Williams v. Bitner
| Citation | 285 F.Supp.2d 593 |
| Decision Date | 30 September 2003 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 1:CV-01-2271. |
| Parties | Henry WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Robert S. BITNER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
David L. Glassman, Lewisburg Prison Project, Lewisburg, PA, for Plaintiff.
Raymond W. Dorian, Office of Chief Counsel, Camp Hill, PA, for Defendants.
Roman P. Storzer, Washington, DC, for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Anne K. Fiorenza, Office of the United States Trustee, U.S. Attorney's Office, Harrisburg, PA, Sara W. Clash-Drexler, Theodore C. Hirt, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Intervenor Defendant.
Before the court is defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 21). Plaintiff, Henry Williams ("Williams"), is an inmate incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Rockview"), who adheres to the Islamic faith. (Doc. 19). He was terminated from his position as cook in the prison kitchen for refusing to serve pork, an act that violates his religion. Id. Plaintiff brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution against the following officers of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC"): DOC Chief Hearing Examiner Robert Bitner ("Chief Examiner Bitner"), DOC Hearing Examiner Jay Stidd ("Hearing Examiner Stidd"), SCI-Rockview Superintendent Robert Meyers ("Superintendent Meyers"), SCI-Rockview Deputy Superintendent Terry Whitman ("Superintendent Whitman"), Program Review Committee ("PRC") Member Robert Kerstetter ("PRC Member Kerstetter"), PRC Member G.P. Gaertner ("PRC Member Gaertner"), PRC Member Frank Tennis ("PRC Member Tennis"), SCI-Rockview Prison Captain George Snedeker ("Captain Snedeker"), Culinary Food Service Supervisor Gary Emel ("Supervisor Emel"), and Culinary Food Service Instructor Scott Wyland ("Instructor Wyland"). (Doc. 19).
Defendants move the court to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint on the following grounds: (1) RLUIPA is unconstitutional, (2) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, (3) defendants did not impose a substantial burden on plaintiff's exercise of his religious beliefs in violation of RLUIPA, and (4) Chief Examiner Bitner, Superintendent Meyers, Superintendent Whitman, PRC Member Kerstetter, PRC Member Gaertner, and PRC Member Tennis did not participate in the alleged deprivation of plaintiff's rights. (Doc. 21). The motion has been briefed by the parties and is now ripe for disposition.
Plaintiff, who is of the Islamic faith, states that the Koran1 directs Muslims not to consume swine and to "refrain from assisting others to consume swine." (Doc. 19 ¶¶ 15-16, 19). Williams further claims that "Islamic scholars also endorse Chapter Eleven of Leviticus in the Old Testament regarding prohibition of adherents from handling swine." Id. ¶ 17. In February 2001, SCI-Rockview staff assigned plaintiff to work as a cook in the prison kitchen, with the proviso that he could work another assignment every other Saturday when the staff served pork for lunch. Id. ¶¶ 21-22.
On Saturday, March 3, 2001, Williams reported to work. (Doc. 19 ¶ 24). The kitchen staff planned to serve hot cakes for breakfast and roast pork for lunch. Id. ¶ 27. Plaintiff cooked hot cakes at the outset of his shift. Id. ¶ 28. The head cook inmate then instructed Williams to perform other kitchen tasks that did not involve the rationing of pork. Id. ¶ 29. However, the kitchen staff suffered from a shortage of cooks on this day and Instructor Wyland directly ordered Williams to ration the pork lunch. Id. ¶¶ 26, 30. Plaintiff refused on the grounds that both the Bible and the Koran prohibited him from helping others to consume pork. Id. ¶ 33.
When plaintiff refused to obey, Instructor Wyland's immediate supervisor, Supervisor Emel, issued plaintiff another direct order to ration the pork lunch. Plaintiff also refused to obey this order. Id. ¶¶ 32-34. Supervisor Emel immediately fired Williams from the kitchen position and advised Instructor Wyland to issue Williams a misconduct for failure to follow a direct order. Id. Subsequently, Captain Snedeker reviewed and approved the decision to issue this misconduct. Id. ¶ 36.
On March 6, 2001, SCI-Rockview staff conducted plaintiff's misconduct hearing. (Doc. 19 ¶ 38). Prior to the hearing, plaintiff submitted a written defense, citing federal caselaw suggesting that a correctional institution cannot force a Muslim to serve pork. Id. ¶¶ 37-39. Additionally, Williams requested that Hearing Examiner Stidd summon the prison's Muslim chaplain. Williams sought the chaplain's testimony to establish that the Islamic faith required plaintiff to abstain from assisting others to eat pork. Id. ¶ 37. Hearing Examiner Stidd denied Williams's request and allegedly disregarded the cited federal caselaw. Id. ¶ 40. Hearing Examiner Stidd found plaintiff not guilty of refusing to work but guilty of refusing to obey an order and sanctioned plaintiff to thirty days of cell restriction.2 Id. ¶ 42-43. Williams appealed the decision to the Program Review Committee ("PRC").3 Id. ¶ 43.
On March 15, 2001, PRC Members Gaertner, Tennis, and Kerstetter reviewed Hearing Examiner Stidd's decision. (Doc. 19 ¶ 45). They sustained his conclusion, finding that Muslim inmate kitchen workers can ration pork since they are required to wear gloves and therefore technically do not touch pork. (Doc 31, Ex. 16). Plaintiff's subsequent appeals from the PRC decision to Superintendent Meyers4 and Chief Examiner Bitner were denied.
Defendants discharged Williams from cell restriction after he had served twenty-seven days of the thirty-day sentence and reassigned him to serve as janitor in the kitchen, a position that provided less compensation than a cook. Id. ¶ 55. Following his reassignment, Instructor Wyland allegedly told Williams that he should be grateful since Instructor Wyland could no longer ask him to work directly with pork. Id. ¶ 57. SCI-Rockview staff placed the misconduct in his institutional disciplinary record, and raised his security classification from low to medium. Id. ¶ 59.
In November 2001, Williams filed the complaint in the case sub judice, asserting claims under § 1983 for violations of RLUIPA and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Doc. 19). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing, inter alia, that RLUIPA is unconstitutional. (Doc. 21). With court approval, the United States and the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty filed briefs in support of RLUIPA's constitutionality. (Docs.34, 40).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal of a claim that fails to assert a basis upon which relief can be granted. FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). When deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court is required to accept all factual allegations in the complaint and reasonable inferences therefrom. Langford v. City of Atlantic City, 235 F.3d 845, 847 (3d Cir.2000) (citing Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996)). "The complaint will be deemed to have alleged sufficient facts if it adequately put[s] the defendant on notice of the essential elements of the plaintiff's cause of action." Id. The court will not dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that "no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002).
"In determining whether a claim should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), a court looks only to the facts alleged in the complaint and its attachments without reference to other parts of the record." Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir.1994). However, the court may consider "undisputedly authentic document[s] that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the [attached] document[s]." Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Ind., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir.1993). The court must grant leave to amend before dismissing a complaint that is merely deficient. See Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116-17 (3d Cir.2000).
To prevail in a § 1983 action, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a person acting under color of state law violated a right secured under the Constitution or laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 798, 806 (3d Cir.2000); Schiazza v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 168 F.Supp.2d 361, 372 (M.D.Pa.2001). In this case, defendants move the court to dismiss plaintiff's § 1983 claims on several grounds: (1) RLUIPA is unconstitutional,5 (2) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, (3) defendants did not impose a substantial burden on plaintiff's exercise of his religious beliefs in violation of RLUIPA, and (4) several defendants did not participate in the alleged deprivation of plaintiff's rights.
Section 2000cc-1(a) of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), pertaining to prison inmates, provides as follows::
No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution, as defined in section 1997 of this title, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person —
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). An act of Congress is presumed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jama v. U.S.I.N.S.
...Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Tp., No. Civ. A. 01-1919, 2004 WL 1837037, at *12-15 (E.D.Pa. Aug.17, 2004); Williams v. Bitner, 285 F.Supp.2d 593, 599-601 (M.D.Pa.2003). The court agrees with the weight of authority cited above that RFRA must survive an Establishment Clause challenge beca......
-
Madison v. Riter
...314 F.3d 1062, 1068-69 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 815, 124 S.Ct. 66, 157 L.Ed.2d 30 (2003); see also Williams v. Bitner, 285 F.Supp.2d 593, 599-601 (M.D.Pa.2003). Courts have also rejected similar Establishment Clause challenges to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, whose re......
-
Williams v. Bitner
...right of Muslim inmates to avoid handling pork was not "clearly established" at the time of these incidents, see Williams v. Bitner, 285 F.Supp.2d 593, 604-05 (M.D.Pa.2003), and now reaffirms this holding. The few courts to consider the precise question have uniformly held that prison offic......
-
Williams v. Bitner
...harassment. The Prison Officials filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the District Court denied. Williams v. Bitner, 285 F.Supp.2d 593 (M.D.Pa.2003). At the conclusion of discovery, the Prison Officials moved for summary judgment, arguing that Williams had not put forward ......
-
RLUIPA at four: evaluating the success and constitutionality of RLUIPA'S prisoner provisions.
...prison practices to accommodate religious exercise that do not fit into any of the above categories. See, e.g., Williams v. Bitner, 285 F. Supp. 2d 593, 605 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (denying summary judgment to defendants on RLUIPA claim because requiring Muslim inmate to handle pork substantially b......
-
Williams v. Bitner.
...District Court WORK RLUIPA -- Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act Williams v. Bitner, 285 F. Supp.2d 593 (M.D.Pa. 2003). An inmate brought an action against state corrections officers under [section] 1983 and the Religious Land use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIP......
-
Williams v. Bitner.
...District Court RELIGION Williams v. Bitner, 285 F.Supp.2d 593 (M.D.Pa. 2003). An inmate brought an action against state corrections officers under [section] 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The district court held that RLUIPA did not violate the Es......