Salahuddin v. Goord
| Decision Date | 27 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 04-3470-PR. |
| Parties | Abdullah Y. SALAHUDDIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glenn GOORD, Commissioner; Dr. Lester N. Wright, Deputy Commissioner/Chief Medical Officer; Donald R. Selsky, Director, Special Housing Unit/Inmate Disciplinary Program; Teresa Knapp-David, Director Classification and Movement; Thomas Egan, Director Inmate Grievance Committee Program/Central Office Review Committee; All Employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("Docs"); John P. Keane, Superintendent; Elias Carrillo, Deputy Superintendent for Programs; T.J. Miller, Deputy Superintendent for Administration; Thomas Briggs, Senior Counselor/Freedom of Information Officer/ Chairman, Program Committee; Tim Turbush, Supervisor, Inmate Grievance Program; Lawrence Jones, Disciplinary Lieutenant; Constant, Lieutenant/Hearing Officer; Ronald Krom, Captain; E. Noecker, Correction Officer; All Employees of the Woodbourne Correctional Facility ("Woodbourne"); David Miller, Superintendent; John Doe, Doctor; Sanchez, Correction Officer; All Employees of the Eastern Correctional Facility ("Eastern"); John McGinnis, Superintendent; John Doe II, Correction Officer; All Employees of the Downstate Correctional Facility ("Downstate"); Hans Walker, Superintendent; John Doe III, Correction Officer; Jane Doe, Nurse; All Employees of the Auburn Correctional Facility ("Auburn"); Ronald Moscicki, Superintendent; Michael R. Marshall, Deputy Superintendent for Administration; Dr. Piazza; Dr. Weyand; Dr. L. Wyzykowski; J. Steeg, Nurse Administrator I; Jane Doe II, Supervisor, Inmate Grievance Program; Murphy, Lieutenant; J. Phillips, Correction Officer; All Employees of the Lakeview Correctional Facility ("Lakeview"); Victor Herbert, Superintendent; Cochran, Sergeant; Stanton, Correction Officer; Fraye, Correction Officer; All Employees of the Attica Correctional Facility ("Attica"); all in their official and individual capacities; and New York State Department of Correctional Services, Defendants-Appellees.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Austin Berry, Rukhsanah Lighari, Jeffrey A. Shooman** (Jon Romberg, on the brief), Seton Hall University School of Law, Center for Social Justice, Newark, NJ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David Lawrence III, Assistant Solicitor General (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, Michelle Aronowitz, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before KEARSE, WALKER and WALLACE,*** Circuit Judges.
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, a prisoner brings two sets of claims relevant on appeal: (1) claims for violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and his free-exercise right under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc; and (2) a claim for violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. The prisoner alleges that prison officials forced Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims to conduct Ramadan services jointly, denied him Islamic holiday meals and the ability to attend Islamic worship services, and refused to provide him with a Muslim chaplain or a free Qur'an. The prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim stems from alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical need for immediate Hepatitis C treatment. The District Court for the Southern District of New York (Charles L. Brieant, Judge) granted summary judgment to the defendants on all of the prisoner's claims. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Plaintiff-appellant Abdullah Y. Salahuddin was and remains in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"). His claims on appeal pertain to aspects of his incarceration at various DOCS facilities.
Salahuddin claims that prison officials violated his constitutional and statutory rights to free exercise of religion in five distinct ways:
Joint-worship claim — Salahuddin claims that while housed in Woodbourne Correctional Facility ("Woodbourne") in 2000, prison officials required that Sunni Muslims, such as Salahuddin, pray and fast for Ramadan jointly with Shi'ite Muslims.
Keeplock claim — Salahuddin was placed in disciplinary keeplock for conspiracy to assault a prisoner in Woodbourne. Salahuddin claims that while in disciplinary keeplock at Auburn Correctional Facility ("Auburn") and Attica Correctional Facility ("Attica"), he was denied the ability to attend Islamic holiday services or, alternatively, to eat holiday meals in his cell.
Qur'an/chaplain claim — Salahuddin claims that although Lakeview Correctional Facility ("Lakeview") would provide him with a Catholic chaplain and a free Bible, it would not provide a Muslim chaplain and, having no Qur'an in the prison library, required him to buy his own copy.
Legal-mail claim — Salahuddin claims that while housed in Attica, defendant-appellee Frey refused to admit Salahuddin into a religious service while carrying legal mail and would not allow Salahuddin temporarily to store the mail at Frey's station outside the service hall, as had been allowed previously.
Law-library claim — Salahuddin claims that while housed in Attica in 2001, defendant-appellee Stanton forced him to choose between using the law library or attending Ramadan services on any given day. Stanton allegedly denied Salahuddin Ramadan meals on days that Salahuddin used the law library.
At the close of discovery, Magistrate Judge Fox recommended granting summary judgment to the defendants on the joint-worship claim and denying summary judgment on the keeplock, law-library, and legal-mail claims. The magistrate judge's report did not address the Qur'an/chaplain claim. After initially adopting the magistrate judge's recommendations in their entirety, the district court, on reconsideration, granted summary judgment to the defendants on all of Salahuddin's claims. Without citation to any authority, the district court concluded that there had been no violation of Salahuddin's free-exercise rights and, alternatively, that qualified immunity protected the defendants.
Salahuddin separately claims that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by delaying treatment for his Hepatitis C infection. The infection was first diagnosed in September or October 2000, while Salahuddin was in custody at Woodbourne. At year's end, a doctor at Woodbourne informed Salahuddin that for the medical staff to determine the correct course of treatment, Salahuddin would have to undergo a liver biopsy.
That biopsy was delayed for several months due to a series of events. First, Salahuddin was administratively tried and placed in disciplinary keeplock in December 2000 for conspiracy to assault an inmate. Next, in late December 2000 and January 2001, Salahuddin was transferred from Woodbourne to Eastern Correctional Facility to Downstate Correctional Facility to Auburn and, finally, to Lakeview, with the liver biopsy delayed during transit.
Then, sometime in February or March 2001, defendant-appellee Dr. Piazza, a physician on Lakeview's medical staff, canceled Salahuddin's liver biopsy because Salahuddin was eligible for parole within the next twelve months. Piazza believed this decision to be mandated by the DOCS Hepatitis C Primary Care Practice Guideline, a DOCS-wide policy promulgated by defendant-appellee Dr. Wright, the DOCS Chief Medical Officer. The record does not contain the text of that policy, but Wright quoted the policy as stating that Hepatitis C treatment will not proceed unless an inmate has "anticipated incarceration of at least 12 months." Wright Aff. ¶ 7. Wright explained that this twelve-month policy was justified because it is medically important for prisoners to receive a complete course of Hepatitis C treatment. Wright testified that "there is no program available to pay for the treatment and monitoring of completion of care of the patient after release." Id. ¶ 14. Wright further stated that it was justifiable to assure a complete course of treatment by postponing treatment until after a parole decision because "Hepatitis C tends to have a relatively slow progression ... usually occur[ing] over a period of two to three decades" and "is NOT invariably fatal." Id. ¶¶ 8, 9.
Wright stated that he told prison medical staff that he, himself, would determine an inmate's likely length of incarceration "based on [his] best prediction of what [the] Parole Board will determine." Id. ¶ 14. Aware of the written policy but evidently unaware of Wright's instructions, Piazza interpreted the policy as forbidding treatment of inmates within one year of their parole-eligibility date, not their expected release date as determined by Wright. Thus, in early 2001, Piazza canceled Salahuddin's liver biopsy without further inquiry.
On the day before Salahuddin's July 2001 parole hearing, Wright intervened and placed Salahuddin's treatment back on track by approving Salahuddin for a liver biopsy. The next day, Salahuddin went before the parole board and was denied parole. Salahuddin received the liver biopsy sometime during or before December 2001 — neither party has seen fit to inform us of the precise date. After Salahuddin spent several months on a national waiting list for a new medication, an unidentified physician at Attica, where Salahuddin was then incarcerated, canceled an eventual shipment of medication because Salahuddin then had less than twelve months remaining until his next parole-board hearing. In December 2002, Wright intervened again and ordered expedited delivery of the medicine, which Salahuddin began receiving in January 2003. During the more than two years between his diagnosis and his eventual receipt of medication, Salahuddin complained to various prison officials...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramsey v. Goord
...the prisoner demonstrate "that the disputed conduct substantially burdens his sincerely held religious beliefs." Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 274-75 (2d Cir.2006) (italics added) (citing RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a), and Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582, 587 (2d Cir.2003) (First Amen......
-
Durr v. Slator
...offending conduct is inadequate and what harm, if any, the inadequacy has caused or will likely cause the prisoner." Salahuddin v. Goord , 467 F.3d 263, 280 (2d Cir. 2006). Where a plaintiff alleges that inadequate care was provided—instead of alleging a failure to provide any treatment—the......
-
Gawlik v. Semple
...the plaintiff to show "that the disputed conduct substantially burdens his sincerely held religious beliefs." Salahuddin v. Goord , 467 F.3d 263, 274–75 (2d Cir. 2006). At least in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the continuing vitality of the "substantial burden"......
-
Schlosser v. Droughn
...that the official “act[ed] or fail[ed] to act while actually aware of a substantial risk that serious inmate harm [would] result.” Salahuddin, 467 F.3d at 280. official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he......
-
THE HORROR CHAMBER: UNQUALIFIED IMPUNITY IN PRISON.
...particular prison moots his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to his incarceration there."); Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 272 (2d Cir. 2006) ("[A]n inmate's transfer from a prison facility generally mootsclaims for declaratory and injunctive relief against offi......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...unit transfer for inmate who performed allegedly radicalizing sermons reasonable under Turner). But see, e.g., Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 275, 277-78 (2d Cir. 2006) (regulation imposing joint Ramadan ceremonies for Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims, excluding Muslim prisoner from religious ......
-
The Big Man in the Big House: Prisoner Free Exercise in Light of Employment Division v. Smith
...prisoner-specific test set forth in Turner and O’Lone ,” but applying Turner because neither party raised the issue); Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 274 n.3 (2d Cir. 2006) (declining to explore “what effect the Supreme Court’s decision in [ Smith ] has on the O’Lone standards for judgin......