Rufus W. v. Grams
| Decision Date | 08 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–cv–687–slc.,11–cv–687–slc. |
| Citation | 981 F.Supp.2d 820 |
| Parties | Rufus WEST, a/k/a Mansa Lutalo Iyapo, Plaintiff, v. Gregory GRAMS, Mike Meisner, Mardel Petras, Rick Raemisch, Gary Hamblin, Chaplain Campbell, Chaplain Mark Teslik, John Doe Dai Administrators, William Grosshans, Melissa Schueler, David Lipinski and Glen Bennett, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Rufus West, Portage, WI, pro se.
Jody J. Schmelzer, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, WI, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Mansa Lutalo Iyapo (who was incarcerated under the name Rufus West but asks to be referred to by his “spiritual name”), is a Muslim inmate proceeding on claims that prison officials are: (1) violating his rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by prohibiting Jumu'ah, Talim and Eid al-Fitr services to be held without a volunteer leader from outside the prison; and (2) violating his rights under the First Amendment by retaliating against him for debating when it is proper to serve meals to Muslim inmates during Ramadan.
In a March 25, 2013 order, I denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Now before the court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, along with plaintiff's motions regarding storage of his legal file and motion for appointment of counsel. For the reasons stated below, I am granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and directing the clerk of court to enter judgment in favor of defendants. I am denying as moot plaintiff's motions regarding storage of his legal file and for appointment of counsel.
The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. In addition, the parties' proposed findings of fact incorporate the proposed findings from the parties' earlier briefing of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. I find from these multiple sets of proposed findings of fact and supporting materials that the following facts are material and undisputed, unless otherwise noted:
I. FactsA. Parties
Plaintiff Mansa Lutalo Iyapo is a prisoner of the State of Wisconsin. Since July 3, 2007, he has been incarcerated at the Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI), a maximum-security prison. Defendant Gregory Grams was the warden at CCI from December 25, 2004 through April 30, 2011. Defendant Mike Meisner has been the warden at CCI since April 24, 2011. Defendant Mardel Petras was a correctional program supervisor at CCI from November 5, 2000 through April 1, 2011. Defendant Rick Raemisch was the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) from September 1, 2007 through December 31, 2010. Defendant Leo Campbell was a chaplain at CCI from May 13, 2007 through April 30, 2012. Defendant Gary Hamblin became the Secretary of DOC on January 3, 2011.2 Defendant William Grosshans was employed at the DOC Division of Adult Institutions from January 18, 2009 through January 3, 2011. Defendant Mark Teslik has been a chaplain at CCI since December 5, 2010. Defendant Melissa Schueler is a corrections program supervisor at CCI. David Lipinski has been a shift captain at CCI since May 9, 2010. Glen Bennett is the food service manager at CCI.
B. DOC policies
It is the DOC's policy that incarcerated inmates have opportunities to pursue lawful religious practices of the religion of their choice consistent with security practices and principles, rehabilitative goals of inmates, health and safety, allocation of limited resources, and responsibilities and needs of the correctional institution and facilities. DAI Policy # 309.61.01 sets forth a structure to accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of DOC inmates. Inmates may exercise their religious beliefs and practices in the following ways: (1) congregate services; (2) religious diet requests; (3) individual study; (4) personal meditation; (5) utilization of religious books and/or property; (6) celebration of a religious feast; (7) individual religious observance in their living quarters; (8) correspondence with fellow believers; (9) pastoral visits; and (10) requesting to abstain from work or program on religious days of observance.
DAI Policy 309.61.01 states in part as follows: “Under no circumstances are inmates authorized to lead or conduct a religious service or study group.” The parties agree that sometime in the past, CCI prisoners were allowed to lead Islamic prayers, but dispute whether this was stopped in 2005 or 2006.
Defendants assert that prison security is threatened when individual inmates are able to differentiate themselves and be seen as leaders of a group. Defendants are concerned that allowing inmates to lead religious activities would give a perception of authority over other inmates, could allow an inmate to influence other inmates' actions, and would blur the necessary distinction between staff and inmates. On the other hand, plaintiff points out that CCI allows prisoners to organize softball and basketball teams, on which inmates are allowed to have leadership positions such as captain or manager.
Defendants respond that:
• DOC historically and continually has had problems with gangs attempting to take over religious groups, with the religious groups then affording cover for gang activity;
• Allowing an inmate to lead a religious group empowers gang leaders, which increases the potential for strong-arming, violence, introduction of contraband, group resistance and coordinated gang activities; and
• Gang activities become more difficult to monitor and control with inmate-led groups.
Plaintiff rejoins that he has observed Muslim inmates lead services (and has led them himself) and there has never been a problem. (Plaintiff also states flatly that Wisconsin prisons have never had a problem with Muslims leading services, but he does not have personal knowledge to back up this blanket statement.)
DOC correctional institutions have had a difficult time identifying and maintaining Islamic volunteers to come to institutions on a weekly basis, because most Islamic leaders have their own mosques for which they are responsible for providing leadership. Defendant Teslik has contacted Islamic leaders with whom he has had contact during his employment with DOC, and has asked them for names of potential Islamic leaders who would be willing to volunteer, but due to time, work and travel constraints, many of the Islamic leaders that he has contacted were not able to commit to coming to the institution on a regular basis. Over the past eight years, Teslik estimates that he has contacted at least ten Islamic organizations or volunteers in an effort to request their assistance in providing services at CCI. DOC directly employs two Islamic chaplains, and Teslik has at times requested one of them come to CCI to lead Jumu'ah or Eid prayers, but due to time and work constraints, they are not able to come to CCI on a regular weekly basis. As a Protestant chaplain, Chaplain Teslik is not allowed to lead prayers in the absence of an Islamic volunteer.
C. Weekly Services
As part of his Muslim beliefs, plaintiff believes that every Friday he must participate in Salat–ul–Jumu'ah (Friday Prayers). Salat–ul–Jumu'ah is a congregational prayer only and cannot be offered alone. An imam is necessary to lead Jumu'ah prayers. Plaintiff believes that the imam can be any Muslim in attendance.
Plaintiff also believes that although it is not obligatory that he attend weekly Talim (Islamic Study Group), he believes that he is “required” to do so in order to learn more about Islam and raise questions about Islamic affairs. Plaintiff does not explicitly state that an imam is necessary for Talim, but I can infer from both sides' proposed findings that this is the case.
There was a time at CCI where defendant Petras, the former corrections program supervisor at CCI, did, on occasion, allow the inmates to lead Jumu'ah prayer when there was no volunteer available, based on rotating the leader among the group. The parties dispute what occurred under this policy, with defendants stating that the inmates refused to cooperate, and plaintiff denying this. Ultimately, the practice of having inmate-led Jumu'ah prayer when a volunteer was not available was discontinued.
When plaintiff was incarcerated in the Waupun, Columbia and Green Bay Correctional Institutions between 1995 and 2001, he was never deprived of the opportunity to attend Jumu'ah, Eid, or Talim due to the absence of an imam, mainly because there was a fellow prisoner who served as an imam. Also, plaintiff includes testimony from Joseph White, who was imprisoned in the federal prison system from 1992–2000 and who witnessed inmates lead Islamic services.
On July 3, 2007, plaintiff was transferred from the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility to CCI, where he immediately signed up to participate in all Islamic activities. Plaintiff learned quickly after arriving at CCI that defendants Grams, Petras, Raemisch, Campbell and John Doe were enforcing a policy that no longer allowed prisoners to be imams and lead Jumu'ah and Talim. Instead, Jumu'ah and Talim would be held when an outside Islamic volunteer was available to come to CCI to lead those services. If the volunteer was unable to make it to CCI to lead those services, then the services would be canceled. After becoming employed by the DOC, defendants Grosshans, Teslik, Meisner and Schueler have also participated in enforcing the policy. Because the prison relies on volunteer leaders, these services are sporadic. Muslims who have been imprisoned at CCI between July 2, 2007 to the present and the date of his filing have missed weekly services over 150 times. Plaintiff notes further that he has been imprisoned in all five of Wisconsin's maximum-security prisons, and each one of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Hamblin
...under the free exercise clause challenging the “nonprisoner volunteer” requirement in the context of group religious services. West v. Grams, 981 F.Supp.2d 820, 11–cv–687–slc, 2013 WL 5966165 (W.D.Wis. Nov. 8, 2013); Kramer v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 10–cv–224–slc (W.D.Wis. Jul. 26,......