Sabir v. Williams et al

Filing 16

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Reopen the case and Amend Complaint. Mr. Sabir's First Amendment Free Exercise claim and RFRA claim as alleged in theAmended Complaint may proceed against Defendants in their official capacities for injunctive and declaratory relief. The RLUIPA claim is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 12/19/2017. (Riegel, J.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
RAFIQ SABIR,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
D.K. WILLIAMS, ET AL.
Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-749 (VAB)

RULING ON MOTION TO REOPEN AND AMEND COMPLAINT
Rafiq Sabir (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Sabir”) has moved the Court to reopen his case
and accept his Amended Complaint. Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 15.
For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. The Amended Complaint is
DISMISSED in part but may proceed against the two defendants in their official
capacities for injunctive and declaratory relief.
I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUD
On May 8, 2017, Mr. Sabir, an inmate currently confined at the Federal

Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut (“FCI Danbury”), filed a Complaint pro
se under Bivens v. Seven Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1871), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) against Warden D.K. Williams and
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) Director Thomas Kane1 (together “Defendants”) in
their official capacities as employees of the BOP for injunctive and declaratory relief.
Compl., ECF No. 1. Mr. Sabir claims that Defendants violated his rights under the Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Religious

1
The Court has learned that, as of September 18, 2017, Mark S. Inch is the new Director of the Federal
BOP. About Our Agency, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, http://w-ww.bop.gov/about/agency/bio_dir.jsp
(last visited Dec. 8, 2017). Because this change occurred after Mr. Sabir filed his initial complaint, and he
is suing the Director only in his official capacity, the Court will direct the Clerk to replace defendant
Thomas Kane with defendant Mark S. Inch.

1

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), and the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (“RFRA”) by prohibiting him and other Muslim inmates from engaging
in group prayer outside the chapel at FCI Danbury. See id. at 9. On June 29, 2017, the
Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice because Mr. Sabir failed to pay the
required $400 filing fee. See ECF Nos. 7, 8.
On July 21, 2017, Mr. Sabir moved to reinstate his Complaint after paying the
required filing fee. Mot. to Reopen, ECF No. 9. The Court granted Mr. Sabir’s motion,
but nevertheless dismissed the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted. Ruling on Mot. to Reopen and Initial Review
Order (“Initial Review Order”), ECF No. 11. The Court ruled that the United States
Supreme Court’s decision in Bivens, 403 U.S. at 389, does not authorize suits against
federal officials in their official capacities for injunctive or declaratory relief. See Initial
Review Order at 4-5 (citing Tyus v. Newton, 13 Civ. 1486 (SRU), 2015 WL 5306550, *5
(D. Conn. Sep. 10, 2015), Holliday v. Augustine, 14 Civ. 855 (SRU), 2015 WL 136325,
*3 (D. Conn. Jan. 9, 2015), and Khan v. United States, 217 F. Supp.2d 409, 413
(E.D.N.Y. 2003)). Moreover, even if Mr. Sabir had sued Defendants for monetary
damages, his claims were nonetheless barred by sovereign immunity. See id. at 5 (citing
Pimental v. Deboo, 411 F. Supp.2d 118, 125-26 (D. Conn. 2006)). Thus, the Court
directed the Clerk to close the case.
II.

REVIEWABILITY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
On November 30, 2017, Mr. Sabir filed a second motion to re-open his case, ECF

No. 15, and attached an Amended Complaint, ECF No. 15-1. Mot. to Amend Compl.,
ECF No. 15. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

2

(1) A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21
days after serving it, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading
is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after
service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. (2) In
all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give
leave when justice so requires.
In the Amended Complaint, Mr. Sabir raises the same three claims against the same
two defendants and seeks the same relief: (1) a declaration that Defendants’ acts and
omissions “violated [his] rights under the Constitution of the United States;” and (2) “[a]
preliminary [i]njunction ordering Defendants . . . to rescind Program Statement 5360.09
and the related Institutional Supplement 5360.09 F Section 3.b.2 restricting group prayer
to individual prayer or in pairs; and that they allow prayer in groups for the required
prayers five times daily wherever [Mr. Sabir] happens to be at the time prayer becomes
due.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 41-42. He no longer, however, brings his claim under Bivens, 403
U.S. at 389. Instead, he now claims that the Court may provide him with declaratory and
injunctive relief under the Administrative [Procedure] Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et
seq., the Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Am. Compl. ¶ 1.
The APA waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for claims against
federal officers that seek non-monetary relief. Lipscomb v. Hufford, 14 Civ. 6562 (NSR),
2017 WL 3267732, *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 28, 2017); see also Polanco v. U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration, 158 F.3d 647, 650-52 (2d Cir. 1998) (court should have
construed complaint seeking only injunctive relief as arising under APA, not as Bivens
action); Garrett v. Ask-Carlson, No. 15 CIV. 0723 PAC JCF, 2015 WL 5511914, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2015) (prisoner’s request for restoration of visitation and commissary

3

privileges is available remedy under APA); Berkun v. Terrell, 12 Civ. 706, 2012 WL
3233897, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2012) (injunctive relief available under APA where
inmate alleged warden of federal prison violated First Amendment); Kole v. Lappin, 551
F. Supp.2d 149, 153 (D. Conn. 2008) (reviewing prisoner’s civil rights claims against
federal officials in official capacities for injunctive relief). Although the DJA does not
provide an independent cause of action or confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court,
it does “provide[] a form of relief for a substantive violation of law.” Schick v. Apker, 07
Civ. 5775 (SHS) (DF), 2009 WL 2016933, *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2009); see also
Gowanus Indus. Park, Inc. v. Hess Corp., 10 Civ. 5522 (JG) (JO), 2012 WL 273657, *17
(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012) (DJA “authorizes a federal district court, in a case of ‘actual
controversy,’ to ‘declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party
seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought”) (quoting §
2201). Because Mr. Sabir is no longer pursuing a Bivens action and is now suing federal
officials in their official capacities for injunctive and declaratory relief under the APA
and DJA, the Court now has jurisdiction under § 1331 to accept and review his amended
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Therefore, in the interests of justice, the Court will
GRANT Mr. Sabir’s motion to reopen the case and review his amended complaint.
III.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN AMENDED COMPLAINT
On October 9, 2014, Mr. Sabir and other Muslim inmates were allegedly

engaging in group prayer in a recreational area of FCI Danbury known as the auditorium.
Compl. at ¶ 11. Near the conclusion of the prayer, the Amended Complaint contends that
an officer entered the auditorium and confronted members of the group. Id. at ¶¶ 12‒13.
He allegedly informed the inmates that group prayer was not permitted outside the chapel

4

and warned them that violation of that policy could result in disciplinary action. Id.at ¶
14. Shortly thereafter, Lieutenant North allegedly entered the auditorium. Id. at ¶ 15. The
two officials allegedly informed the inmates that BOP policy restricted group prayer
outside the chapel to two persons and that larger groups of inmates could only perform
group prayer inside the chapel, regardless of their religious beliefs. Id. at ¶ 20.
The Amended Complaint alleges that members of the group informed North that
their policy prohibiting group prayer outside the chapel violated the First Amendment,
the RLUIPA, and the RFRA. Id. at ¶ 16. They also allegedly informed the officials that
their religion required them to pray in groups five times each day, and the chapel was not
available to them for all five services. Id. at ¶ 21. North allegedly agreed to permit three
inmates to pray together in the auditorium at that time but warned that future violations of
the policy would result in disciplinary sanctions. Id. at ¶ 17.
The chapel at FCI Danbury is allegedly located in the main recreation area and is
accessible to inmates only when chapel staff are present. Compl. ¶ 22. Recreation staff, it
is alleged, strictly enforce the group prayer policy in other recreational areas of the
prison, including the recreation yard, weight room, gymnasium, bathroom, and video and
music rooms. Id. at ¶¶ 22–23. In some areas, however, including the medical unit, food
services area, housing units, and laundry facilities, the group prayer policy is allegedly
intermittently tolerated depending on which staff members are present. Id. at ¶¶ 24‒25.
There have allegedly been no recorded incidents where Muslim group prayer interfered
with the functioning of FCI Danbury. Id. at ¶ 26.
After the two officials allegedly interrupted his group prayer service, Mr. Sabir
claims he utilized the administrative remedy procedure available to federal inmates to

5

address his concerns about the policy. Compl. ¶ 27. He allegedly sent written requests
and appeals to his counselor, the warden,2 the Regional Director, and the BOP Central
Office, all of which were denied. Id. at ¶¶ 31, 34–36. The warden allegedly responded to
Mr. Sabir’s written request in January 2015 informing him that the policy did not violate
his First Amendment rights. Id. at ¶ 34. The Regional Director’s response allegedly stated
that the policy limited group prayers outside the chapel to two persons in order to prevent
the “disrupt[ion] and orderly running of the institution” and that permitting larger groups
of inmates to pray in the chapel when supervisory staff and space were available was “a
reasonable least restrictive alternative.” Id. at ¶ 35. The Central Office allegedly agreed
with the warden’s and Regional Director’s responses, stating that the institution
“provid[ed] [Mr. Sabir] with a reasonable and equitable opportunity to pursue [his]
religious beliefs and practices.” Id. at ¶ 36.
Mr. Sabir allegedly also discussed the issue with his counselor and requested a
meeting with the warden. Compl. at ¶ 31. His counselor informed him that the warden
wanted his concerns to be addressed in writing before scheduling a meeting. Id. Mr. Sabir
replied that he had, in fact, sent a written request to the warden. Id. FCI Danbury staff
never scheduled a meeting between Mr. Sabir and the warden. Id. at ¶ 37.
IV.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must “review . . . a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must “identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,
or any portion of the complaint,” if the complaint or any of its parts are “frivolous,

2

It is not clear from this allegation whether Mr. Sabir is referring to defendant Warden Williams or another
former warden of FCI Danbury.

6

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” or “seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a plaintiff plead only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2), to provide the defendant “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
A plaintiff’s “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level,” and assert a cause of action with enough heft to show entitlement
to relief and “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570. A claim is facially plausible if “the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Although “detailed factual allegations” are not required, a complaint must offer
more than “labels and conclusions,” “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action,” or “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555–57. Plausibility at the pleading stage is nonetheless distinct from probability,
and “a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual
proof of [the claims] is improbable, and . . . recovery is very remote and unlikely.” Id. at
556 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Pro se complaints, however, “must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise
the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d
Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of

7

Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006)); see also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90,
101–02 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing the “special solicitude” courts afford pro se litigants).
V.

DISCUSSION
Mr. Sabir claims that Defendants’ enforcement of the group prayer policy violates

his rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the RFRA, and the
RLUIPA. Compl. ¶ 39.
For the following reasons, the Court will permit the First Amendment and RFRA
claims to proceed against Defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief.
A.

FIRST AMENDMENT FREE EXERCISE CLAIM

“Prisoners have long been understood to retain some measure of the constitutional
protection afforded by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.” Ford v. McGinnis,
352 F.3d 582, 588 (2d Cir. 2003). The Free Exercise Clause requires that government
officials respect, and avoid interference with, the religious beliefs and practices of the
people. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 719 (2005). “Balanced against the
constitutional protections afforded prison inmates, including the right to free exercise of
religion, [however,] are the interests of prison officials charged with complex duties
arising from administration of the penal system.” Ford, 352 F.3d at 588 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Therefore, a prisoner’s free exercise claim is “judged under a
‘reasonableness’ test less restrictive than that ordinarily applied to alleged infringements
of fundamental constitutional rights.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
A challenged government action “passes constitutional muster if it is reasonably
related to legitimate penological interests.” Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 274 (2d
Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Salahuddin, 467 F.3d at 274‒75, the

8

Second Circuit held that, to state a plausible free exercise claim, “[t]he prisoner must
show at the threshold that the disputed conduct substantially burden[ed] his sincerely held
religious beliefs.” See also Kole, 551 F. Supp.2d at 154 (inmate must show that disputed
policy substantially burdens sincerely held religious beliefs). “A substantial burden exists
where the [government] ‘puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior
and to violate his beliefs.’” Forde v. Zickefoose, 612 F. Supp.2d 171, 177 (D. Conn.
2009) (quoting Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 477 (2d Cir. 1996)). In evaluating whether
the prisoner has made this showing, this Court does not “evaluate the objective
reasonableness of the prisoner’s belief . . . .” Ford, 352 F.3d at 590. Rather, the Court’s
“scrutiny extends only to whether [the prisoner] sincerely holds a particular belief and
whether the belief is religious in nature.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
More recently, however, the Second Circuit has expressed doubt as to whether the
prisoner must make this threshold showing. See Holland v. Goord, 758 F.3d 215, 220 (2d
Cir. 2014) (“It has not been decided in this Circuit whether, to state a claim under the
First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, a prisoner must show at the threshold that the
disputed conduct substantially burdens his sincerely held religious beliefs”) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Williams v. Morton, 343 F.3d 212, 217 (3d Cir. 2003)
(declining to apply substantial burden test).
If the prisoner states a plausible free exercise claim, the defendant then bears the
limited burden of showing that the challenged conduct is reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests. Salahuddin, 467 F.3d at 275; Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89
(1987). The Court examines a prisoner’s free exercise claim with deference to the prison
administrator. Forde, 612 F. Supp. 2d at 180. Thus, “the burden remains with the prisoner

9

to show that these [articulated] concerns were irrational.” Salahuddin, 467 F.3d at 275
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Construing Mr. Sabir’s allegations liberally, the Court concludes that he has
stated a plausible claim under the Free Exercise Clause. He alleges that the group prayer
policy interferes with his ability to pray with other Muslim inmates five times per day, as
required by their religion. Although the question remains whether Defendants’ policy is
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, at this stage of the proceeding, the
Court will permit Mr. Sabir’s claim to proceed.
B.

RFRA CLAIM

The RFRA states that the “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s
exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability [unless]
“application of the burden . . . (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;
and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. Congress enacted RFRA “in order to provide very broad
protection for religious liberty.” Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853, 859 (2015) (quoting
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2760 (2014)). RFRA places a more
demanding burden on the government “to ‘sho[w] that it lacks other means of achieving
its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the
objecting part[y].’” Id. at 864 (quoting Burwell, 134 S. Ct. at 2780)). The United States
Supreme Court has held that RFRA is unconstitutional as applied to state law, City of
Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 519 (1997), but it continues to apply to the federal
government and its officers. Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277, 281 (2011).

10

Construing his allegations liberally, Mr. Sabir has stated a plausible claim that the
group prayer policy at FCI Danbury substantially burdens his ability to practice his
Muslim religion. The Court therefore will permit Mr. Sabir’s RFRA claim to proceed
against Defendants based on the same allegations in support of the Free Exercise claim.
C.

RLUIPA Claim

Congress enacted RLUIPA as an amendment to RFRA in light of the Supreme
Court’s decision in City of Boerne, 521 U.S. 507, which held that RFRA was
unconstitutional as applied to the states. Holt, 135 S. Ct. at 860; see also Hankins v. NYS
Dept. of Correctional Services, 07 Civ. 408 (FJS/GHL), 2008 WL 2019655, *1 n.1
(N.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2008) (citing Prater v. City of Burnside, 289 F.3d 417, 433 (6th Cir.
2002)). The RLUIPA prohibits a state or local government from taking any action that
substantially burdens the religious exercise of a prisoner unless the government
demonstrates that the action constitutes the least restrictive means of furthering a
compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1; Holt, 135 S. Ct. at 859. Thus,
federal courts have held that RLUIPA “only applies to state and local governments, not a
federal prison.” Pineda-Morales v. DeRosa, 03 Civ. 4297 (JBS), 2005 WL 1607276, *4
(D.N.J. Jul. 6, 2005). See also Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service, 535 F.3d 1058 (9th
Cir. 2008).
Because Mr. Sabir is suing federal officials for violating his right to freely
exercise his religion, and the Court already permitted his Free Exercise Clause and RFRA
claims to proceed, his RLUIPA claim is hereby dismissed.

11

IV.

CONCLUSION
Mr. Sabir’s motion to re-open the case and amend his complaint is GRANTED.

Mr. Sabir’s First Amendment Free Exercise claim and RFRA claim as alleged in the
Amended Complaint may proceed against Defendants in their official capacities for
injunctive and declaratory relief. The RLUIPA claim is DISMISSED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to re-open this case and replace defendant “Thomas
Kane” with defendant “Mark S. Inch, Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons.” See supra
note 1.
Within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, the Clerk of Court shall prepare a
summons form and (a) deliver three copies of the summons, this order, the Amended
Complaint, ECF No. 15-1, and any attachments to the United States Attorney for the
District of Connecticut, at any one of the three offices: 157 Church Street, 23rd Floor,
New Haven, Connecticut 06510; 450 Main Street, Room 328, Hartford, Connecticut
06103; or 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604; (b) send two copies
of the summons, this order, the amended complaint, and any attachments by registered or
certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, DC, 20530; and (c) send one copy of the summons, this order, the
amended complaint, and any attachments by registered or certified mail to the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20534.
Defendants shall file their response to the amended complaint, either an
Answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date the documents listed
in this Order are mailed to them. If they choose to file an Answer, they shall admit or

12

deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claims recited above. They may also
include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.
Discovery, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-37, shall be completed within six
months (180 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need not be filed with
the Court.
All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within seven months (210
days) from the date of this order.
SO ORDERED this 19th day of December, 2017, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13