Jesus Jehovah v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00087-JCC-IDD. [999638287]. [13-7529]

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 1 of 26

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7529

JESUS EMMANUEL JEHOVAH, a/k/a Robert Gabriel Love, a/k/a
Gabriel Alexander Antonio,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W.
Director,

CLARKE,

Director;

A.

DAVID

ROBINSON,

Deputy

Defendants – Appellees,
and
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden, Sussex I
State Prison; ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, in their official, individual, and private
capacities, jointly and severally; EDDIE L. PEARSON, Warden;
KEISHA FOWLKES, Unit Manager; MS. EVANS, Records Officer;
MS. ANSAH, Corporal; ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES,
INC.;
ANTHONY
KING,
Dr.;
MESELE
GEBREYES,
Dr.;
BENJAMIN ULEP, Dr.,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00087-JCC-IDD)

Argued:

May 12, 2015
Amended:

Decided:
August 11, 2015

July 9, 2015

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Filed: 08/11/2015

Chief

Judge,

Pg: 2 of 26

and

GREGORY

and

FLOYD,

Circuit

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote
the opinion, in which Chief Judge Traxler and Judge Floyd
joined.

ARGUED:
Lola Abbas Kingo, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Trevor Stephen Cox, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
ON
BRIEF:
Steven
H.
Goldblatt,
Director,
Clay Greenberg, Student Counsel, Elizabeth Purcell, Student
Counsel, Appellate Litigation Program, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW
CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Mark R. Herring,
Attorney General of Virginia, Cynthia E. Hudson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, Linda L. Bryant, Deputy Attorney General,
Public Safety & Enforcement, Richard C. Vorhis, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Kate E. Dwyre, Assistant Attorney General,
Stuart A. Raphael, Solicitor General of Virginia, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

2

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 3 of 26

GREGORY, Circuit Judge:
Inmate

Jesus

Emmanuel

Jehovah

appeals

from

the

district

court’s dismissal of his pro se claims against the Commonwealth
of

Virginia

Virginia

and

various

Department

of

employees

Corrections

and

contractors

(“VDOC”).

of

Jehovah

the

claims

that Appellees violated his free exercise rights under the First
Amendment

and

the

Religious

Land

Use

and

Institutionalized

Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) by a) prohibiting him from consuming wine
during communion, b) requiring him to work on Sabbath days, and
c) assigning him non-Christian cellmates.
that

Appellees

medical

needs

demonstrated
in

deliberate

violation

of

the

Jehovah also alleges
indifference

Eighth

to

Amendment.

his
The

district court dismissed sua sponte Jehovah’s Sabbath claims,
cell assignment claims, and deliberate indifference claim, and
granted Appellees summary judgment on the communion wine claim.
We reverse the district court’s judgment in its entirety and
remand for further proceedings.

I.
Jehovah is a VDOC inmate who was incarcerated at Sussex I
Prison (“SIP”) in Waverly, Virginia when he filed this lawsuit.
In his pro se complaint, he alleges four courses of action taken
by

VDOC

employees

that

he

claims

violated

RLUIPA and the First and Eighth Amendments.
3

his

rights

under

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 4 of 26

First, Jehovah claims that various policies have prevented
him

from

taking

communion

in

the

manner

required

by

his

Jehovah’s religion 1 mandates that he take

religious beliefs.

communion by drinking red wine and consuming bread dipped in
honey, olive oil, sugar, cinnamon, and water.

While he was

incarcerated

(“NCC”)

at

Nottoway

Correctional

Center

from

September 2009 to March 2010, Jehovah was not permitted to take
communion

at

all

pursuant

to

a

memorandum

practice for inmates in segregation.
transferred

to

SIP

and

placed

in

prohibiting

the

In April 2010, Jehovah was
the

general

population.

Jehovah requested permission from the warden to take communion
but did not receive a response, so he filed a grievance.

In

January 2011, while Jehovah’s grievance was pending, VDOC issued
a new policy prohibiting all inmates from consuming wine during
communion.

Jehovah filed another grievance, which VDOC denied.

VDOC revised its policy in January 2012 to allow inmates to
consume bread dipped in wine but not to drink wine.
filed a third grievance, which was also denied.

1

Jehovah

In December

Jehovah appears to adhere to his own particular brand of
Christianity, citing to a version of the Bible written by
himself. See J.A. 23 (Compl. n.1). Appellees do not challenge
the sincerity of his beliefs, and it is not within the courts’
purview to “question the centrality of particular beliefs or
practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants’
interpretations of those creeds.”
Hernandez v. Comm’r of
Internal Revenue, 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989).

4

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 5 of 26

2012, VDOC changed its policy yet again to ban inmates from
consuming communion wine by any method. 2
Second, Jehovah asserts that he has been unable to secure a
job that will allow him to observe his Sabbaths.

Jehovah’s

faith prohibits him from working during the “Old Jewish Sabbath”
(Friday
Sabbath”

sundown

to

(Saturday

Saturday
at

sunset

sundown)
to

or

Monday

at

the

“New

Christic

sunrise). 3

VDOC

requires inmates to participate in programming –- including work
and educational activities -- for a certain number of hours per
week in order to be eligible for good conduct allowances and
earned sentence credits.
2011

Jehovah

was

See Va. Code § 53.1-32.1.

assigned

to

a

cleaning

In February

position,

supervisor required him to work seven days a week.

and

his

Jehovah

requested that VDOC accommodate his observance of the Sabbaths,
but VDOC refused, informing him that his failure to work could
lead to sanctions.

He filed a grievance, which VDOC denied.

VDOC staff has not approved him for any job for which he has
applied since December 2011, including jobs for which they had

2

This policy, like the January 2011 policy, allows clergy
to consume wine during services but permits inmates to drink
only wine substitutes such as grape juice.
3

Jehovah is required to devote these days to religious
observance and instruction.

5

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

previously approved him. 4

Pg: 6 of 26

According to Jehovah, “there are few

prison jobs available to him at SIP and other prisons which he
can work and keep observing the Sabbaths.”

J.A. 27 (Compl.

¶ 32).
Third, Jehovah states that VDOC has housed him with “people
who

are

anti-Christian

religious beliefs.

and

unbelievers,”

J.A. 28 (Compl. ¶ 34).

by God not to be yoked to unbelievers.”

contrary

to

his

Jehovah “is directed

J.A. 28 (Compl. ¶ 34).

At one point Jehovah was housed with a “self-proclaimed Satanist
and

anti-Christian,”

religious views.

even

though

VDOC

J.A. 28 (Compl. ¶ 35).

knew

of

Jehovah’s

This inmate harassed

Jehovah and subjected him to “anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, antiGod . . . rhetoric.”

J.A.

28

(Compl.

¶ 35).

After

several

requests to be reassigned, Jehovah filed a grievance to which
VDOC

never

assigned
Muslim,

responded.

to
a

live

with

Since
“an

July

atheist,

false/non-practicing

2011,
an

insincere

Jehovah

agnostic,
Christian,

has
a

been

worldly
a

racist

black anti-Christian atheist, a self-proclaimed ‘Hell’s Angel’
biker,

and

a

black

anti-Christian

J.A. 29 (Compl. n.18).

from

an

anti-white

gang.”

Other VDOC prisons had been able to

4

Jehovah lost his cleaning job on May 17, 2011 after being
placed in segregation.

6

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

accommodate

Filed: 08/11/2015

Jehovah’s

Pg: 7 of 26

requests

to

be

housed

only

with

Christians.
Finally,
medical

Jehovah

ailments

ignored.

In

experienced,

that

alleges

2009

among

VDOC

that
medical

while

other

he

has

staff

have

incarcerated

things,

suffered

at

tongue

various

deliberately
NCC,

lesions,

Jehovah

chest

and

throat pain, difficulty swallowing, coughing, nausea, lethargy,
and

unexplained

weight

loss.

After

medical

staff

at

NCC

“detected and acknowledged” Jehovah’s symptoms but before they
could diagnose them, Jehovah was transferred to SIP on March 26,
2010.

J.A.

30

(Compl.

¶ 43).

Jehovah

developed

further

symptoms after arriving at SIP, and after testing negative for
strep throat he was referred to Dr. King.

On April 15, 2010,

Dr. King examined Jehovah for the first time.

He found holes in

Jehovah’s tonsils but “did not acknowledge” any of Jehovah’s
other symptoms; he ordered a test for HIV, which was negative,
and then did not provide any further care.
¶ 45).

Jehovah’s symptoms worsened, and he sought additional

treatment from Dr. King on June 17, 2010.
of

J.A. 30 (Compl.

Jehovah’s

nasal drip. 5

symptoms

except

his

Dr. King ignored all

coughing,

neck

lesion,

and

Dr. King ordered a chest x-ray and urine and blood

5

At this point in time, Jehovah’s alleged symptoms
included:
“coughing with unusual whitish phlegm, [a] patch of
hair loss and neck lesion on His neck, fatigue, dizziness, night
(Continued)
7

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

tests:

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 8 of 26

the x-ray appeared normal but the urine and blood tests

revealed

abnormalities

consistent

with

infection.

Jehovah

maintains Dr. King ignored these results and provided no further
treatment.

Jehovah saw Dr. King again on July 30, 2010, and

Dr. King referred him to mental health staff, who ultimately
determined that he had no psychological problems.
condition

continued

to

deteriorate. 6

When

Jehovah

Jehovah’s
next

saw

Dr. King on August 30, 2010, Dr. King “disregarded most” of his
symptoms
with

and

treated

Prilosec,

which

him
made

for

gastroesophageal

many

of

Jehovah’s

reflux

disease

symptoms

worse.

J.A. 31 (Compl. ¶ 48).

Dr. King also referred Jehovah to mental

health

be

which

staff
staff

again
found

to
no

evaluated

symptoms.

for

This

bipolar

pattern

disorder,

continued

of

into

sweats, nasal drip, weight loss, a lump under [h]is left ear,
chest pains, chest burning sensations, involuntary muscle spasms
throughout [h]is body, headaches, difficulty sleeping, swollen
lymph nodes, and other symptoms.” J.A. 30 (Compl. ¶ 46).
6

Additional symptoms included “tinnitus/ringing sensations
in
[h]is
hearing/ears,
popping
and
bubbling
sounds
and
sensations and pains in [h]is ears and ear canals; episodic
problems concentrating, slowed cognitive functioning, malaise,
and dizziness; abdominal pains, abnormal stools, and rapidly
passing
consumed
meals;
more
difficulty
swallowing
and
persistent sensations of something being caught in [h]is throat,
neck pain, and sore and tender swollen nodes and tissues in his
neck; more chest pains and of greater intensity, and bones in
[h]is sternum area slightly, audibly, and painfully popping and
moving out of place; worsening muscle spasms, and spontaneous
irregular and painful heartbeats.” J.A. 31 (Compl. ¶ 47).

8

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

2012,

with

acknowledging

Filed: 08/11/2015

Dr.

King

only

and

some

of

Pg: 9 of 26

other

VDOC

Jehovah’s

doctors

symptoms,

allegedly

ignoring

test

results indicating infection, and failing to improve Jehovah’s
condition. 7
Jehovah

filed

this

lawsuit

on

July

11,

2012,

seeking

compensatory and injunctive relief for these alleged violations
of RLUIPA, the First Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment.

On

September 27, 2012, the district court sua sponte dismissed all
of Jehovah’s claims except his communion claim pursuant to the
Prison

Litigation

Reform

Act

(“PLRA”),

28

U.S.C.

§ 1915A.

Appellees moved to dismiss the remaining claim on December 21,
2012.
from

In support of their motion they submitted a declaration
VDOC

Chief

of

Corrections

Operations

discussing the purposes of the wine ban.

A.

David

Robinson

Jehovah responded with

numerous discovery requests to which Appellees responded in part
and

otherwise

objected.

He

then

filed

a

motion

to

compel

discovery and to hold an evidentiary hearing, which the district
court denied on May 17, 2013.
granted
Jehovah’s

Appellees’
RLUIPA

summary

and

First

On August 20, 2013, the court
judgment
Amendment

7

motion
claims

and

dismissed

regarding

the

In 2013, Jehovah filed a notice with the district court
stating that an ultrasound electrocardiogram had revealed that
for two years he had been suffering from pulmonary hypertension
with right ventricle hypertrophy, an irreversible and often
fatal condition.

9

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

communion wine ban.

Pg: 10 of 26

Jehovah timely appealed the dismissal of

all his claims.
II.
On appeal, Jehovah argues that the district court erred in
1)

dismissing

indifference

his

claims

Sabbath,
under

cell

§ 1915A,

assignment,
and

2)

and

deliberate

granting

Appellees

summary judgment on his communion wine claim.
We review de novo a § 1915A dismissal for failure to state
a claim.

Slade v. Hampton Roads Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248

(4th Cir. 2005).

Dismissal is proper only if the plaintiff has

failed to “present factual allegations that ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’”
775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014).
a grant of summary judgment.

Jackson v. Lightsey,

Similarly, we review de novo

Seabulk Offshore, Ltd. v. Am. Home

Assur. Co., 377 F.3d 408, 418 (4th Cir. 2004).

We must “view[]

the

the

facts

and

inferences

drawn

therefrom

favorable to the non-moving party.”

Id.

in

light

most

Summary judgment is

inappropriate if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”

Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
We must construe pro se complaints liberally, Jackson, 775
F.3d at 178, and “[l]iberal construction of the pleadings is
particularly

appropriate

where,

10

as

here,

there

is

a

pro

se

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 11 of 26

complaint raising civil rights issues,” Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d
736, 738 (4th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original).

III.
The First Amendment’s protection of the right to exercise
religious beliefs extends to all citizens, including inmates.
O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987).

In

Turner v. Safley, the Supreme Court held that “when a prison
regulation

impinges

on

inmates’

constitutional

rights,

the

regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests.”
Court

laid

out

a

482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

four-factor

test

for

The Turner

determining

whether

a

prison regulation that infringes on an inmate’s First Amendment
rights is nonetheless reasonable and therefore constitutionally
valid.

First, is there “a ‘valid, rational connection’ between

the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest
put

forward

to

justify

it[?]”

Id.

Second,

are

there

“alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to
prison inmates[?]”

Id. at 90.

Third, what is “the impact

accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on
guards

and

resources

other

inmates,

generally[?]”

and
Id.

on
And

the

allocation

finally,

do

of

there

prison
exist

“obvious, easy alternatives” suggesting that the regulation is
“an ‘exaggerated response’ to prison concerns[?]”
11

Id.

Under

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 12 of 26

this framework, “[t]he burden . . . is not on the State to prove
the

validity

of

disprove it.”
RLUIPA

prison

regulations

but

on

the

prisoner

to

Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003).

provides

more

stringent

protection

of

prisoners’

free exercise rights than does the First Amendment, applying
“strict scrutiny instead of reasonableness.”
472 F.3d 174, 186 (4th Cir. 2006).
entity

from

imposing

a

Lovelace v. Lee,

It prohibits any government

“substantial

burden”

on

an

inmate’s

religious exercise unless the burden “is in furtherance of a
compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive
means

of

furthering

§ 2000cc-1(a).

that . . . interest.”

42

U.S.C.

The inmate bears the initial burden of showing a

substantial burden on her religious exercise, but the government
must establish that the burden is the least restrictive way to
further a compelling governmental interest.

Id. § 2000cc-2(b).

“The

is

least-restrictive-means

standard

exceptionally

demanding, and it requires the government to show that it lacks
other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a
substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting
party.”

Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853, 864 (2015) (internal

quotation marks and alterations omitted).
A.
Jehovah

and

Appellees

agree

that

summary

judgment

of

Jehovah’s RLUIPA claim regarding VDOC’s wine ban was improper
12

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

for two reasons.

Pg: 13 of 26

First, Jehovah did not have the opportunity to

brief the issue of whether the wine ban substantially burdened
his religious exercise.

The district court held that Jehovah

had not demonstrated a substantial burden.
previously

found,

during

the

But the court had

motion-to-dismiss

stage,

that

“[p]rohibiting plaintiff from taking wine with communion burdens
the exercise of his religion.”

J.A. 55.

Because of this, the

parties did not address the substantial burden prong of RLUIPA
in

their

summary

judgment

briefing.

A

district

court

may

resolve a motion for summary judgment on grounds not raised by a
party, but it must first provide notice and a reasonable time to
respond.
App’x

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f); see also Coward v. Jabe, 532 F.

328,

329

(4th

Cir.

2013)

(unpublished)

(“After

giving

notice and a reasonable time to respond, the district court may
grant a motion for summary judgment on grounds not raised by a
party.”).
demonstrate

Jehovah was not afforded the requisite opportunity to
an

issue

of

material

fact

regarding

the

burden

imposed by the wine ban.
Second, the parties agree that the record is insufficient
to

support

the

conclusion

that

the

wine

ban

is

the

least

restrictive means to address the government’s purported security

13

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

interest. 8

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 14 of 26

The Robinson Affidavit, which Appellees proffered in

support of their summary judgment motion, does not even attempt
to explain why an absolute ban is the least restrictive measure
available.

At the very least, the government must “acknowledge

and give some consideration to less restrictive alternatives.”
Couch v. Jabe, 679 F.3d 197, 203 (4th Cir. 2012). 9

Both Jehovah

and Appellees agree that this burden has not yet been satisfied,
and

we

agree.

Therefore,

we

reverse

the

district

court’s

summary dismissal of Jehovah’s RLUIPA wine ban claim and remand
for further proceedings.
Although we must subject Jehovah’s First Amendment claim to
a standard more deferential to VDOC, we find that a reasonable
jury could rule in Jehovah’s favor.

Under Turner, Jehovah bears

the burden of showing not only that his religious exercise was
substantially

burdened,

but

also

that

the

wine

ban

is

“reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
U.S. at 89; see also Overton, 539 U.S. at 132.

not
482

The district

8

Jehovah also argues that a genuine issue of material fact
exists as to whether the government’s security interest is
compelling. Appellant’s Br. 38-40.
9

Jehovah has put forth a number of less restrictive
alternatives, including: 1) to apply the same security measures
used
for
medication
to
wine,
2)
to
allow
Jehovah
an
accommodation to drink wine, and 3) to exclude inmates who have
been convicted of infractions involving stealing or alcohol and
inmates with a history of alcoholism.

14

Appeal: 13-7529

court

Doc: 95

based

Jehovah

Filed: 08/11/2015

its

failed

First
to

Amendment

demonstrate

religious exercise.

Pg: 15 of 26

holding
a

on

its

substantial

finding

burden

that

on

his

As with the RLUIPA claim, the court failed

to provide notice that it would be considering this alternative
ground

for

summary

judgment.

However,

we

may

affirm

the

district court’s grant of summary judgment on any ground in the
record.

Bryant v. Bell Atlantic Md., Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 132

(4th Cir. 2002).

Therefore, we must determine whether a genuine

issue of material fact exists regarding whether the wine ban is
unreasonable under Turner.
Turner’s
connection

first

between

prong
a

asks

legitimate

whether

there

penological

is

a

interest

policy infringing on an inmate’s free exercise.

rational
and

the

482 U.S. at 89.

The Robinson Affidavit attests that the communion wine policy is
motivated

by

“safety

intended

to

avoid

inmates

who

have

unhealthy behavior.

the

and

security

mishandling

struggled

with

J.A. 81-82.

concerns,”

of

alcohol

alcoholism

specifically

and

from

to

prevent

engaging

in

Promoting the inmates’ safety

and health is a legitimate concern.

See McRae v. Johnson, 261

F. App’x 554, 558 (4th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (finding that
“in

the

prison

maintaining

setting,

the

suppression

health

staff . . . constitute

and

compelling

of

safety

contraband . . . [and]
of

governmental

inmates

and

interests.”

(emphasis added) (citing Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 722
15

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 16 of 26

(2005)).

It also seems clear that the communion wine ban is, in

the

general

most

goal:

sense,

restricting

approach

to

unclear,

however,

logically

inmate

preventing
is

wine

alcohol

whether

connected

to

consumption
misuse

the

and

other

its

asserted

a

rational

is

abuse.

Turner

What

prongs

–

is
the

availability of alternative means of exercising the right, the
impact of accommodation, and the existence of alternatives -support the conclusion that the wine ban is reasonable.
In

the

alternative

First
means

consideration.”

Amendment
of

context,

practicing

“the

religion

availability
is

a

of

relevant

Holt, 135 S. Ct. at 862; see also O’Lone, 482

U.S. at 351-52 (analyzing an absolute ban on attending Jumu’ah
and

addressing

participate

in

whether
other

inmates

Muslim

“retain

ceremonies”

the

ability

(emphasis

to

added)).

Although the ban at issue prohibits drinking wine at communion,
it does not prevent inmates from engaging in other aspects of
communion, nor does it affect other religious practices.
noteworthy,
permitted

however,

inmates

to

that

a

previous

consume

wafers

version

dipped

in

of

the

wine.

It is
ban
That

version, like the current one, allowed clergy to bring one fluid
ounce of wine into the prison.
prohibits alcohol on the premises.

Neither version categorically
The only difference between

the two policies is that inmates used to have an alternative
means of consuming communion wine in a controlled environment,
16

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 17 of 26

whereas now they are completely barred from participating in
that practice.
Regarding the impact of an accommodation on other inmates,
guards,

and

prison

Drawing

reasonable

resources,
inferences

the
in

record

is

Jehovah’s

largely

favor,

silent.

however,

a

reasonable jury could find that exempting Jehovah from the ban
would

have

a

minimal

impact

on

prison

resources.

Wine

is

already permitted on the premises, and religious services take
place

in

a

controlled

supervised.

environment

Furthermore,

a

jury

in

which

could

Jehovah

find

that

would

the

be

prison

population would not be endangered by a single inmate with no
history of alcohol abuse consuming a small amount of wine in
this setting.
Finally, Jehovah has proposed several alternatives to the
ban, including:
medication

to

1) to apply the same security measures used for
wine,

2)

to

allow

Jehovah

an

accommodation

to

drink wine, and 3) to apply the ban only to inmates who have
been convicted of infractions involving stealing or alcohol and
inmates with a history of alcoholism.

A reasonable jury could

find that at least one of these alternatives is so “obvious” and
“easy” as to suggest that the ban is “an exaggerated response.”
Turner, 482 U.S. at 90.

Therefore, we reverse the district

court’s

of

summary

dismissal

Jehovah’s

communion claim.
17

First

Amendment

wine

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 18 of 26

B.
The district court dismissed Jehovah’s Sabbath work claims
because

“prisoners

have

no

constitutional

opportunities while incarcerated.”

J.A. 56.

right

to

job

As Jehovah rightly

points out, however, this is not the correct focus of the RLUIPA
and

First

Amendment

inquiries.

The

constitutional

right

in

jeopardy is Jehovah’s right to free exercise of his religious
beliefs;

the

unavailability

of

prison

jobs

accommodating

his

Sabbath schedule is the alleged burden on that right.
To
tending

state
to

a

RLUIPA

show

a

claim,

Jehovah

substantial

sincerely held religious beliefs.

need

burden

only
his

on

plead

facts

exercise

of

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(b); see

also Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114,
1125 (9th Cir. 2013) (“To survive a motion to dismiss on their
RLUIPA

claim,

plaintiffs

must

allege

facts

plausibly

showing

that the challenged policy and the practices it engenders impose
a

substantial

beliefs.”).
occurs

when

burden
“[A]

a

on

the

substantial

state

or

local

exercise
burden

on

of

their

religious

government,

through

religious
exercise
act

or

omission, puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his
behavior and to violate his beliefs.”

Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 187

(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
Here, Jehovah has alleged that his religion requires him to
abstain from working during the “Old Jewish” and “New Christic”
18

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Sabbaths.

He

Filed: 08/11/2015

has

pled

Pg: 19 of 26

that

his

cleaning

job

would

not

accommodate his Sabbath observances, that his requests for job
transfers were denied, and that VDOC staff has not approved him
for any job for which he has applied since December 2011.

He

has further alleged that he will face sanctions and lose the
opportunity

to

accrue

good

conduct

allowances

and

earned

sentence credits if he fails to work for 30-40 hours per week.
Appellees argue that Jehovah simply wishes more jobs would
accommodate his Sabbath schedule, and that therefore he is not
substantially burdened.

They rely on Jehovah’s assertion that

“there are few prison jobs available to him at SIP and other
prisons which he can work and keep observing the Sabbaths.”
J.A. 27 (Compl. ¶ 32) (emphasis added).

See

However, viewing the

facts in the light most favorable to Jehovah, and applying the
requisite

liberal

construction

to

his

pro

se

pleadings,

Jehovah’s assertion that there are few jobs available to him is
not inconsistent with his having applied for and been rejected
from all of those jobs.

As Jehovah puts it, these other jobs

are available to him “in theory,” but he has “plainly alleged
that

these

jobs

were

made

unavailable

Reply Br. 14 (emphasis in original).

to

him.”

Appellant’s

Jehovah has alleged facts

that support a plausible claim to relief.

We therefore reverse

the district court’s dismissal of Jehovah’s RLUIPA claim and
remand for further proceedings.
19

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 20 of 26

The standard for stating a free exercise claim under the
First Amendment is more stringent.

Jehovah bears the burden not

only of demonstrating an infringement of his religious beliefs,
but

also

of

showing

that

VDOC’s

refusal

to

accommodate

his

Sabbath work schedule is not rationally related to a legitimate
penological interest.

Turner, 482 U.S. at 89.

Still, Jehovah’s

pro se civil rights complaint meets the low bar of the motionto-dismiss

stage.

served

making

by

It
it

is

difficult

impossible

to

for

see

what

Jehovah

required work hours entirely during the week.
could

determine

that

granting

Jehovah

to

interest
perform

is
his

One reasonably
an

individual

accommodation is an “obvious, easy alternative[]” that suggests
VDOC’s

actions

inferences

in

are

Jehovah’s

claim for relief.
district

court

unreasonable.
favor,

Drawing

he

has

set

forth

See Jackson, 775 F.3d at 178.

erred

in

dismissing

all

Jehovah’s

reasonable
a

plausible

Therefore, the
First

Amendment

claim.
C.
The

district

court

dismissed

Jehovah’s

housing

claims

because it found that Jehovah “has no right to choose a cellmate
based

on

J.A. 57.
whether

that

person’s

religious

preferences

or

background.”

As discussed above, however, the proper inquiry is
and

to

what

extent

VDOC

20

burdened

Jehovah’s

right

to

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 21 of 26

exercise his sincerely held religious beliefs by assigning him
cellmates who did not share his religious views.
Jehovah’s RLUIPA claim must survive the motion-to-dismiss
stage if he has pled facts tending to show that VDOC’s refusal
to accommodate his housing requests “put[] substantial pressure
on [him] to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.”
Lovelace,

472

F.3d

at

alterations omitted).

187

(internal

quotation

marks

and

Jehovah has alleged that VDOC required

him to “share a cell or anything with persons who are antiChristian
beliefs.

and

unbelievers”

in

contravention

J.A. 28 (Compl. ¶ 34).

of

his

religious

This allegation alone does not

demonstrate that being housed with non-Christians has pressured
him to change his religious conduct.

Jehovah takes issue with

the exposure to non-Christians, not with any effect it has on
his

religious

activities.

As

Appellees

note,

the

few

jurisdictions to address this question have found that being
housed

with

religious

an

inmate

beliefs

who

“does

does
not

p]laintiff’s religious conduct.”

not

inhibit

share
or

the

plaintiff’s

constrain

[the

Steele v. Guilfoyle, 76 P.3d

99, 102 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003); see also Rogers v. Hellenbrand,
No. 03-C-230-C, 2004 WL 433976, at *6 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 4, 2004)
(“There is no indication in his briefs, evidence or proposed
facts that simply being exposed to the religious views of others

21

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 22 of 26

hinders [the plaintiff’s] ability to exercise his own religion
in any way . . . .”), aff’d, 118 F. App’x 80 (7th Cir. 2004).
In addition to his general complaints of being assigned
non-Christian cellmates, however, Jehovah asserts that he was
housed with a particular inmate who subjected Jehovah to “antiChristian” rhetoric.

J.A. 28 (Compl. ¶ 35).

Jehovah states

that he was “burdened, mocked, and harassed on account of [h]is
religious views by being housed in a cell with” this inmate.
J.A. 28 (Compl. ¶ 37).

Construing Jehovah’s pro se complaint

liberally, it is reasonable to infer that Jehovah’s religious
practices were chilled by his cellmate’s religiously motivated
harassment.
sufficient

At the motion-to-dismiss stage, this qualifies as a
prima

facie

showing

under

RLUIPA. 10

We

therefore

reverse the district court’s dismissal of Jehovah’s RLUIPA cell
assignment claim.
For his First Amendment cell assignment claim to survive,
Jehovah must allege sufficient facts showing that VDOC’s refusal
to assign him a different cellmate was not reasonably related to
a

legitimate

penological

interest.

10

Turner,

482

U.S.

at

89.

Since Jehovah has sufficiently pled that his housing
assignments substantially burdened his religious exercise, the
parties agree that remand is appropriate because the record does
not establish whether VDOC’s housing assignment policy is the
least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government
interest.

22

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 23 of 26

Giving his complaint its due liberal construction, we find that
he has done so.
“deliberately
problems

Jehovah states that his cell assignments were

done . . . to

for

[him].”

Furthermore,

he

harass

J.A.

asserts

29

and

cause

(Compl.

that

his

¶¶ 38,

cell

conflict
41

&

and

n.18).

assignments

have

contravened a SIP housing policy requiring an equivalence in
cellmates’ criminal and disciplinary records.
¶ 41 n. 18).
the

inmate

He filed two grievances regarding his issues with
who

response. 11

allegedly

that

penological

concern

facts

Therefore,

harassed

him

J.A. 28 (Compl. ¶ 37).

suggesting

alleged

J.A. 29 (Compl.

we

VDOC
but

was
by

supporting
reverse

the

a

never

received

a

Given these allegations

motivated
animus,

but

not

by

Jehovah

plausible
district

has

claim

court’s

a

legitimate
successfully
to

relief.

dismissal

of

Jehovah’s First Amendment cell assignment claim.

IV.
A

claim

of

deliberate

indifference

in

violation

of

the

Eighth Amendment requires two showings, one objective and one
subjective.

First, the inmate must prove that “the deprivation

of a basic human need was objectively sufficiently serious.”

11

Jehovah’s residence with this inmate came to an end when
Jehovah was placed in disciplinary segregation.

23

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

De’Lonta

Filed: 08/11/2015

v.

Angelone,

330

Pg: 24 of 26

F.3d

630,

634

(4th

Cir.

2003)

(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted, emphasis in
original).

Second,

she

must

prove

that

“subjectively

the

officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted, emphasis
in original).
“Only
objective

extreme

deprivations

component

of

an

conditions of confinement.”

are

Eighth
Id.

adequate
Amendment

in

the

sufficient

light

to

most

support

favorable

such

satisfy

claim

the

regarding

Therefore, Jehovah must allege

a serious injury or a substantial risk of such.
facts

to

a

to

finding.

Id.

Taking the

Jehovah,

they

Jehovah’s

are

alleged

ailments fill two pages of his complaint and include constant
chest

pain,

eyesight.
asserts

chronic
J.A.

that

hypertension

headaches,

37-38

he

has

(Compl.

with

since

right

and

diminished

¶ 69).

been

ventricle

hearing

Furthermore,

diagnosed

with

hypertrophy,

a

and

Jehovah

pulmonary

serious

and

sometimes fatal condition.
Appellees

do

not

appear

to

dispute

that

Jehovah’s

innumerable alleged symptoms constitute serious health issues.
Rather,

they

claim.

Jehovah must show that his doctors were deliberately

indifferent,

focus

or

on

rather,

the

subjective

that

they

24

component

“actually

of

kn[e]w

Jehovah’s

of

and

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 25 of 26

disregard[ed] an objectively serious condition, medical need, or
risk of harm.”

De’Lonta, 330 F.3d at 634.

Appellees argue that Jehovah cannot meet this bar because
he

received

doctors.
consistent

extensive

treatment

from

Dr.

King

and

his

other

But the fact that Jehovah received some treatment is
with

the

allegation

that

his

failed to treat many of his symptoms.

doctors

ignored

and

See id. at 635 (finding

that the fact that the plaintiff received some treatment did not
mean she received treatment for a particular ailment or that the
treatment was reasonable).
acknowledged

some

Jehovah has alleged that his doctors

symptoms

but

ignored

most,

disregarded

abnormal test results, and failed to treat any of his symptoms
effectively.
would

In other words, he has pled facts that, if true,

establish

that

his

doctors

“actually

kn[e]w

of

and

disregard[ed] an objectively serious condition, medical need, or
risk of harm.”

Id. at 634.

Dismissal of Jehovah’s claim is not

appropriate unless he has failed to present factual allegations
supporting a plausible claim to relief.
at 178.

That is not the case here.

See Jackson, 775 F.3d
Therefore, the district

court erred in dismissing Jehovah’s Eighth Amendment claim.

25

Appeal: 13-7529

Doc: 95

Filed: 08/11/2015

Pg: 26 of 26

V.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 12

12

In light of our opinion, the district court should also
reconsider Jehovah’s requests for discovery.

26