Pleasant-Bey v. Tennessee
| Decision Date | 12 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:19-cv-00486,3:19-cv-00486 |
| Parties | BOAZ PLEASANT-BEY, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
MEMORANDUM
Boaz Pleasant-Bey, an inmate at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in Hartsville, Tennessee, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). The complaint names seven defendants: the State of Tennessee, CoreCivic America, Warden Russell Washburn, Chaplain Jon Shonebarger, the Tennessee Department of Corrections ("TDOC"), Commissioner Tony Parker, and Reverend B. Darnell. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) The plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2), three motions to amend (Doc. Nos. 4, 7, 8), and a motion to dismiss a claim asserted in the first motion to amend (Doc. No. 6). Finally, the plaintiff filed a motion to rename the caption of the case (Doc. No. 9) and a motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 10). This action is before the court for an initial screening, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA").
The court may authorize a prisoner to file a civil suit without prepaying the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). It appears from the plaintiff's in forma pauperis application that he cannot pay the full filing fee in advance. Accordingly, the application (Doc. No. 2) will be granted and the $350.00 filing fee will be assessed as directed in the accompanying order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
The plaintiff's three motions to amend (Doc. Nos. 4, 7, 8) will be granted, and the court will consider these amendments alongside the plaintiff's original complaint for the purpose of conducting this initial review. The court notes, however, that the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss one of the claims asserted in the first motion to amend. (Doc. No. 6.) Specifically, in the first motion to amend, the plaintiff sought to add a claim that Trousdale Turner's alleged understaffing violates the Eighth Amendment because it jeopardizes the safety of inmates and staff members. (Doc. No. 4 at 3-4.) The plaintiff's motion to dismiss this claim (Doc. No. 6) will be granted, and the court will not consider it.
The first motion to amend essentially adds the following six defendants to a claim already asserted in the original complaint: Ed Welch, the TDOC Assistant Commissioner of Rehabilitations Services; Bobby Straughter, the TDOC Assistant Commissioner of Operational Support; Brandon Maloney, the TDOC Classification Coordinator; Chris Brun, the TDOC Liaison for Trousdale Turner; Jason Medlin; and Chaplain Tom Simic. (Doc. No. 4 at 2.) The second motion to amend asserts a claim not contained in the original complaint, against two original defendants and the Sheriff of Trousdale County. (Doc. No. 7 at 1.) And the third motion to amend adds an original defendant to the claim asserted in the second motion to amend. (Doc. No. 8 at 1.) The motion for a preliminary injunction, meanwhile, requests immediate injunctive relief on the claim asserted in the second and third motion to amend. (Doc. No. 10 at 3.) This claim will be discussed below. See infra Section III.C.3.
Finally, the plaintiff's motion to rename the caption of the case (Doc. No. 9) will be denied in part and granted in part. The plaintiff states that he "finds this case to be a continuation of [] previous litigation" and that his preferred caption "is more suitable for this case." (Id. at 1.) He may not, however, choose the caption of his case. Nonetheless, the first defendant in this case is currently, and incorrectly, listed on the docket as "State of Tennessee, Secretary of State." Thus, the plaintiff's motion to rename the caption of the case will be granted to the extent that the Clerk will be directed to update the first listed defendant to "State of Tennessee."
Under the PLRA, the court must review and dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court must construe a pro se complaint liberally, United States v. Smotherman, 838 F.3d 736, 739 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)), and accept the factual allegations as true unless they are entirely without credibility. Thomas v. Eby, 481 F.3d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)).
The plaintiff, who is Muslim, alleges that he has been unable to exercise his religious beliefs at Trousdale Turner, and that Christian inmates receive more favorable treatment than Muslim inmates. He also alleges that he has not received work reduction credits to which he is entitled. The plaintiff requests injunctive relief, monetary damages, a sentence reduction (Doc. No. 1 at 14-15; Doc. No. 4 at 4), and work reduction credits (Doc. No. 7 at 3; Doc. No. 10 at 3).
The plaintiff believes that "marriage is half of his Deen [Religion, Way of Life]," and that "having conjugal relations with his wife" is an act of worship (Doc. No. 1 at 3) central to hisreligious beliefs (id. at 12). According to the plaintiff, he has been unable to have conjugal relations with his wife while incarcerated in facilities operated by or contracting with the TDOC. (Id. at 3, 5.) The plaintiff also states that he has been married for over twelve years, and his wife told him she would "come where ever [he is] in the world to be with [him] because she loves [him] just that much." (Doc. No. 1-1 at 2.) Because they cannot have conjugal relations, the plaintiff is "unable to sustain [his] marriage in Islam as it is required." (Id.)
The plaintiff believes that he must follow Prophet Muhammad's tradition of wearing a type of socks called Khufain in and out of Salah, or prayer. (Doc. No. 1 at 3, 5, 12.) The plaintiff alleges that he is not allowed to purchase Khufain at Trousdale Turner, despite submitting "several requests." (Id. at 5.) The defendants1 also allegedly ban Islamic attire "designed to cover the arms and other body parts" during prayer. (Id. at 7-8.) This includes a "Towel-like Headdress," called a "Kifiya," as well as an item designed to hold the Kifiya, called an "Agal." (Id. at 8.) And the plaintiff believes that he is required to purchase Islamic prayer oil from an Islamic vendor, but the defendants allegedly force him to buy Islamic prayer oil from Union Supply, a Christian vendor, or Access, an "unislamic" vendor. (Id. at 7, 14.)
The plaintiff believes that he must fast during the Holy Month of Ramadan and eat only traditional Halal foods before and after fasting every day. (Id. at 3.) At the end of the month, the plaintiff must eat traditional Halal foods during a feast held for one to three days, called "Id UlFitr." (Id.) He must also eat traditional Halal foods during another feast called "Id Ul Adha." (Id.) These two feasts traditionally include a sermon before the food is served. (Id.)
Despite these requirements, the plaintiff alleges, the defendants have interfered with the plaintiff's ability to consume traditional Halal foods. (Id. at 5.) According to the plaintiff, he was not allowed to purchase traditional Halal foods for the feasts of Id Ul Fitr and Id Ul Adha in 2018 (id.) and 2019 (Doc. No. 4 at 1, 3). He also was not allowed to have traditional Halal foods donated to Trousdale Turner for the feasts in 2018. (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) Indeed, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants cancelled the feasts and accompanying sermons in 2018. (Id.; Doc. No. 1-1 at 1.)
The plaintiff alleges that, during Ramadan, Prophet Muhammad and his companions consumed unprocessed foods, including dates, whole milk, honey, vegetables, fruits, and Halal meats like lamb, chicken, beef, and fish. (Doc. No. 1 at 3-4, 6.) The plaintiff alleges that he was not allowed to eat these "traditional Halal foods" before and after fasting every day during Ramadan in 2018 and 2019. (Id.) He also alleges that his request to purchase "Halal meats every month" was denied, which forced the plaintiff to purchase beef and chicken products that were Haram, or forbidden. (Id. at 6.)
In the plaintiff's attached declaration, he states that he asked Chaplain Shonebarger for traditional Halal food for the feasts in 2018 and 2019. (Doc. No. 1-1 ¶ 3.) Shonebarger responded: "I spoke to the legal counsel for Core Civic America, and they said absent a Court Order demanding that we have to give you traditional Halal Foods at the Id Ul Fitr and Id Ul Adha Feast, we're not going to give it to you because it's not important to the Courts." (Id.) The plaintiff also alleges that he saw Chaplain Simic at the Id feasts. (Doc. No. 4 at 2.) The plaintiff allegedly filed timely grievances regarding the 2019 feasts, but did not receive any response. (Id. at 1.)
The plaintiff alleges that Muslim organizations are not allowed to donate items to TDOC or CoreCivic facilities, including traditional Halal foods for religious celebrations, Islamic prayer oil, and Halal hygiene products. (Doc. No. 1 at 5-6, 13.) On the other hand, the plaintiff alleges, Christian organizations called Kiros and Men of Valor are allowed to enter TDOC and CoreCivic facilities to donate outside foods and hygiene products and bring religious meals for all inmates at Christmas and Easter, regardless of the inmates' religious beliefs. (Id. at 6, 13.)
According to the plaintiff, the defendants allow Men of Valor to have a "Christian based program pod" at Trousdale Turner but denied the plaintiff's request for a "Unit for Muslims to be able to practice their religion with a program designed to better themselves with the assistance of outside Muslim sponsors." (Id. at 7.) Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that he "submitted a...
To continue reading
Request your trial