Ramadan v. Fbop, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-25757

• Decision Date: 27 August 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-25757
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
• Parties: SAIED MOUSA RAMADAN, Plaintiff, v. FBOP, et al., Defendants.

SAIED MOUSA RAMADAN, Plaintiff, v. FBOP, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-25757

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BLUEFIELD DIVISION

August 27, 2015

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment" (Document No. 69), filed on February 6, 2015. Having thoroughly examined the record in this case, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the District Court grant the Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment" (Document No. 69).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 3, 2013, Plaintiff, acting pro se,¹ filed in the District of South Carolina his Complaint alleging violations of his constitutional and civil rights pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 24 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). (Document No. 1.) Plaintiff names the following as Defendants: (1) FBOP; (2) Charles Samuels, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; (3) C. Eichenlaub, Regional Director of the Mid-Atlantic Regional; (4) Karen F. Hogsten, Warden of FCI McDowell; (5) Mr. Ratelidge,Associate Warden of Programs; (6) Mr. Baxter, former Associate Warden of Programs; (7) Mr. Stiller, Captain of FCI McDowell; (8) Gilbert Nash, Chaplain at FCI McDowell; and (9) Mr. Connors, Chaplain at FCI McDowell. (Id., pp. 1 - 2.) Plaintiff alleges that during his incarceration at FCI McDowell and FCI Edgefield, Defendants violated his First Amendment rights and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ["RLUIPA"]. (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiff states that he is of the Sunni Islamic Faith which "requires followers to pray in congregation, at fixed hours, five times daily." (Id., p. 3.) Plaintiff contends that FCI McDowell and FCI Edgefield's policy "designates only the Chapel and individual cells as permissible spaces for Muslims to pray and forces all Muslims who need to pray while at work, school or recreation to forgo the most important practice of their religion which contradicts B.O.P. national policy and further precludes Mr. Ramadan from offering his obligatory congregational prayers at the stated fixed times and therefore further forces Mr. Ramadan to repeatedly commit a major sin as defined by his Islamic Faith." (Id., p. 4.) Plaintiff argues that the policy violates RLUIPA and RFRA as it "places a substantial burden on Mr. Ramadan's free exercise of religion and does not further a compelling governmental interest." (Id.) Plaintiff complains that although FCI McDowell and FCI Edgefield's policy limits religious activity for all religious groups to specific designated locations, "Defendants permit similarly situated religious groups to routinely pray in locations outside the areas designated for religious activities, while penalizing Muslims for praying outside of their cells or the Chapel." (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the policy "is in complete contradiction with the F.B.O.P.'s Technical Reference Manual (TRM) on Islamic Religious Beliefs," which "clearly permits Muslim inmates the ability to offer their five obligatory prayers at their stated fixed times in congregation throughout the institution." (Id., p. 5.) Plaintiff further complains that "FCI McDowell's administrative,executive and general staff acted out in a retaliatory and further discriminatory manner by engineering and implementing a ban on Noble Qurans." (Id.) Plaintiff states that this was "a back-lash for Mr. Ramadan's use of the Administrative Remedy Procedure concerning the aforementioned group prayer." (Id.) Plaintiff requests "injunctive and declaratory relief requesting that Defendants permit him and Muslim prisoners incarcerated with the FBOP in general to be allowed to pray in groups at work detail sites, school, units, and recreation as incumbent upon them per their universally recognized religion - - Islam." (Id.) Plaintiff further requests "exemplary and nominal damages for the defendant's wanton, reckless, malicious and oppressive character of the acts complained of and for invasion and/or violation of his constitutionally protected rights to freely exercise his religion and his right to equal protection under the law." (Id., pp. 5 - 6.)

As Exhibits, Plaintiff attaches the following: (1) A copy of Plaintiff's informal letter to officials at FCI McDowell dated January 9, 2012, concerning congregational prayer (Document No. 1-1, pp. 3 - 5.); (2) A copy of Plaintiff's "Request for Administrative Remedy Informal Resolution Form" dated February 24, 2012, concerning congregational prayer at FCI McDowell (Id., pp. 6 - 7.); (3) A copy of Chaplain Gilbert Nash's Response (Id., pp. 8 - 10.); (4) A copy of Plaintiff's "Request for Administrative Remedy" dated March 8, 2012, concerning congregational prayer at FCI McDowell (Id., pp. 11 - 20.); (5) A copy of Warden Karen F. Hogsten's Response dated March 27, 2012 (Remedy ID No. 680072-F1) (Id., p. 21.); (6) A copy of Plaintiff's Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal dated April 18, 2012, regarding Remedy ID No. 680072-F1 (Id., pp. 22 - 23.); (7) A copy of Regional Director C. Eichenlaub's Response dated June 18, 2012 (Remedy ID No. 680072-R1) (Id., p. 24.); (8) A copy of Plaintiff's "Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal" dated July 5, 2012, regarding Remedy ID No. 680072-R1 (Id., pp. 25 - 26.); (9) A copy of a"Rejection Notice - Administrative Remedy" from the Administrative Remedy Coordinator at the Central Office dated August 24, 2012, concerning Remedy ID No. 680072-A1 (Id., p. 27.); (10) A copy of a letter addressed to General Counsel dated September 6, 2012, regarding the "Rejection Notice" (Id., p. 28.); (11) A copy of the "Receipt - Administrative Remedy" from the Administrative Remedy Coordinator at the Central Office dated October 10, 2012, regarding Remedy ID No. 680072-A3 (Id., p. 29.); (12) A copy of an "Extension of Time for Response - Administrative Remedy" from the Administrative Remedy Coordinator at the Central Office dated October 10, 2012, regarding Remedy ID No. 680072-A3 (Id., p. 30.); (13) A copy of Plaintiff's "Request for Administrative Remedy Informal Resolution Form" dated May 25, 2012, regarding his right to take a Nobel Quran into the Chapel at FCI McDowell (Document No. 1-2, p. 3.); (14) A copy of Chaplain Nash's Response dated May 25, 2012 (Id., p. 4.); (15) A copy of Plaintiff's "Request for Administrative Remedy Informal Resolution Form" dated May 30, 2012, concerning Nobel Qurans being allowed in the Chapel at FCI McDowell (Id., pp. 5 - 6.); (16) A copy of Chaplain Nash's Response (Id., p. 7.); (17) A copy of Plaintiff's "Request for Administrative Remedy" regarding his right to take a Nobel Quran into the Chapel at FCI McDowell (Id., p. 8.); (18) A copy of Warden Hogsten's Response dated July 6, 2012 (Remedy ID No. 692848-F1) (Id., p. 9.); (19) A copy of Plaintiff's "Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal" concerning Remedy ID No. 692848-F1 (Id., p. 10.); (20) A copy of Regional Director Eichenlaub's Response dated September 14, 2012 (Remedy ID No. 692848-R1) (Id., p. 11.); (21) A copy of Plaintiff's "Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal" dated September 24, 2012, concerning Remedy ID No. 692848-R1 (Id., p. 12.); (22) A copy of Plaintiff's "Informal Resolution Form" dated March 11, 2013, concerning congregational daily prayer at FCI Edgefield (Document No. 1-3, pp. 2 - 3.); (23) A copy of an e-mail from the Chaplain at FCI Edgefield to Chaplain Mims dated February 20, 2013 (Id., p. 4.); (24) A copy of Plaintiff's "Request to Staff" dated February 15, 2013, concerning congregational daily prayer at FCI Edgefield (Id., p. 5.); (25) A copy of Plaintiff's "Request for Administrative Remedy" dated February 28, 2013, regarding congregational daily prayer at FCI Edgefield (Remedy ID No. 726558-F1) (Id., p. 6.); (26) A copy of Warden Kenny Atkinson's Response dated April 5, 2013 (Remedy ID No. 726558-F1) (Id., p. 7.); (27) A copy of Plaintiff's "Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal" dated April 16, 2013, concerning Remedy ID No. 726558-F1 (Id., p. 8.); (28) A copy of the Regional Director's Response dated June 11, 2013 (Remedy ID No. 726558-R1) (Id., p. 9.); (29) A copy of Plaintiff's "Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal" dated July 1, 2013, concerning Remedy ID No. 726558-R1 (Id., p. 10.); (30) A copy of the a "Memorandum for All Concerned" from Warden Atkinson regarding "Inmate Workplace Prayer" dated May 28, 2013 (Id., pp. 11 - 12.); (31) A copy of Plaintiff's "Informal Resolution Form" dated August 27, 2013, complaining that he was being "severely restricted" from accessing the law library at FCI Edgefield (Id., pp. 13 - 14.); (32) A copy of a "Memorandum for Inmate Population" from the Supervisor of Education, Valarie A. Kepner, regarding "Use of Libraries" dated August 7, 2013 (Id., p. 15.); (33) A copy of a "Memorandum for T. Koger, Unit Manager" from the Supervisor of Education dated August 27, 2013, regarding the BP-8 Response to Plaintiff's complaint of restricted access to the law library at FCI Edgefield (Id., pp. 16 - 17.).

By Order entered on September 12, 2014, the District of South Carolina transferred the above case to this District. (Document No. 32.) On September 29, 2014, the undersigned granted Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and directed the Clerk to issue process upon Defendants. (Document No. 36.) On November 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a "MotionSeeking Permission to Amend Complaint" requesting "to add as a Defendant: Kenney Atkinson, individually and in his official capacity as the former Warden at the Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield." (Document No. 46.) By Order entered on November 18, 2014, the undersigned granted Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. (Document No. 53.)

On February 6, 2015, Defendants filed their "Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary...