Young v. Owens et al

Filing 85

ORDER ADOPTING 61 Report and Recommendations granting in part and denying in part the 44 Motion to Dismiss filed by Jack Koon, Tom McElhenney, Suzanne York, Randy Tillman, Brian Owens, Danny Horne, Arnold Smith, Jackie L. Kelsey, John Paul, Johnny Sikes, Valiant Lyte, Bruce Chatman. Defendant's 64 Objections are overruled. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 6/26/14. (wwp) Modified on 6/26/2014 (wwp).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

DAMON YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV613-032

V.

BRIAN OWENS, Commissioner;
Director SMITH; Chaplain Director
DANNY HORNE; BRUCE CHATMAN,
Warden; VALIANT LYTE, Chaplain;
Deputy Warden JOHN PAUL;
RANDY TILLMAN, Facilities Operation
Director; JOHNNY SIKES, Deputy
Director; JACK KOON, Administration
Support Services; TOM McELHENNEY,
Offender Administration Manager;
JACKIE L. KELSEY, Assistant Manager;
and SUZANNE YORK, Center
Referral Coordinator,
Defendants.

ORDER
After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned
concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Defendants
filed Objections. Plaintiff filed a Response and Defendants filed a Reply. Defendants
contend that Plaintiff: (1) does not state a First Amendment claim; (2) does not state an
equal protection claim; (3) should not be permitted to establish supervisory liability; (4)
cannot recover monetary damages; (5) cannot recover damages because Defendants
are entitled to qualified immunity; (6) does not state a RLUIPA claim; and (7) is not
entitled to injunctive relief.
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

The standard of review in determining a motion to dismiss is whether a complaint
contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Wooten v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 626 F.3d 1187, 1196 (11th Cir.
2010) (citation omitted). Based upon the Plaintiffs pleadings, the court may draw
reasonable inferences. See id.Defendants assert that Plaintiff failed to allege that their
actions prohibited him from a mandated activity or required him to participate in a
prohibited activity. However, as the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, all that is
required at this stage of litigation is that the Plaintiff "allege that the government has
impermissibly burdened one of his 'sincerely held religious beliefs." (Doc. 61, p. 5)
(quoting Watts v. Fla. Int'l Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted)). Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to meet this standard and state a First
Amendment claim. Similarly, Plaintiff's allegations, liberally construed, sufficiently plead
a RLUIPA claim—as he alleges how his religious exercise was substantially burdened—
and an equal protection claim—as he contends that inmates of other religions received
more favorable treatment.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff should not be permitted to establish supervisory
liability. As pro so pleadings are held to a less stringent standard and are liberally
construed and Plaintiffs claims are plausible, the Magistrate Judge correctly
recommended that Plaintiff be permitted to present evidence concerning a causal link
due to improper custom or policy.
Defendants' argument that Plaintiff cannot recover nominal damages must fail as
the Eleventh Circuit precedent does not support this assertion. In support of their
contention Defendants cite to the decision in Al-Amin v. Smith, 637 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir.

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

1

2

2011). Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot recover "monetary damages where he
does not allege and show that he suffered a physical injury that is more than de

minimis." (Doc. 77, p. 4). However, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not recover
punitive damages in the absence of physical injury. Al-Amin, 637 F.3d at 1199. The
opinion clearly noted that the opinion in Harris v. Garner, 190 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir.
1999), "left open the possibility that nominal damages might still be recoverable despite
§ I 997e(e)'s limitation on recovery." jç at 1198. The court stressed "that [its] opinion
d[id] not address Al—Amin's ability to recover nominal damages, as this issue [wa]s not
presently before" the court. Id.. at 1199 n.10. Thus, Defendants fail to cite any authority
supporting their proposition that nominal damages are prohibited.
Defendants argue that there is no binding precedent establishing that the policy
changes, package programs and worship restrictions violated Plaintiffs constitutional
rights. In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge agreed with this
argument concerning the removal of the sacred items from the SOP and prohibiting the
use of such items. Therefore, the Objection regarding such is not necessary to
address. However, the Magistrate correctly rejected the argument that there was no
clearly established law regarding worship restrictions. In this Circuit, it is clearly
established that an inmate states a claim under the First and Fourteenth Amendment
when he alleges that he is not afforded a comparable opportunity to observe his religion
as is afforded to inmates of other religions. It is also established that the "First
Amendment forbids prison officials from retaliating against prisoners for exercising the
right of free speech." Hicks v. Ferrero, 241 F. App'x 595, 597 (11th Cir. 2007). As the

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

1

3

law is clearly established regarding Plaintiffs claims for retaliation and equal protection,
Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for such.
Furthermore, Defendants cite no authority necessitating that Plaintiff's request for
injunctive relief regarding the SOP's inclusion of sacred items be dismissed, but only
that such would 'necessitate the Federal court's involvement in the State's prison
system." (Doc. 64, p. 10; Doc. 77, p. 7). Therefore, this argument must fail.
Defendants' Objections are overruled.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Defendants' Motion regarding
punitive damages, qualified immunity for the removal of sacred items, and injunctive
relief for time, place, and observance of ceremonies as it applies to Defendants
Chatman, Paul, and Lyte is GRANTED. Otherwise, Defendants' Motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this

1 2014.

day of

B. AVANT EDENFIELD4UDGE '
UNITED STATES D1RICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AO 72A
(Rev. 8182)

4