Young et al v. Phelps
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 6/20/2016. (nmfn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ERNEST PARSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PERRY PHELPS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civ. No. 15-325-SLR
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM
At Wilmington this
~ day of June, 2016, having reviewed defendants'
motion to dismiss (D.I. 16), and the papers submitted in connection therewith, the court
issues its decision based on the following analysis:
1. Background. Plaintiffs, inmates at the James T. Vaughn Correctional
Center ("VCC"), Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") against
defendants. 1 They proceed pro se and have paid the filing fee.
This case was
severed from Civ. No. 12-1120-SLR on April 22, 2015, and proceeds on counts 1
through 14 and 18 of the original complaint (D.I. 3), plaintiffs having opted to stand on
its allegations.
2.
(D.I. 6)
Plaintiffs, who are Muslim, were among several inmates named in Civ. No.
12-1120-SLR, a case that raised religious discrimination claims based upon Muslim,
1
Perry Phelps ("Phelps"), Warden; David Pierce ("Pierce"), Deputy Warden; James
Scarborough, Deputy Warden; Michael Knight ("Knight"), Food Administrator;
Christopher Senato ("Senato"), Food Director; Jim Corroathers, Major; Joseph Simmons
("Simmons"), Lieutenant; and Frank Pennell ("Pennell"), Chaplain.
Catholic, and Jewish faiths.
Defendants moved to sever the claims based upon the
religion of plaintiffs; the court granted the motions, and this new civil action was opened.
(See D.I. 1, 2) As noted, plaintiffs opted to stand on the allegations in the original
complaint.
On November 26, 2013, defendants filed an answer to the complaint in Civ.
No. 12-1120-SLR at D.I. 80.
Defendants were ordered to advise the court if they stand
on that answer in this severed case.
(D.I. 14) Defendants replied that they do not and
submitted the instant motion to dismiss in its place.
3.
(D.I. 16 at 1, n.1)
Plaintiffs generally allege in their complaint that the defendants violated the
First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and RLUIPA by refusing to provide halal
diets, not providing Muslim inmates with the same religious privileges as Protestant
inmates, restricting congregational prayer, and denying plaintiffs access to items related
to their religious beliefs. 2 (D.I. 3) Plaintiffs allege that defendants Phelps, Knight,
Senato, and Simmons "placed a substantial and unnecessary burden on the practice of
the plaintiff[s'] religion when they denied plaintiffs['] request for a religious diet" in
violation of both the RLUIPA and the Equal Protection Act.
(Id. at 5 ~ 1) Plaintiffs
further allege defendants Phelps, Knight, Senato, Simmons, and Pennell violated
plaintiffs' equal protection rights to partake in requisite holy days according to their
Muslim faith, while allowing Protestant inmates to participate in theirs by
"acknowledg[ing] but refus[ing] to allow plaintiffs within the Islamic and Catholic
communities to worship, assemble, and celebrate their religious holy day-feasts,
respectively."
2
(Id. at 7) Plaintiffs also allege defendants "continuously belie and
The court limited plaintiffs to counts 1-14 and 18 when plaintiffs were severed.
(D.I. 3)
2
misunderstand the plaintiffs['] religious holy day, and thus label them as 'Banquets."'
(Id.)
4.
Standard.
A motion filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
tests the sufficiency of a complaint's factual allegations.
Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). A
complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the ...
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545 (internal
quotation marks omitted) (interpreting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)).
Consistent with the
Supreme Court's rulings in Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the
Third Circuit requires a two-part analysis when reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Edwards v. A.H. Cornell & Son, Inc., 610 F.3d 217, 219 (3d Cir. 2010); Fowler v. UPMC
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009).
First, a court should separate the factual
and legal elements of a claim, accepting the facts and disregarding the legal
conclusions.
Fowler, 578 F.3d. at210-11.
Second, a court should determine whether
the remaining well-pied facts sufficiently show that the plaintiff "has a 'plausible claim for
relief."'
Id. at 211 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
As part of the analysis, a court
must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true, and view them
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 406 (2002); Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny,
515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008).
In this regard, a court may consider the pleadings,
public record, orders, exhibits attached to the complaint, and documents incorporated
into the complaint by reference.
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makar Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S.
3
308, 322 (2007); Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384-85
n.2 (3d Cir. 1994).
5.
The court's determination is not whether the non-moving party "will ultimately
prevail" but whether that party is "entitled to offer evidence to support the claims."
United States ex rel. Wilkins v. United Health Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 295, 302 (3d Cir.
2011 ).
This "does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage," but
instead "simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery
will reveal evidence of [the necessary element]." Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
The court's analysis is a context-specific task requiring the
court "to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663-
64.
6.
Discussion.
Defendants allege that plaintiffs have not clearly identified how
each named defendant personally violated either the Constitution or RLUIPA; i.e.,
plaintiffs' allegations "lump" together the activities of senior management, the middle
management, the food service provider, and the chaplain staff.
(D.I. 16) According to
defendants, while each count includes the names of various defendants, the complaint
as a whole fails to state with specificity how each defendant personally violated an
established statutory or constitutional right.
7.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has established a "heightened specificity
requirement" for civil rights complaints.
Colburn v. Upper Darby Township., 838 F.2d
663, 666 (3d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 1338 (1989).
Although prose
pleadings are to be construed under a less stringent standard than pleadings filed by
attorneys, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), there remain certain pleadings
4
prerequisites with which all plaintiffs must comply when bringing a§ 1983 action.
This
means that plaintiffs must identify "the particular conduct" of defendants that is alleged
to have harmed the plaintiffs.
Cir. 1988).
Freedman v. City of Allentown, 853 F.2d 1111, 1114 (3d
Plaintiffs must allege in their complaint "the specific conduct violating the
plaintiff[s'] rights, the time and place of that conduct, and the identity of the responsible
officials."
8.
Colburn, 838 F.2d at 666.
The court agrees that plaintiffs have failed to satisfy this requirement but for
the claim directed at defendant Pierce and his enforcement of a prison regulation
limiting each prisoner to three (3) books.
According to plaintiffs, Pierce's enforcement
of this regulation places a substantial burden on plaintiffs' exercise of their Muslim faith,
because "[i]t is essential to receive guidance from the history of the Prophet" and "the
most reliable and authentic teaching of the Prophet ... are found in a collection of
books."
(D.I. 18 at 7)
9.
Because dismissal of prose complaints for pleading deficiencies is not
favored by the Third Circuit, Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d
Cir. 2002), the court will deny defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice to renew,
and will grant their motion for a more definite statement.
Plaintiffs shall file a single
unified amended complaint executed by each individual plaintiff which sets forth with
particularity the facts underlying their alleged rights.
The amended complaint must
allege specific actions taken by each defendant, the date(s) of such actions, the
bases for plaintiffs' claim(s) against each defendant, and the relief as requested.
10. With respect to whether plaintiffs have sufficiently pied statutory or
constitutional rights, the court will discuss in turn plaintiffs' claims regarding entitlement
5
to: (1) comparable religious holidays and services; (2) a halal diet; 3 and (3) religious
necessities such as extra baths, additional bathing items, special clothing, razors, and
CDs.
As to the differences in religious holidays and services, plaintiffs must allege that
they were similarly situated to Protestant inmates but treated differently by defendants.
Small v. Sec'y Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., 592 F. App'x 62, 64 (3d Cir. 2014).
In
Small, the Third Circuit specifically noted that "[t]he two Jewish fasting days Small
identified are not comparable to Ramadan" based on the number of fasting days,
logistical challenges, and communal feasts.
Id.
The court held "inmates seeking to
participate in Ramadan are not similarly situated to inmates seeking to participate in the
Jewish fasting days, and the prison did not violate the Equal Protection Clause by
treating such inmates differently." Id.
In the instant action, plaintiffs (in their
responsive brief) allege the "denial of individual and group prayer," "denial of the call to
prayer," "denial of religious services", and "denial of the religious feast." These
allegations are not sufficient for the court to discern how plaintiffs are being treated
differently.
Consistent with the above, plaintiffs shall be required to describe with
specificity the defendants and their conduct in relation to this claim.
3
"Halal is an Arabic word, meaning lawful, and is the Islamic dietary law that identifies
food permitted for Muslims. . . . For meat and poultry to be Halal, it must be
slaughtered according to Islamic guidelines, with prayers said to God (Allah) during the
process. . . . Alcohol and pork products are NOT permitted including pork lard, ham
and bacon. For processed foods to be Halal, they must be free of alcohol and pork, and
must not have come into contact with either of them during the manufacturing process.
. . . Halal food cannot touch or be contaminated in the storage or preparation process
with meat that has not been slaughtered in accordance with Islamic law."
What does Halal Mean?, HALAL RESEARCH COUNCIL,
http://halalrc.org/images/Research%20Material/LiteratureMJhat%20does%20Halal%20
mean.pdf (last visited June 15, 2016).
6
11. With respect to whether plaintiffs have sufficiently pied a statutory or
constitutional right to a halal diet. the Third Circuit requires plaintiffs claiming a violation
of their First Amendment rights to religious freedom to demonstrate that defendants'
conduct has placed a substantial burden on plaintiffs' ability to practice their religious
beliefs.
In this regard, the Third Circuit holds a substantial burden is established when:
(1) the follower must decide between following his religious beliefs and foregoing
benefits given to other inmates versus abandoning his beliefs to retain those benefits; or
(2) there is substantial pressure placed on the follower to "substantially modify his
behavior and to violate his beliefs." Ford v. Bureau of Prisons, 570 F. App'x 246, 250
(3d Cir. 2014). According to the Third Circuit, the lack of meal variety, when the
available meal meets the religious requirements, does not create a substantial burden
as it does not cause a prisoner to violate his beliefs.
Kretchmar v. Beard,241 F. App's
863, 865 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Williams v. Morton, 343 F.3d 212, 217 (3d Cir. 2003)
(holding a prison may offer vegetarian meals in lieu of halal meat diets in the interests of
simplified food service, security, and cost); Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272, 283 (3d
Cir. 2007).
12. The facts as alleged indicate that, while the available vegetarian diet
complies with plaintiffs' religious requirements, "Muslims are not vegetarians" and,
therefore, "to compel the plaintiffs to accept a diet that alters the tenets of their faith
creates a substantial burden." (D.I. 18 at 4) Apparently, a kosher diet is more
compatible with the requested halal diet than is a vegetarian diet, but the kosher diet
has been denied to Muslim prisoners.
(D.I. 3at117)
Given the holding of the Third
Circuit in Williams v. Morton, 343 F.3d at 217, the court declines to dismiss this claim
7
without input from defendants to determine the competing interests of plaintiffs' religious
beliefs and the "simplified food service, security and costs" associated with providing
kosher meals in lieu of either vegetarian or halal meat diets.
Consistent with the
above, plaintiffs shall be required to describe with specificity the defendants and their
conduct in relation to this claim.
13. With respect to the remainder of plaintiffs' claims for extra amenities,
plaintiffs have failed to allege how the lack of such amenities places a substantial
burden on their ability to practice their Muslim faith (especially in light of the prison
setting).
Plaintiffs shall also be required to describe with specificity the defendants and
their conduct in relation to these claims.
14. Turning to defendants' motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, "[t]he
doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil
damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Pearson v.
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).
"[l]t is generally unwise to venture into a qualified
immunity analysis at the pleading stage as it is necessary to develop the factual record
in the vast majority of cases." Newland v. Reehorst, 328 F. App. 788, 791 n. 3 (3d Cir
2009) (unpublished).
Based on the record, full analysis of whether qualified immunity
applies is premature because there are unresolved questions of fact relevant to the
analysis.
Therefore, the court will deny the motion to dismiss on the grounds of a
qualified immunity defense at this stage of the litigation, without prejudice to defendants'
ability to renew.
8
15. Conclusion.
For the above reasons, the court will deny defendants'
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on the grounds of qualified immunity
(D.I. 16). The court requires plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 30, 2016 as
set forth in this memorandum to avoid dismissal of the case.
issue.
9
A separate order shall
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?