Reed v. Faulkner

• Decision Date: 24 February 1987
• Docket Number: No. S 84-575.,S 84-575.
• Citation: 653 F. Supp. 965
• Parties: Homer REED, Plaintiff, v. Gordon FAULKNER, Jack Duckworth, Ron L. Batchelor, Indiana Attorney General, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

653 F. Supp. 965

Homer REED, Plaintiff, v. Gordon FAULKNER, Jack Duckworth, Ron L. Batchelor, Indiana Attorney General, Defendants.

No. S 84-575.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division.

February 24, 1987.

Fred S. Mott, Legal Asst., Michigan City, Ind., for plaintiff.

David L. Steiner, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Ind., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALLEN SHARP, Chief Judge.

I.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

One of the multitude of judicial challenges that emanate from the few simple words in the First Amendment has to do with working out the free exercise rights of inmates imprisoned in a state maximum security prison. This court has previously attempted to meet that challenge as indicated in Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F.Supp. 1254 (N.D.Ind.1981), aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir.1983). See also cases collected in "Provision for Religious Facilities for Prisoners", 12 ALR 3d 1276. In Shabazz v. O'Lone, 782 F.2d 416, 420 (3d Cir.1986), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 268, 93 L.Ed.2d 245 (1986), Judge Arlin Adams stated:

Federal courts must afford deference to decisions by prison officials in areas concerning security, but where first amendment values are implicated such deference must be tempered by an effort to accommodate free exercise values.

The strong dissent in both Childs and Shabazz are indicative of the difficult task that is involved in reconciling the legitimate security needs of a maximum security prison with the free exercise values that are inherent in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Approximately four months ago in this circuit, Judge Shadur provided detailed insight in a carefully drafted opinion in Williams v. Lane, 646 F.Supp. 1379 (N.D. Ill.1986). The case involved the free exercise rights of inmates in protective custody. The court held that prison authorities abridged the inmate's free exercise rights in their religion because there was a failure to provide an opportunity to pray communally, a denial of opportunity to participate in the rituals of their religious faith, and a deprivation of reglious counseling and instruction.

The Court of Appeals for this circuit, speaking through Senior Judge Eschbach, in the context of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' maximum of all maximum security prisons at Marion, Illinois, in Caldwell v. Miller, 790 F.2d 589, 595-597 (7th Cir. 1986), stated:

Lawful incarceration necessarily brings with it the restrictions of many privileges and rights. Hudson v. Palmer 468 U.S. 517, 524, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3199, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1877, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2804, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974). The right to the free exercise of religious beliefs, nevertheless, does not abate upon imprisonment. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 523, 104 S.Ct. at 3198; Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 n. 2, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 1081 n. 2, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972) (per curiam); Childs, 705 F.2d at 920; Madyun v. Franzen, 704 F.2d 954, 960 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 996, 104 S.Ct. 493, 78 L.Ed.2d 687 (1983). That right may, of course, be restricted in order to achieve legitimate correctional goals and to maintain institutional security. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 546-47, 99 S.Ct. at 1877-78; Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Pell, 417 U.S. at 822-23, 94 S.Ct. at 2804; Childs, 705 F.2d at 920; Arsberry v. Sielaff, 586 F.2d 37, 44 (7th Cir.1978). We must, however, carefully scrutinize prison restrictions that affect an inmate's free-exercise rights "to ascertain the extent to which they are necessary to effectuate the legitimate policies and goals of the correction system." Childs, 705 F.2d at 920. Prison rules that restrain the free exercise of religion are justified only if they are "reasonably adapted" to achieving an important penological objective. Madyun, 704 F.2d at 960; see also LaReau v. MacDougall, 473 F.2d 974, 979 (2nd Cir.1972), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 878, 94 S.Ct. 49, 38 L.Ed.2d 123 (1973).

We accord, as we must, prison officials wide-ranging deference in adopting policies that are needed to preserve internal order and security, Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 474, 103 S.Ct. 864, 872-73, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 547-48, 99 S.Ct. at 1878; Pell, 417 U.S. at 827, 94 S.Ct. at 2806, and we will not substitute our judgment for theirs "in the absence of substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the officials have exaggerated their response to these considerations." Pell, 417 U.S. at 827, 94 S.Ct. at 2806; see Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 104 S.Ct. 3227, 82 L.Ed.2d 438 (1984); Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 467, 470, 103 S.Ct. at 869-70; Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 547-48, 554-55, 562-63, 99 S.Ct. at 1878-79, 1882-83, 1886-87. This does not mean, however, that it is appropriate for us to defer completely to prison administrators. Madyun, 704 F.2d at 959. By requiring that a prison regulation or policy be reasonably adapted to an important correctional goal, we protect the legitimate interest of prisoners in adhering to their religious beliefs and give guidance to prison administrators in adopting policies that comply with constitutional standards, while at the same time appropriately deferring to their judgment in matters related to institutional security. Id.

The First Amendment issue which confronted Judge Eschbach and that panel of the Court of Appeals in Caldwell dealt with a complete and continuing ban on group religious activities at the maximum security Marion facility. The court neither upheld nor struck down the aforesaid ban, which was initiated for the announced purpose of preserving order and authority. However, the court held that the district court's grant of summary judgment on the free exercise claim required reversal and remand to consider the issue of whether the total ban on all religious activities was reasonably adapted to legitimate security considerations at the Marion facility.

This case was tried at the Indiana State Prison on November 13 and 14, 1986. As suggested by the resolution of the Seventh Circuit Judicial Council on October 4, 1984, briefs were filed and exchanged and this case is ripe for ruling. This court has given and will give the appropriate deference to this pro se plaintiff under the mandates of Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). This plaintiff did not request appointed counsel. It is the intent of this memorandum to comply with the mandates of Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

II.

The issues in this case are narrower and considerably more refined than the factual record appears in Caldwell v. Miller.

Certainly at one end of the secular spectrum, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the regulations regarding the grooming of the police department in Suffolk County, New York, did not infringe upon liberty interests reflected in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. See Kelly v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 47 L.Ed.2d 708 (1976). Certainly it is without dispute that as a general proposition the managers of an all male maximum security state prison can regulate the length of hair and beards of those inmates. See Hill v. Blackwell, 774 F.2d 338 (8th Cir.1985); Wilson v. Schillinger, 761 F.2d 921 (3d Cir.1985); Cole v. Flick, 758 F.2d 124 (3d Cir.1985); Robinson v. Foti, 527 F.Supp. 1111 (E.D.La.1981); and Theriault v. Silber, 453 F.Supp. 254 (W.D.Texas 1978). The Indiana D.O.C. has the authority to issue regulations in regard to an inmate's personal hygiene pursuant to Indiana Code § 11-11-4-2 which reads:

Sec. 2 The department may supervise and contral the hygiene, grooming, and attire of confined offenders to the extent reasonably necessary to maintain a sanitary, safe, and secure environment. As added by Acts 1979, P.L. 120, SEC. 4.¹

Thus, the question narrows in this case as to whether the aforesaid regulation infringes upon the free exercise rights of the plaintiff who is an inmate incarcerated at the Indiana State Prison. In order to decide that question this court needs to examine the following:

1. What is the general and specific nature of this inmate's religious beliefs?

2. Are those religious beliefs specific or general as to the length and management of human hair?

3. Is this plaintiff sincere in his religious beliefs?

4. Is this particular set of beliefs a "religion" to be protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?

5. Are there overriding administrative and security interests in the institution that circumscribe the professed free exercise conduct in this case?

A.

There were two books provided by the plaintiff in the course of this trial which were examined by the court. The Court has since secured copies of these book from a public library for examination. One book is by Tracy Nicholas, Rastafari, A Way of Life (New York 1979). The other is by Leonard Barrett, The Rastafarians (Boston 1977). Leonard Barrett is also the author of The Rastafarians, A Study in Messianic Cultism in Jamaica (Puerto Rico 1968). The court has also secured and examined a publication by Smith, Augier and Nettleford, called The Report on the Rastafari Movement (1960).²

For want of a better term, the aforesaid books are generally in the area of either social psychology or cultural anthropology. Perhaps they might be considered to be in the area of comparative religion. None of these books are in any way intended to be statements of faith in the sense that the Bible or...