Muhammad v. Lynaugh
| Decision Date | 15 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-4425,91-4425 |
| Citation | 966 F.2d 901 |
| Parties | Al Aswad T.A. MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Alvin Jones, and Jihaad A.M.E. Saahir, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James A. LYNAUGH, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Jihaad A.M.E. Saahir, pro se.
Aswad T.A. Muhammad, pro se.
Louis V. Carrillo, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dan Morales, Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Texas.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Al Aswad T.A. Muhammad and Jihaad A.M.E. Saahir appeal the dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit. Finding no error we affirm.
Muhammad and Saahir, inmates of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they were being denied their constitutional right to exercise religious freedom.
Muhammad and Saahir maintain that they are practicing Muslims and are members of the Nubian Hebrew Mission-Ansaaru Allah Community. They challenge as unconstitutional TDCJ regulations which prohibit their donning Kufi caps 1 outside of the prison chapel and their cells, and which forbid the wearing of religious patches or insignias. They also claim that the prison's Muslim chaplain discriminates against them because they adhere to the pedagogy of a different Muslim Illuminate, Iman Isha of New York City, New York. Finally, Muhammad argues that he unconstitutionally has been denied the right to purchase, use, and retain various religious items, specifically a tape player and Arabic language tapes.
After a lengthy evidentiary hearing the magistrate judge found no constitutional violations and dismissed the complaint as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The plaintiffs timely appealed.
Imprisonment necessarily entails a loss of manifold rights and liberties. A prisoner is not free to do that which he might wish to do, nor may he do allowable things at a time and in a manner he might prefer. Several constitutional rights are protected, however, including the right to practice one's religious beliefs. Restrictions thereon must be reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. 2 Several factors are relevant in determining whether a prison regulation infringes on an inmate's constitutional rights: (1) is there a valid, rational correlation between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest advanced; (2) are there alternative means of exercising the rights that remain available to the inmates; and (3) what is the impact of an accommodation in favor of the inmate on prison staff, other inmates, and the allocation of prison resources generally. 3 We review the magistrate's findings under the clearly erroneous standard. 4
At the hearing before the magistrate judge two senior corrections officers testified that security was the primary rationale powering the regulations which restrict the wearing of Kufi caps and other religious insignia in the prison dayrooms and other areas. They testified that weapons, such as shanks and razor blades, could easily be secreted inside a Kufi cap. They also testified that the inmates use symbolic banners to "show ... their colors," a proven cause of problems in the dayrooms and work stations.
We are persuaded that the evidence introduced at the hearing established that the regulations restricting the use of Kufi caps and religious insignia bear a reasonable relationship to the legitimate penological interest of prison security. 5 Other circuits By permitting inmates to wear Kufi caps and religious insignia in their cells and in religious services in the chapel, the TDJC has provided an opportunity for the exercise of religious freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution. Allowing inmates to wear these religious articles in other areas conceivably could undermine the TDJC's legitimate penological interests, primarily its overriding concern for prison security.
addressing this issue have reached the same conclusion. 6
Plaintiffs contend that the prison chaplain denied their right to practice their religion and discriminated against them because they follow a different Muslim Illuminate. Specifically, plaintiffs maintain that the prison chaplain denied them the right to make copies of religious tapes even though the inmates of his particular Islamic persuasion were permitted to do such.
During the hearing several inmates testified that Muslim religious activities are open to all inmates. The chaplain testified that he ministers to every Muslim inmate, regardless of the Illuminate followed, and that he has never excluded any inmates of any branch of Islam. With regard to the tapes, the chaplain testified that he refused to give Saahir one tape because it was the only copy he had available.
The evidence reflects no constitutional violation by the chaplain. To the contrary, the prison chaplain afforded plaintiffs the same opportunities to worship made available to all Muslim inmates, and his reason for denying the use of the particular tape was patently legitimate. Plaintiffs have been given the same reasonable opportunity to practice their faith as that provided other religious groups. 7
Muhammad raises an equal protection claim contending that he was denied a tape player while other inmates were not. He claims that a tape player is necessary to learn Arabic, the original language of the Muslim Holy Book.
During the hearing Saahir and another inmate, Roy Sneed, testified that they own and were allowed to operate tape players. It was established during the hearing, however, that Muhammad is quartered in the Michael Unit of TDJC where tape recorders are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mathis v. Brazoria Cnty. Sheriff's Office
... ... See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1991). Mathis claims that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by ... prove purposeful discrimination resulting in a discriminatory effect among persons similarly situated.'" Adkins, 393 F.3d at 566 (quoting Muhammad v. Lynaugh, 966 F.2d 901, Page 32 903 (5th Cir. 1992)). "However, the Fourteenth Amendment does not demand 'that every religious sect or group ... ...
-
Ali v. Szabo, 98 Civ. 0424(WHP).
... ... Muhammad v. Lynaugh, 966 F.2d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1992) (prison regulation restricting wearing of kufi caps except in cells and in religious services upheld ... ...
-
Butts v. Martin
... ... exercise claim under Turner and separately analyzing whether the action "substantially burdened" the practice of religion under RLUIPA); Muhammad v. Lynaugh , 966 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1992) (analyzing a free exercise claim under Turner without addressing whether the policy substantially ... ...
-
Yul Chu v. Miss. State Univ.
... ... See Muhammad v. Lynaugh, 966 F.2d 901, 903 (5th Cir.1992). He avers that the Defendants discriminated against him and at least one other professor who also had a ... ...