Williford v. People of California

• Decision Date: 07 May 1963
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 8567.
• Citation: 217 F. Supp. 245
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: Robert Louis WILLIFORD, Plaintiff, v. The PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, Robert A. Heinze, Warden, Folsom State Prison, and John Does, Defendants.

217 F. Supp. 245

Robert Louis WILLIFORD, Plaintiff, v. The PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, Robert A. Heinze, Warden, Folsom State Prison, and John Does, Defendants.

Civ. No. 8567.

United States District Court N. D. California, N. D.

May 7, 1963.

Robert Louis Williford in pro. per.

Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edsel W. Haws, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., for defendants.

HALBERT, District Judge.

On November 23, 1962, this Court ordered that plaintiff, Robert Louis X. Williford, be allowed to file, in forma pauperis, an action by which he alleged certain violations of his civil rights. Jurisdiction of this Court was predicated upon the Federal Civil Rights Act Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.. Since that time, plaintiff has established, and kept open, a running line of communications with the Court, seeking all manner of temporary relief. The case is now before the Court for determination of the State's motions to dismiss Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for summary judgment Rule 56 of said rules. In support of said motions, the State sets forth the following contentions: (1) the complaint fails to state a claim for relief; (2) the federal questions presented by the complaint are frivolous, in light of the State's affidavits and exhibits; (3) plaintiff has presented no claim for money damages against any individual defendant; (4) no genuine issue as to any material fact is presented; and (5) the State's affidavits and exhibits establish the existence of certain controlling facts.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner presently incarcerated in the California State Prison at Folsom, claims to be a follower of the Islamic religion. By this allegation, he includes himself within the membership of that organization known as the Black Muslims. He contends that he has been systematically harassed in the exercise of his religion, and seeks, as balm for this alleged harassment, $100,000 general damages and $50,000 punitive damages. He also seeks to have the continuance of such alleged harassment enjoined.

Robert A. Heinze, Warden of Folsom Prison, has submitted an affidavit by which certain facts are asserted. The primary facts set forth in this affidavit can be summarized as follows:

1. The basic doctrine of the Muslims is set forth as a belief in the solidarity and supremacy of the dark-skinned races together with the militant doctrine that integration of white and dark-skinned races is contrary to the laws of God and nature. Plaintiff is a member of this group.

2. Within the confines of Folsom Prison, there exists a 138-cell Adjustment Center. This is a separate, three-story building. Inmates "who by their conduct and attitudes are unable to adjust to the routine within the general population in accordance with Rule D-4205" Exhibit F, attached to the State's motion are assigned to segregation status within the Adjustment Center, and are quartered on the top two floors.¹ These inmates receive all privileges accorded the general prison population, except that they may not view motion pictures which are shown in the main dining room. Inmates quartered on the first floor of the Adjustment Center are confined for violations of rules and regulations of the prison. These inmates are on isolation status. They are denied most of the privileges enjoyed by the general prison population. They are, however, allowed visiting rights, mail privileges, the right to smoke, and the right to exercise in the isolation yard. Out of approximately 65 Muslims within Folsom Prison, only 7 are presently assigned to the Adjustment Center. This assignment, moveover, is not, according to the Warden, related to the mere fact of the beliefs of these Muslims.

3. Plaintiff presently is on segregation status in the Adjustment Center. He has received institutional punishment of ten days' loss of exercise privileges for violating orders previously given him. He has also received institutional punishment on numerous occasions for violations of rules and regulations of the prison.

The State alleges that no discrimination, punishment or discipline has been meted out to plaintiff solely because of his religious beliefs. Plaintiff contests this allegation, apparently confusing the restriction of religious action and practice with a restriction of mere belief. One of the complaints made by plaintiff is that he has been denied the right to conduct Muslim religious services. Warden Heinze points out that although it is the policy of the California Department of Corrections to encourage religious worship and religious instruction within Folsom Prison, no inmates of any religion are permitted to conduct a religious service in the capacity of a minister. Moreover, no unsupervised groups, such as a group of Muslims attempting to participate in a Muslim service in the exercise yard, are permitted for any purpose.

It has been determined by the Department of Corrections that the Muslims are not entitled to be classified as a religious group. This determination was made for the purpose of administering the prison system in order to preserve the health, safety and welfare of the inmates thereof, and has been approved by the State Advisory Committee on Institutional Religion. The authority for such determination is to be found in California Penal Code §§ 5054 and 5058.² The reasons for the determination are set forth in defendants' Exhibit D a copy of Administrative Bulletin No. 58/16 (First Revision) from the Department of Corrections, dated May 18, 1961 as follows: the Muslims deviate from true Islamic teachings by (1) the doctrine of the superiority of one race, (2) the doctrine of complete segregation of the races, (3) the doctrine that only members of a particular race may become Muslims, and, most important, (4) the basic aim and object to be carried out by preaching destruction to the present world of white mankind.

As a consequence of the above determination, plaintiff and other Muslims are not permitted to assemble for the purpose of exercising and discussing the doctrines of their beliefs. Outside Muslim leaders are not permitted to meet with plaintiff or other Muslims in the prison for the purpose of conducting Muslim services. Newspapers and other media propounding the supremacy views of the Muslims are not permitted to plaintiff or any other inmate. Plaintiff is permitted the orthodox Holy Koran, which is recognized as the scriptures of the Mohammedan world. He is not, however, permitted to purchase or possess a version of any bible or other literature adapted by the Muslims to support their doctrine of the supremacy and solidarity of the dark-skinned races.

Plaintiff, by his response to the State's motions, has controverted several of the above allegations, each time by recitations of conclusionary language. He alleges discrimination against himself and other Muslims based solely upon the Muslim beliefs. He attempts to substantiate such allegations by setting forth instances of restrictions of his actions, as opposed to restrictions of his beliefs. He also points out that the general policy of the Department of Corrections to encourage religious worship and instruction is, by defendants' own allegations, withheld from the Muslims. Plaintiff contends that it is no duty or responsibility, or, indeed, any right, of defendants to pass judgment upon what they think constitutes a religion. Finally, he points out that the Holy Koran authorized by the Department of Corrections is not recognized by Muslim religious leaders.

In view of the contentions set forth by plaintiff, and notwithstanding the fact that they are almost entirely of a conclusionary nature, it is apparent that certain substantial issues of fact are raised in this action. For that reason, the State's motion for summary judgment, under the provisions of Rule 56, must be denied (See: United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176; Neff Instrument Corp. v. Cohn Electronics, Inc., 9 Cir., 269 F.2d 668; and Cox v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co., 9 Cir., 249 F.2d 616).

Within the above framework, the Court proceeds to consider the State's motion to dismiss. The crucial question in this case is whether plaintiff, and other inmates similarly situated, have a constitutional right to carry their beliefs into action by being afforded the right to conduct religious services within the prison. The State concedes that the Muslims are not accorded the status of a religion and are not allowed to practice their beliefs, whether or not said beliefs be religious. The State contends that such a requirement, that the Muslims be allowed to engage in the practice of their services, would be detrimental to the administration of the prison and would present a serious threat to the maintenance of order therein. Support for this contention is found in the Muslim beliefs themselves, which apparently prevent the Muslim from cooperating with prison officials and other inmates. The files of this very action indicate an intransigence on the part of plaintiff (and, in related cases, of other Muslims) toward procedures which have been determined to be necessary for the orderly process of the courts.³

The Muslim problem has been considered on a number of occasions by both state and federal courts.⁴ Similar problems involving the relationship of other religious groups to prison inmates have also been considered.⁵ No court has, however, considered this problem in the light in which it is now viewed by this Court.

Here in this jurisdiction, the very organization with which we are presently concerned was considered recently by the California Supreme Court in In re Ferguson, 55 Cal.2d 663, 12 Cal.Rptr. 753, 361 P.2d 417. Parenthetically, it might here be noted that the California Supreme Court is not known as an overly-conservative court. That Court unanimously held, however, that the Muslims had no constitutional right, either state or...