Yahweh v. U.S. Parole Com'n
| Decision Date | 15 August 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-2848-CIV-MOORE.,01-2848-CIV-MOORE. |
| Citation | 158 F.Supp.2d 1332 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
| Parties | Yahweh Ben YAHWEH, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Defendant. |
Jon Allen May, May & Cohen, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff.
J. Kirk Ogrosky, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorneys Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Yahweh Ben Yahweh's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed June 29, 2001; Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Default, filed July 25, 2001; and Defendant United States Parole Commission's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed July 30, 2001. A hearing was held on said Motions on August 3, 2001, and argument from counsel for both parties was heard.
UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motions, the parties' responses and replies, and the evidence and arguments presented at the August 3, 2001 hearing, the Court enters the following Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and denying Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction and for Preliminary Injunction by Default.
Yahweh Ben Yahweh brought this action challenging his parole conditions and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. This action poses three fundamental issues. The first issue is whether habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy by which parolees may challenge the conditions imposed on their release. If so, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and it should be dismissed without further consideration.
The second issue is whether a parolee must exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the conditions of his parole. If so, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Yahweh Ben Yahweh had the right to appeal the decision of the Parole Commission, had notice of his right of appeal, and failed to appeal.
The third issue is, if this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, whether Yahweh Ben Yahweh has shown that the parole conditions are invalid and that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing their enforcement.
The Court finds that all three of these questions should be answered in the negative. Analogous Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent dictates that this Court find that habeas corpus is not the exclusive remedy of parolees challenging the conditions of their release. In addition, no law requires Yahweh Ben Yahweh to exhaust his administrative remedies before pursuing this action. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. However, Yahweh Ben Yahweh has failed to show that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction, because he has not shown that the conditions are invalid, and therefore, he is not likely to succeed on the merits of his Complaint.
In this action, Yahweh Ben Yahweh challenges the imposition of the following parole conditions upon his mandatory release, which will occur on August 17, 2001:
You shall not associate or have any contact with members of the Black Hebrew group.1 This includes direct or indirect contact through any means, to include internet, television, radio, phone, written form or in person. This includes residence, employment, social or other activities, without the prior written approval of your U.S. Probation Officer ....
In addition, you shall be precluded from employment provided by members of the Black Hebrews or the group itself or associated in any manner with group members without prior written approval of the U.S. Probation Officer.
Further, you shall be prohibited from use of the internet as a means of communication with members of the Black Hebrews. You shall not possess a computer with internet access either personally or as part of any employment unless approved in writing by your U.S. Probation Officer.2
Yahweh Ben Yahweh moved to Miami in 1979, and began spreading his message that "blacks are the true Jews, that God and Jesus are black, and that he has been chosen by `the Terrible Black God, Yahweh' to lead blacks from years of oppression to the promised land of Israel."3 His following grew, and by late 1980, the Nation of Yahweh bought a Miami building known as the "Temple of Love."4 Many businesses were established inside the Temple, and followers lived inside the Temple and gave all their possessions to the Temple.5
Beyond these basic facts, the history of Yahweh Ben Yahweh and the religion of the Nation of Yahweh is a history of dichotomy. On one hand, the Nation of Yahweh has been recognized as a legitimate religion, and the Eleventh Circuit has stated that the religion "had adherents who never became involved in illegal activity and who were not implicated in this conspiracy."6 Indeed, at the August 3 hearing, counsel for Yahweh Ben Yahweh introduced a number of followers of the Nation of Yahweh, which he represented to include, among others, a doctor, a lawyer, a business executive, an electrician, a registered nurse, a legal assistant, a lab technician, and a beauty salon owner and operator. Yahweh Ben Yahweh's counsel observed that these people, and others like them in the community, "who preached and who represented values of self-worth and self-reliance and independence made a contribution to the community that for a period of time ... was recognized" as having "a significant positive impact on the community."7
The undersigned also heard the testimony of Wendellyn Rush, who is an attorney and has represented Yahweh Ben Yahweh in his parole proceedings.8 She characterized herself as an adherent to the Nation of Yahweh, and described the basic tenets of the religion.9 She testified that she believes that "there is one God, Yahweh, who is the father of all men; that the Bible in Yahweh Ben Yahweh is the great light and the guide and the rule of faith and practice," and "that destiny is determined by character, integrity and morality."10 She further testified that followers of the Nation of Yahweh religion 11
On the other hand, apparently at odds with these tenets, the history of Yahweh Ben Yahweh and the Nation of Yahweh is besmeared by acts of violence. The criminal trial of Yahweh Ben Yahweh and his co-defendants was characterized by then Chief Judge Roettger as "arguably the most violent case ever tried in federal court: the indictment charges the sixteen defendants on trial with 14 murders by means such as beheading, stabbing, occasionally by pistol shots, plus severing of body parts such as ears to prove the worthiness of the killer."12 Ultimately, Yahweh Ben Yahweh was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), which makes it unlawful for any person to conspire to violate RICO.13
In upholding this conviction, the Eleventh Circuit observed that the government proved that Yahweh Ben Yahweh agreed to the commission of two or more of eighteen predicate criminal acts of homicide, attempted homicide, and arson.14 The Eleventh Circuit also determined that the government proved that these acts "all revolved around the simple purposes of silencing dissension, retaliating for community resistance, and making the `death angels' a reality," and continued over approximately a five-year period.15 It further determined that the government proved that these racketeering acts "bolstered members' morale and commitment to the group and reinforced members' hostility to the outside community."16 Lastly, the Eleventh Circuit stated that the jury "properly rejected [Yahweh Ben Yahweh's] argument that the government merely showed his innocent association with the enterprise."17 Indeed, it held that evidence of Yahweh Ben Yahweh's religious beliefs was properly admitted at the trial because "the evidence was relevant to show how Yahweh exerted influence and control over the members and how he used his preachings to justify heinous crimes."18
Faced with these dichotomies inextricably intertwined with the history of Yahweh Ben Yahweh and the Nation of Yahweh this Court turns to the issues presented above.
The Parole Commission has moved to dismiss on the ground that habeas corpus is the exclusive means by which Yahweh Ben Yahweh may challenge his parole conditions, and therefore, that this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to consider a challenge to parole conditions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. The parties have acknowledged, and the Court agrees, that the narrow issue of whether habeas corpus is an exclusive remedy for parolees challenging the conditions of their release is a matter of first impression within the Eleventh Circuit. However, similar issues have been addressed in both the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit, and to the extent that the underlying rationale in those cases can be analogized to the instant case, their reasoning will be adopted and followed by this Court.
The starting point of this analysis is the seminal case of Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). In Preiser, state prisoners brought a Civil Rights Act suit to compel the restoration of good-conduct-time credits, which were revoked as a result of disciplinary proceedings. Id. Restoration of the credits would have resulted in the prisoners' immediate release on parole. Id. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the action because, "when a prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cordell v. Tilton
... ... § 1983 ("Section 1983") in which he alleges that his parole supervisors ("Defendants") imposed and enforced unconstitutional ... 3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir.2003); Bagley, 718 F.2d at 925; see also Yahweh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 158 F.Supp.2d 1332, 1344 (S.D.Fla.2001) (applying ... ...
- Trisvan v. Annucci
-
Thornton v. Schwarzenegger
... ... Secretary of Corrections; JOHN DOE LEWIS, Parole Unit Supervisor; ... MARK JOSEPH, Parole Agent; ... CHRISTINE CAVALIN, ... ) (stating parole conditions may be challenged under § 1983), and Yahweh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n , 158 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 1340 (S.D. Fla. 2001) ... language of § 1983, however, is not conclusive of the issue before us. The statute is a general one, and, despite the literal applicability of ... ...
-
D'Amario v. Weiner, CIVIL ACTION No. 12-6098
... ... 2009) (per curiam) (addressing challenges to conditions of special parole in § 2241 proceeding). Indeed, D'Amario has already filed a habeas ... Tex. July 14, 2010); Yahweh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 158 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 1338 (S.D. Fla. 2001) ... ...
-
Religion.
...County Work Release Facility, Indiana) U.S. District Court RFRA-Regligious Freedom Restoration Act PAROLE Yshweh v. U.S. Parole Com'n 158 F.Supp.2d 1332 (S.D.Fla. 2001). A parolee sought declaratory judgment that his conditions of his parole violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (R......
-
Release.
..."give praise to God." (Allen County Work Release Facility, Indiana) U.S. District Court PAROLE- CONDITIONS Yahweh v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 158 F.Supp.2d 1332 (S.D.Fla. 2001). A parolee sought declaratory judgment that his conditions of his parole violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ......
-
Habeas corpus.
...rendered the prisoner competent. (Arkansas Department of Corrections) U.S. District Court PAROLE Yahweh v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 158 F.Supp.2d 1332 (S.D.Fla. 2001). A parolee sought declaratory judgment that his conditions of his parole violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and......