary Griggs, Assistant Warden–Preston Smith Unit, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Richard D. Vogelgesang, Warden–Preston Smith Unit, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Brad Livingston, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, in His Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 11–10218.

United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit.

June 18, 2012.

Anson B. McFaul, Lamesa, TX, pro se.

Marjolyn Carol Gardner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Atty. Gen., Law Enforcement Defense Div., Austin, TX, for Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

Anson McFaul, a Texas prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights complaint against Daniel Valenzuela, the chaplain of the Preston Smith Unit (“Smith Unit”); Bill Pierce, the Director of the Chaplain Department; Richard D. Vogelgesang, the Smith Unit warden; Gary L. Griggs, the Smith Unit assistant warden; and Brad Livingston, the Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”). McFaul alleges that on May 22, 2009, he was denied religious devotional items that Valenzuela had given him permission to order. McFaul alleged violations of his rights to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and statutory rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“TRFRA”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. McFaul appeals pro se, and we affirm.

I.

Because we are evaluating a summary judgment, we present the facts in the light most favorable to McFaul. Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir.2010). McFaul claims that he showed Valenzuela a picture of prayer beads and a medallion and told him the price when he originally requested permission to make the purchase, but Valenzuela refused to give him the items once they were delivered. McFaul also claims that he obtained permission to order a mirrored pentagram costing $61.95, but when it was delivered on July 2, 2009, Valenzuela refused to release it to him because it was too costly. Valenzuela told McFaul in front of witnesses that he would “never get anything” if he continued to file grievances; McFaul had filed grievances against Valenzuela regarding his free exercise of religion.

McFaul asserts that other prisoners engaged in mainstream religions were permitted to purchase devotional items, but he was not allowed to do so, in violation of his religious rights. He maintains that all defendants were aware of the complained-of constitutional violations, because he had written letters and filed grievances. McFaul contends that denying devotional items as “too expensive” or “inappropriate” did not constitute the least restrictive means to protect a governmental interest, particularly because inmates working in prison craft shops created jewelry costing more than the devotional items in question.

II.

McFaul requested a declaratory judgment that the defendants had violated his rights, an injunction permitting him to purchase his devotional items, compensatory damages of $99.85 for the denied religious items, and punitive damages of $150. He also sought appointment of counsel. The district court denied counsel but granted McFaul leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

A.

The district court directed a magistrate judge (“MJ”) to hold a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1985). At the hearing, McFaul asserted that he was a Celtic Druid. He stated that he had learned rituals and magic through word of mouth from other Celtic Druids and that his religion involved periodic “ritual salutations to the sun” at specific times of day. He also stated that he needed a medallion and prayer beads to practice his faith, but Valenzuela told him that the requested items were inappropriate and that he needed to get a Wiccan star or a pentagram.

McFaul described the first medallion he ordered as a triskele, which represents the “three forces of nature,” which could mean water, air, and earth or “any groups of three you might think of” that occur in nature. He explained that the prayer beads would “help [him] concentrate when [he is] praying on each bead” and that the triskele medallion is “integral to [his] religion” because it symbolizes “all the threes in nature.” According to McFaul, the triskele medallion can be worn at all times for protection, but it is necessary to wear it only while practicing his religion.

After his first order was rejected, McFaul ordered a pentagram medallion to be more compliant with Valenzuela's instructions. He explained that the pentagram he ordered could be used in the same way as the triskele, because it contained a black onyx gemstone that would “allow [him] to connect with Mother Earth a little better” and because he used a pentagram during religious rites. He was unaware of a prison policy forbidding possession of a medallion exceeding $25 until he received the response to his grievance about the pentagram. He stated that another prisoner was allowed to have a “14k gold inverted pentagram,” which cost more than McFaul's desired medallion. He also noted that the craft shop at another prison unit made rosaries costing more than his medallion; he believed that prisoners were permitted to make and possess such devotional items.

McFaul currently has a Wiccan medallion. He no longer practices that faith, however, and he does not use the Wiccan medallion in the practice of his current religion. He searched the prison catalog to find an appropriate medallion but has been unable to do so, because “the black onyx gemstone ... really connects me to the Earth, and ... also connects to the moon and the moon is important in [Celtic Druid] ritual.” McFaul explains that he is “in grave danger” by practicing his magic without the “bare minimum” protection of the medallion. He admits that he was performing the basic rites, but he is unable to “do the full invoking ritual of the pentagram,” because he lacks protection.

McFaul claims that on one occasion when he asked about his medallion, Valenzuela told him that he “was gonna burn in Hell and all pagans were going to burn in Hell.” When McFaul told Valenzuela that he was going to file a grievance based on the denial of his medallion, Valenzuela told him that he would “never get anything” if he kept filing grievances. McFaul had filed grievances against Valenzuela in 2005 for denying him a medicine pouch.

B.

Following the Spears hearing, the defendants were served and filed an answer generally asserting that McFaul was not entitled to relief. McFaul again requested appointment of counsel, asserting that his incarcerated status would prevent him from conducting the intensive research needed to prevail on his claims and that an attorney would be better able to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The court denied the motion, concluding that McFaul had failed to show extraordinary circumstances.

McFaul also moved for leave to engage in discovery, requesting that the court hold a conference pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that the court compel the defendants to comply with his requests for documents. The defendants asserted that much of McFaul's requested documentation was irrelevant and that they had provided copies of relevant requested information. McFaul responded that all requested documents were relevant to his case, that all defendants were responsible for creating a policy or custom of encouraging the violation of prisoners' right to exercise their religion, and that the majority of the documents sent to him were items already within his possession.

McFaul sought to compel Griggs to respond to his interrogatories. The defendants asserted that the responses had been provided, and they repeated that all relevant documents had been produced. McFaul maintained that the answers to queries that the defendants found irrelevant could assist him by revealing additional witnesses or establishing the defendants' intent to deprive prisoners of their rights to exercise their religion. The defendants moved for protection from discovery, asserting an intent to raise a defense of qualified immunity. The court ultimately denied the motions to compel. It granted the protective order in part but ordered the defendants to provide responses to a limited number of McFaul's interrogatories.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that McFaul's allegations were insufficient to warrant relief and that there was no genuine issue of material fact. McFaul responded, arguing that the items approved by TDCJ and the Smith Unit for Neo–Pagan religions were not appropriate for Celtic Druidism, that his requested items were necessary to the practice of his religion, and that the defendants had placed a substantial burden on the free exercise of his religion.

C.

The MJ issued a report recommending that summary judgment be granted and that McFaul be denied relief on his civil rights claims. According to the report, McFaul did not show that the failure of prison officials to give him the bone skull necklace, the triskele pendant, and the mirrored black pendant placed a substantial burden on his exercise of religion under RLUIPA or TRFRA, because McFaul had not explained his need for the items and instead had presented evidence that adherents to Celtic Druidism could not reveal the secrets of the religion. The report also found that McFaul had failed to state a First Amendment claim, because the prison rules were...