Tarik-El v. Conley
| Decision Date | 02 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-2980,17-2980 |
| Citation | 912 F.3d 989 |
| Parties | Derrick D. NEELY-BEY TARIK-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel L. CONLEY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Joel C. Beauvais, Attorney, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Andrea Elizabeth Rahman, Attorney, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Indiana Government Center South Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before Flaum, Ripple, and Barrett, Circuit Judges.
Derrick D. Neely-Bey Tarik-El filed this action against various officials at the Correctional Industrial Facility ("CIF") in Pendleton, Indiana, and at the Indiana Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). He alleged that the defendants had prevented him from participating fully in the worship services of the Moorish Science Temple of America ("MSTA") held at the CIF, in violation of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It dismissed claims against Commissioner Bruce Lemmon and Superintendent Wendy Knight on Eleventh Amendment grounds and against Officer David Liebel on the ground that he had not participated personally in any of the actions against Mr. Neely-Bey. The district court allowed the damages claims against the remaining defendants to go forward. Following discovery, the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district court granted the motion.
Before us, Mr. Neely-Bey contends that the district court failed to recognize that his complaint sought both damages and injunctive relief. He maintains that his injunctive relief claims must be reinstated because they are unaffected by sovereign or qualified immunity. Moreover, he contends that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to the defendants on his damages claims.
We conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Neely-Bey's claims for damages under the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause and, therefore, affirm the district court's judgment with respect to those claims. We agree with Mr. Neely-Bey that the district court misread his complaint and that it clearly seeks injunctive relief as well as damages against the defendants. Moreover, the district court should have read Mr. Neely-Bey's pro se free exercise claim as seeking injunctive relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq . ("RLUIPA"). Consequently, we must remand so that the district court may consider whether injunctive relief should be granted on the free exercise claim. In addressing this matter, the district court first must determine whether the free exercise claim and RLUIPA claims are moot. If it determines that the claims are not moot, it should consider whether injunctive relief is warranted. As a matter of law, there is no basis for injunctive relief on the establishment clause claims, and we therefore direct the district court to enter judgment in favor of the defendants on those claims.
Until recently, Mr. Neely-Bey was incarcerated at CIF, where he was an active member of the MSTA congregation. The MSTA is a national religious organization founded by Prophet Noble Drew Ali.1 Its most important group worship meeting is held on Fridays and includes recitation of the Moorish American Prayer, during which each adherent "stands, [and] faces the East."2 After the prayer, a group leader reads the Divine Constitution, Bylaws, and verses from the Koran. Following the readings, the leader invites other participants to comment upon the readings. Finally, services conclude with the "Warning from the Holy Prophet" followed by another recitation of the Moorish American Prayer.3 The MSTA also holds "Sunday School."4 During 2013 and 2014, Mr. Neely-Bey attended Friday Holy Day services and Sunday school. The records of the MSTA reflect that Mr. Neely-Bey regularly spoke at these meetings.5
In January 2013, Mr. Neely-Bey submitted an affidavit to IDOC Commissioner Lemmon. The cover letter stated that Mr. Neely-Bey was providing the affidavit to Commissioner Lemmon "so that we may come to an understanding [that] this affidavit is [b]inding on you and you[r] office."6 It asserted that Mr. Neely-Bey was a "Sovereign Moorish National"; that he was not subject to the enactments of the United States Congress because he considered it to be a foreign power; and that he "squarely challenge[d] the fraudulent, usurping entanglement of JURISDICTION" over him.7 The affidavit requested a hearing to establish the IDOC's authority over Mr. Neely-Bey. As a result of the affidavit, the IDOC classified Mr. Neely-Bey as a "Sovereign Citizen," which was designated as a "Security Threat Group."8
Mr. Neely-Bey's affidavit made its way to Brother M. Doles Bey,9 the MSTA minister who led the services at the CIF.10 On April 6, 2014, Brother Doles Bey sent a memorandum on MSTA letterhead to, among others, David Liebel, Director of Religious and Volunteer Services Chaplains at the CIF; Brother V. Jones-Bey, Minister of Institutional Mission Affairs for the MSTA; and Mr. Neely-Bey. In his memorandum, Brother Doles Bey explained that sovereign citizens could not be participating members of the MSTA. The memo related that, at another institution, the MSTA had allowed an inmate with a "Security Group Threat" designation to facilitate a service, and as a result, the institution's MSTA group "was shut down."11 Brother Doles Bey stated that Mr. Neely-Bey could attend services as a "guest," but that he could not teach or serve as a facilitator.12
On March 23, 2015, the Chaplain at the CIF, David Smith, sent a memo to Mr. Neely-Bey in which he stated that he had "received [Mr. Neely-Bey's] request to be added to the MST of A Religious Services group" and that he needed Mr. Neely-Bey "to understand that by returning to this group you agree to fully cooperate with and follow the April 6, 2014 sanctions placed on you by MST of A, Inc."13 Specifically, Mr. Neely-Bey was forbidden from standing, speaking at, or facilitating any of the Friday services. He was allowed to speak when called upon during their Monday meetings; however, he could "not debate, instruct, dominate or speak against the teaching of the Prophet, the MST of A, Inc., or the U.S. Constitution."14
In late summer 2015, Chaplain Smith filed a "Report of Conduct" regarding Mr. Neely-Bey's actions during an MSTA meeting. Chaplain Smith stated that he had witnessed Mr. Neely-Bey "speak and openly participate during the Friday MSTA Holy Day meeting" and that these actions were in violation of the direct order that he had given to Mr. Neely-Bey, orally and in writing.15 Chaplain Smith concluded that Mr. Neely-Bey's "actions ... demonstrated his intention to interfere and disrupt MSTA services on Holy Days."16
Officer Daniel Conley "screened" the conduct report,17 and a hearing was held at Mr. Neely-Bey's request. At the hearing, chaired by Officer Richard Sidwell, it was determined that Mr. Neely-Bey had ignored an order by Chaplain Smith. Mr. Neely-Bey was given twenty hours of extra work to be completed in the next month. Although the determination makes no mention of it, Mr. Neely-Bey testified at his deposition, and the defendants conceded for purposes of summary judgment, that Mr. Neely-Bey "was suspended from [MSTA] meetings for one year."18
Mr. Neely-Bey appealed to CIF Superintendent, Wendy Knight. He argued that the sanction merely enforced the MSTA's ban on his participation in its services. Consequently, because "the State cannot get [in]volved in M.S.T. of A. affairs,"19 the order could not be enforced. Mr. Neely-Bey's appeal was denied. In her explanation, Superintendent Knight stated:
Mr. Neely-Bey filed this action in the district court against Commissioner Lemmon, Superintendent Knight, Director of Religious Services David Liebel, Chaplain Smith, Officer Conley, and Officer Sidwell. He alleged that he had been subjected to religious persecution when his affidavit was forwarded to the MSTA, that the CIF had become entangled in a religious dispute by enforcing the memorandum of Brother Doles Bey, and that the CIF defendants had violated his First Amendment right to free exercise when Brother Doles Bey's memo was enforced. As a remedy, Mr. Neely-Bey requested "that [he] receive $750,000 dollars" and that the defendants "cease all action against [him]."21
The district court screened Mr. Neely-Bey's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.22 The court determined that any claims for damages against Commissioner Lemmon and Superintendent Knight in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and therefore dismissed those claims. It also dismissed the claims against Mr. Liebel because he was not involved personally in the alleged deprivation. The court therefore instructed the clerk "to remove Bruce Lemmon, Wendy Knight, and David Liebel from the docket."23 The court allowed the damages claims against Chaplain Smith, Officer Conley, and Officer Sidwell to proceed. The court's screening order was silent with respect to Mr. Neely-Bey's claims for injunctive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish
...state is inevitable, .... Entanglement must be ‘excessive’ before it runs afoul of the Establishment Clause."); Neely-Bey Tarik-El v. Conley , 912 F.3d 989, 1007 (7th Cir. 2019) (general rule is that, to constitute excessive entanglement, government action must involve intrusive government ......
-
United States v. City of Albuquerque
...affirmed the district court's decision concluding that the police union's motion to intervene was untimely. See State v. City of Chi., 912 F.3d at 989. Two days after the State of Illinois filed a lawsuit against the City of Chicago that alleged that the Chicago Police Department had use-of......
- Cook Cnty. v. Mayorkas
-
Tranchita v. Callahan
...in hound running—substantially pressures her to behave in a way that she believes will harm other animals. See Neely-Bey Tarik-El v. Conley , 912 F.3d 989, 1003 (7th Cir. 2019) (a substantial burden on an individual's religious practice "is one that ‘put[s] substantial pressure on an adhere......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...because “expiration simply allows him to reapply, with no guarantee that his application will be granted”); Neely-Bey Tarik-El v. Conley, 912 F.3d 989, 1004-05 (7th Cir. 2019) (claims for injunctive relief is not mooted despite transfer because new facility may also prevent prisoner from wo......
-
HOW CLEARLY DOES CONGRESS NEED TO WAIVE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY? ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CLEAR STATEMENT RULE.
...majority, finding federal prosecutors and jurors and federal government protected by sovereign immunity). Neely-Bey Tarik-El v. Conley, 912 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 2019) (voting with majority, finding injunctive relief but not money damages available for suits against government officials under ......