Murphy v. Lincoln
| Decision Date | 31 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2:20-cv-00475-JPH-MJD |
| Parties | JOSHUA W. MURPHY a/k/a HAMZAH WALI ABUU JIHAD, Plaintiff, v. M. LINCOLN Program Director, JARRY ANDERSON, K. GILMORE Warden, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Joshua Murphy, an Indiana Department of Correction ("IDOC") inmate, filed this civil rights action while he was incarcerated at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility ("Wabash Valley"). Dkt. 1; dkt. 7 at 1. Mr. Murphy claims that the defendants forced him to follow rules of Islam that his religious sect does not follow failed to provide him with appropriate religious meals and a clean place to pray, and refused to provide him with a religious leader that follows his sect, in violation of the First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). Dkt. 1; dkt. 7 at 2.
The defendants now seek summary judgment on Mr. Murphy's claims. Dkt. 35. Mr. Murphy did not respond. Because there is no evidence to support Mr. Murphy's claims, the defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment, dkt [35], is GRANTED.
Parties in a civil dispute may move for summary judgment, which is a way of resolving a case short of a trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any of the material facts, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; Pack v. Middlebury Cmty. Sch., 990 F.3d 1013, 1017 (7th Cir. 2021). A "genuine dispute" exists when a reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "Material facts" are those that might affect the outcome of the suit. Id.
"[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). However, "the burden on the moving party may be discharged by 'showing'-that is, pointing out to the district court- that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. at 325.
Here, Mr. Murphy did not respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Public Docket Sheet. Mr. Murphy was released from the IDOC's custody on February 11, 2021. Dkts. 10 and 18. He was provided with notice regarding his right to respond and to submit evidence in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment along with the defendants' motion, corresponding brief, and designated evidence, at his home address on May 27, 2022. See dkt. 37 (certification of service via U.S. Mail, first class). After the clerk updated Mr. Murphy's address to reflect his residence, mail was never returned to the Court as undeliverable. See dkt. 22; see also Public Docket Sheet. It is Mr. Murphy's obligation to monitor and to litigate this case, including providing any changes to his address. Mr. Murphy has not filed anything in this action for nearly two years. Dkt. 10 ().
Accordingly, the facts alleged in the defendants' motion are deemed admitted so long as support for them exists in the record. See S.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(b) ( ); Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003) (). This does not alter the summary judgment standard, but it does "[r]educe[] the pool" from which facts and inferences relative to the motion may be drawn. Smith v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 426 (7th Cir. 1997).
Construed liberally, the complaint alleges that: 1) the defendants forced Mr. Murphy to follow Islamic rules that his religious sect does not follow; 2) the defendants burdened his religious exercise by failing to provide the appropriate meat that his religion requires and by refusing to provide a clean place for him to pray; and 3) the defendants refused to provide him a religious leader that adheres to the principles of his sect. Dkt. 1 at 4; dkt. 7 at 2.
The defendants designated the following filings as evidence supporting their summary judgment motion: 1) Mr. Murphy's grievances, dkt. 35-3; 2) declaration of David Liebel, the IDOC's Director of Religious Services, dkt. 35-1; and 3) the IDOC's Religious Policy, dkt. 35-2.
In his grievances, Mr. Murphy sought a Halal diet, a clean place to pray outside of his cell, and the employment of a religious leader that follows the figh[1]of Imam Abu Hanifa. Dkt. 35-3 at 2, 5. In response to his diet request, Mr. Murphy was informed that the facility's Kosher, Vegan, and Vegetarian diets all comply with a Halal diet. Id. at 1. Mr. Murphy was directed to take the necessary steps to clean his cell and maintain it, and use a toilet cover to remedy his cleanliness request. Id. at 2. Finally, Mr. Murphy was directed to work with Ms. Lincoln and the Religious Services Director to arrange for an approved volunteer to lead Hanafi Figh religious services at Wabash Valley. Id. at 3-4.
David Liebel's declaration sets forth additional information about Mr. Murphy, general IDOC's policies, and Wabash Valley's application of these policies. Dkt. 35-1.
Mr. Murphy spent a large portion of his incarceration in the restricted status housing unit. Restricted status housing is a form of housing for offenders whose continued presence in the general population would pose a serious threat to life, property, self, staff, or other offenders, or to the security or orderly operation of a facility. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. While incarcerated, Mr. Murphy was permitted to practice his religion through alternative means, including speaking with an Islamic religious figure, Chaplain Anderson, or an approved volunteer; reading and purchasing uncensored religious resources; requesting appropriate religious meals; and praying with others and individually in his cell. Id. ¶¶ 17-21.
"The [IDOC] provides religious resources for the Islamic faith but does not recognize any sect within the Islamic faith as the official version of Islam." Id. ¶ 13. Offenders are permitted to practice and to follow their personal religious beliefs within the limitations of prison policy and administrative procedure. Id. ¶ 12. Indeed, the IDOC "does not recognize an official version of any faith." Id. ¶ 14. In accordance with the IDOC's policy, Wabash Valley offers general Islamic religious services but does not adopt the practices of any specific Muslim sect, in an effort "to balance the needs of worship and to accommodate a variety of Muslim practices." Id. ¶ 20. Wabash Valley offers a process to secure religious volunteers who then come to the facility. Id. The IDOC provides religious resources for the Islamic faith and permits inmates to request additional theological resources in order to practice their faith without censorship. Id. ¶¶ 13, 15. The IDOC's chaplains assist all inmates of any faith. Id. ¶ 17
The IDOC had a religious services policy in effect during the period in which Mr. Murphy claims a religious violation occurred. See IDOC's "Religious Services," Policy 01-31-101 at dkt. 35-2. This policy provides that the offenders' exercise of religion and the provision and delivery of religious services shall be guaranteed in accordance with the law. Id. at 1. Further, prison officials may not require or coerce any offenders into adopting or participating in any religious belief or practice. Id.
Additionally, prison officials must provide adequate resources to support IDOC's religious programs. Id. (). Without discriminating among religions, prison officials must hire adequate staff to facilitate the delivery of religious services, needs, expertise, and practices. Id. Finally, in instances where the prison's chaplain is not able to conduct religious services in accordance with a particular faith or custom and there is sufficient demand, the chaplain may seek to recruit appropriate individuals from the community and prisoners may "provide names of possible resource persons." Id. at 18.
This case involves claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA. Dkt. 7 at 2.
Mr. Murphy alleges in his complaint that the defendants forced him to follow religious rules that are not consistent with his sect of Islam-"the Figh of the late great Imam Abu Hanifa." Id. He also claims that the defendants burdened his religious practices by not providing appropriate religious meals and by preventing him from leaving his cell to pray multiple times. Dkt. 1 at 4. Finally, he asserts that he has been denied access to a religious leader that follows the tenets of his sect of Islam. Dkt. 7 at 2.
The defendants claim that they are entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Murphy's claims. Dkt. 35. Specifically, they argue that Mr. Murphy's...
To continue reading
Request your trial