Muslim v. Frame

• Citation: 897 F. Supp. 215
• Decision Date: 23 August 1995
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 93-0554.
• Parties: Waahid MUSLIM, a/k/a David Richardson, Plaintiff, v. Thomas FRAME, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

897 F. Supp. 215

Waahid MUSLIM, a/k/a David Richardson, Plaintiff, v. Thomas FRAME, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 93-0554.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

August 23, 1995.

Mark B. Schoeller, Duane, Morris & Heckscher, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff Waahid Muslim aka David Dewees Richardson.

Waahid Muslim, Coatesville, PA, pro se.

Deborah L. Doyle, Margolis, Edelstein, Scherlis, Sarowitz & Kraemer, Joseph Goldberg, Philadelphia, PA, C. Robert Elicker, Jr., Chester County Solicitor, West Chester, PA, for defendants Thomas G. Frame, Warden, Edward McFadden, Director of Treatment, Dale Guyer, Correctional Officer.

OPINION

LOUIS H. POLLAK, District Judge.

Waahid Muslim filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge the no-hats rule of Chester County Prison, under which inmates cannot wear hats in the prison common areas. Plaintiff professes to be a practicing Muslim and has asserted a desire to wear a kufi, the Muslim prayer cap, throughout the prison. In his complaint, plaintiff argued that the no-hats rule violates his rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as well as under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants, prison officials of the Chester County Prison, claim that the no-hats policy is needed to ensure prison security. On June 30, 1995, this court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the due process and equal protection claims but denied summary judgment to both sides on the free exercise claim. The court also dismissed plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief as moot because he was no longer incarcerated in the Chester County Prison.

In the June 30 memorandum, the court found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1 — the law passed by Congress to reestablish the "compelling interest" test that had guided the Supreme Court's free exercise jurisprudence prior to Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) — provides the proper standard for addressing this claim. RFRA provides:

Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person —

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b). Under RFRA, a plaintiff must first establish that the government has substantially burdened the free exercise of religion; if the plaintiff satisfies this threshold, the government must establish that its conduct is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling governmental interest. In this court's June 30 memorandum, I concluded that genuine issues of material fact remained as to both plaintiff's and defendants' burdens under RFRA. Specifically, the issues that remain for trial are whether the plaintiff is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief and whether the no-hats rule is the least restrictive means of furthering the government's compelling interest in prison safety.

Defendants have asked the court to reconsider the denial of summary judgment. Defendants make three arguments: that RFRA does not apply to this case; that, even if RFRA does apply, the court misapplied it; and that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I will address these arguments in turn.

I. Whether RFRA Applies

Defendants argue that RFRA should not apply in this case because the plaintiff did not frame his complaint or his response to the summary judgment motion in terms of RFRA. In support of this argument, defendants cite Brown-El v. Harris, 26 F.3d 68 (8th Cir.1994). In that case, the Eighth Circuit apparently concluded that the pre-RFRA standard should govern. The court stated:

We recognize that Congress, in passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 has created a new standard of review for claims that governmental action restricts the free exercise of religion. Although the Act applies retroactively, we need not consider the new standard because Brown-El failed to raise or otherwise bring his claim under the Act, and in any event, we conclude the defendant's policy does not restrict Brown-El's religious freedom in the first place.

Id. at 69 (citations omitted). I do not read this case as standing for the proposition that RFRA applies only when raised by the parties. The remainder of the opinion addresses whether the governmental conduct burdened the plaintiff's free exercise; thus, it appears that the central basis for the decision was that the plaintiff had not established a burden on his free exercise. To the extent that Brown-El suggests that a court cannot apply RFRA without being asked, I disagree. RFRA is the law regardless of whether parties mention it. RFRA itself states that its purposes are "to restore the compelling interest test" and to "guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened." 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b)(1) (emphasis added). Moreover, applying RFRA in this case does not unfairly prejudice defendants, who presented oral argument on the applicability of RFRA to Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter, who then wrote his Report and Recommendation addressing the plaintiff's free exercise claim in terms of RFRA.

II. Whether the Court Misapplied RFRA

Defendants next argue that, even if RFRA applies, plaintiff has come forward with no evidence to satisfy his burden under RFRA while defendants have satisfied their burden as a matter of law. Specifically, defendants argue that plaintiff has not shown that the headgear restrictions substantially burden his free exercise of religion. Moreover, it is argued, defendants have established that the prison's restrictions constitute the least restrictive means of furthering the government's interest in creating safe prisons. These arguments merely rehash the arguments defendants presented in support of their motion for summary judgment, and I addressed these arguments in my June 30 memorandum. No purpose would be served by an extensive recanvassing of matters already discussed at some length. As the Third Circuit has stated, "The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985).

I note, however, that defendants apparently misunderstand what I have held to be the plaintiff's burden under RFRA. Defendants argue that there is no substantial burden on plaintiff's free exercise because "other provisions were made for the practice of plaintiff's religion." Defendants' Memorandum at 5. This presumably is a reference to the assertions elaborated in the defendants' pretrial memorandum that the prison provides Muslim inmates the opportunity to attend religious ceremonies and prayer meetings, that the prison contracts with an imam to lead these ceremonies, and that the prison provides meals that satisfy Islamic dietary restrictions, including special meal schedules during the festival of Ramadan. Defendants' Pretrial Memorandum at 3. Under the defendant's reasoning, a burden on free exercise would not be substantial unless it interfered with a person's ability to practice religion generally. The term "free exercise of religion," however, refers to particular practices of religion, not the practice of religion in general. Just as the government cannot justify restricting some forms of speech merely by pointing to other opportunities a person has to speak, so the government cannot limit particular exercises of religion by pointing to other religious practices that remain available. It would be curious to find that RFRA barred challenges to governmental restrictions on religion as long as the plaintiff could practice, say, two-thirds of his religion.

Supreme Court cases prior to Smith — cases applying the strict scrutiny test restored by RFRA — analyzed specific religious practices burdened by governmental action and found no occasion to inquire whether, putting the burdened practice to one side, the complainant was otherwise unimpeded in the practice of his or her religion. Thus, in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963), the Court declared unconstitutional state regulations which forced the appellant to choose between observing the Sabbath and receiving unemployment benefits. The Court did not ask whether, despite the restriction on Sabbath observation, the appellant could nonetheless practice other aspects of her religion. Similarly, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972), in which the Court ruled that Amish parents did not need to follow Wisconsin's compulsory secondary education law, the Court did not ask whether the state allowed the Amish to practice their religion generally, the particular restriction at issue notwithstanding. RFRA specifically instructs courts to look to Sherbert and Yoder for guidance. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b)(1). Consequently, the government cannot defend its decision to prevent the plaintiff from wearing a kufi by pointing to other Islamic practices available to him.

Defendants further argue that plaintiff cannot show a substantial burden on his free exercise rights because he has not shown that wearing a kufi at all times is required by Islam. In my June 30 memorandum, however, I concluded that a plaintiff satisfies his burden under RFRA by demonstrating that (1) the practice he wishes to engage in is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, and (2) governmental conduct has substantially burdened his ability to engage in this practice. As I discussed at length in my earlier memorandum, it is unnecessary under RFRA for a plaintiff to demonstrate that the religious practice at issue is mandated by his religion. To be sure, a number of other courts have reached a different conclusion. See Werner v....