ROWE v. FINNAN et al

Filing 131

ENTRY Discussing Cross Motions for Summary Judgment - For the reasons explained later in this Entry and in the interest of clarity, the Indiana Department of Correction is now substituted for the individual defendants named in their official ca pacities as to the RLUIPA claims. The only remaining remedies Rowe is entitled to seek in this action for the alleged RLUIPA violations are equitable in nature. If Rowe requests counsel to represent him at the bench trial of this action, the court will undertake efforts to attempt to recruit counsel to represent him for that purpose. Rowe shall have through March 20, 2014, to make such a request. Consistent with the foregoing, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 128 ] is denied and the defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. 89 ] is granted in part and denied in part. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims resolved in this Entry. ***SEE ORDER***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus -Stinson on 3/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Zero Tolerence STG Policy, # 2 Exhibit B - Offender Visitation Policy, # 3 Exhibit C - Segregation Correspondence Policy, # 4 Exhibit D - Item Censorship, # 5 Exhibit E - Religious Handbook, # 6 Exhibit F - Aryan Nations Standard)(JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

REV. JEFFREY ALLEN ROWE,

)
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
) Case No. 1:11-cv-00524-JMS-MJD
)
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
)
CORRECTION,1 ALAN FINNAN,
)
ALBERTA POTTER, CHAPLIN DODD,
)
CHAPLIN ROGERS, DANIEL
)
BODLOVICH, DENNIS DAVIS,
)
BRUCE HEMLING, EDWIN BUSS,
)
HOWARD MORTON, KRISTY
)
RICHARDSON, LARRY FOWLER,
)
L.A. VANNATTA, LISA ASH,
)
MICHELLE PAVESE, STEPHEN HALL,
)
WALTER PERTERSON, WAYNE SCAIFE, )
WILLIAM WILSON,
)
)
Defendants. )

ENTRY DISCUSSING CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Jeffrey Allen Rowe, currently an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility (Wabash Valley) and self-described associate pastor of the Church of Jesus Christ
Christian (CJCC) (a religion associated with white-supremacist ideology), filed this civil action
while he was incarcerated at the Pendleton Correctional Facility (PCF). In this action Rowe sues
prison officials under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42

1 For the reasons explained later in this Entry and in the interest of clarity, the Indiana Department of
Correction is now substituted for the individual defendants named in their official capacities as to the
RLUIPA claims. See Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (suits against state
employees in their official capacity are treated as suits against the states themselves). The clerk is directed
to add the Indiana Department of Correction as a defendant on the docket.

1

U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc–5, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First
Amendment rights. Specifically, Rowe alleges that the defendants interfered with his ability to
practice his religion as an adherent and pastor of the CJCC. Rowe labels his religion and himself as
white supremacist.
All parties seek resolution of this action through the filing of cross motions for summary
judgment. For the reasons explained below, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [dkt.
128] is denied and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment [dkt. 89] is granted in part and
denied in part.
I. Standard of Review
“Summary judgment is appropriate where the ‘pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.’” Westra v. Credit Control of Pinellas, 409 F.3d 825, 827 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Rule 56(c)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). A “material fact” is one that “might affect the outcome of
the suit.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “’A genuine issue of material
fact arises only if sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party exists to permit a jury to return
a verdict for that party.’” Springer v. Durflinger, 518 F.3d 479, 483 (7th Cir. 2008)(quoting Sides
v. City of Champaign, 496 F.3d 820, 826 (7th Cir. 2007).
The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the district
court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “’the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’” which it
believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)

2

(quoting Rule 56(c)). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court construes facts and
draws inferences “in favor of the party against whom the motion under consideration is made.”
Keck Garrett & Associates, Inc. v. Nextel Communications, Inc., 517 F.3d 476, 483 (7th Cir. 2008)
(quoting In re United Air Lines, Inc., 453 F.3d 463, 468 (7th Cir. 2006)).
II. The First Amendment and RLUIPA
Rowe raises both First Amendment and RLUIPA claims in this action.
The First Amendment provides, in pertinent part: “Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .” U.S. Const. Amend. I.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from imposing a
“substantial burden” on a “central religious belief or practice.” Kaufman v. Pugh, 733 F.3d 692,
696 (7th Cir. 2013). But, “the religious freedom guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the
First Amendment does not require religious exemptions from facially neutral laws of general
applicability.” Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 671 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Employment Division,
Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 883–90 (1990)). Thus, neutral
laws of general applicability need only satisfy the basic test for rationality that applies to all laws;
if a law incidentally burdens the exercise of religion, the Constitution does not require an
exemption. Id. (citing Smith, 494 U.S. at 878–79, 888–90).2
RLUIPA provides greater protections to a prisoner than the First Amendment. RLUIPA

2 In O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987), the Supreme Court established the test for
evaluating the constitutionality of regulations that infringe on prisoners’ First Amendment Rights. “[W]hen
a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably
related to legitimate penological interests.” Id. at 349. To determine whether a challenged regulation is
valid, this Court will consider four factors: (1) whether the regulation has a logical connection to the
legitimate government interests invoked to justify it; (2) whether there are alternative means of exercising
the rights that remain open to the inmates; (3) the impact that accommodation of the asserted constitutional
rights will have on other inmates, guards, and prison resources; and (4) the presence or absence of ready
alternatives that fully accommodate the prisoner’s rights at de minimus cost to valid penological interests.
See id. at 350–52 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89–90 (1987)).

3

prohibits prisons that receive federal funding from substantially burdening an inmate’s religious
exercise unless the step in question is the least restrictive way to advance a compelling state
interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a); see also Borzych v. Frank, 439 F.3d 388, 390 (7th Cir. 2006)
(citing Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005); Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107 (7th Cir.
2003)). The First Amendment, by contrast, does not require the accommodation of religious
practice: states may enforce neutral rules. See Borzych, 439 F.3d at 390 (citing Employment
Division of Oregon, 494 U.S. 872.
Claims under both the First Amendment and RLUIPA are evaluated under the substantial
burden test, which requires the plaintiff to show that the defendants substantially burdened his free
exercise rights. See Patel v. Bureau of Prisons, 515 F. 3d 807, 814 (8th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he same
definition of ‘substantial burden’ applies under the Free Exercise Clause, RFRA, and RLUIPA.”).
At a minimum, a substantial burden exists when the government compels a religious person to
“perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of [his] religious beliefs.” Wisconsin v.
Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 218 (1972). Towards the other end of the spectrum, “a substantial burden on
the free exercise of religion … is one that forces adherents of a religion to refrain from religiously
motivated conduct, inhibits or constrains conduct or expression that manifests a central tenet of a
person’s religious beliefs, or compels conduct or expression that is contrary to those beliefs.”
Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 798-99 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation and citation omitted); see
also Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981); Nelson v.
Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 878 (7th Cir. 2009). In discussing RLUIPA, the Seventh Circuit has held that
a law, regulation, or other governmental command substantially burdens religious exercise if it
“bears direct, primary, and fundamental responsibility for rendering [a] religious exercise . . .
effectively impracticable.” Korte, 735 F.3d at 683 (citing Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v.

4

City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752, 761 (7th Cir. 2003)).
III. Scope of Rowe’s Claims
The claims set forth below are understood to be the only remaining claims pursued by
Rowe. A host of other claims have been voluntarily dismissed. See dkts. 36; 128 at p. 29; and 90 at
fn. 1. Any claim not specifically mentioned in this Entry is understood to be voluntarily dismissed
by Rowe. Dkt. 128 at p. 82 (“Any other claims Rowe has, that he has not already voluntarily
dismissed, or argued herein for summary judgment in his favor, Rowe hereby voluntarily
dismisses.”). In addition, the scope of Rowe’s claims is necessarily limited by the relief sought.
First, Rowe seeks money damages. As explained in the Entry of August 29, 2012, claims
for money damages under RLUIPA are dismissed. See Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S.Ct. 1651 (2011)
(money damages are not available in suits against states under the RLUIPA). The only relief
available to Rowe if he prevails on his RLUIPA claims is for injunctive relief. Thus the claims for
money damages are necessarily against the individual defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
allegedly violating Rowe’s First Amendment rights.
Second, Rowe seeks injunctive relief. For the reasons explained above, RLUIPA provides
greater protection to Rowe as a prisoner than does the First Amendment. Thus for practical
reasons, Rowe’s claims for injunctive relief are evaluated under RLUIPA and the First
Amendment claims for injunctive relief are disregarded. In addition, the defendants note that many
of Rowe’s claims are based on circumstances which occurred at PCF and are specific to that
facility. For example, the way in which defendant Walter Peterson reviewed Rowe’s mail is
specific to PCF. As a result of Rowe’s transfer such claims for injunctive relief are now moot. As
Rowe correctly notes, however, claims for injunctive relief against a system-wide policy or
practice are not moot when a prisoner is transferred to another prison. See dkt. 129 at p. 13. Such

5

claims for injunctive relief are necessarily against the IDOC.3
Rowe seeks an order prohibiting the application of six IDOC policies. See dkt. 128 at p. 32.
All other RLUIPA claims are understood to have been voluntarily dismissed. See specifically dkt.
128 at pp. 33 and 36 (voluntarily dismissing claim that omission of a time limit for review of
correspondence violates RLUIPA). Rowe claims the following policies violate RLUIPA:
1.

The Zero Tolerance Policy on Security Threat Groups. Identified by Rowe as

IDOC Policy No. 02-03-105. See dkt. 127-1 at p. 25, ¶¶ 48-50. (Attached to Entry as Exhibit A).
2.

The visitation policy prohibiting current prisoners from receiving visits from

ex-prisoners who are not immediate family of the current prisoner. Identified by Rowe as IDOC
Policy No. 02-01-102. (Attached to Entry as Exhibit B).
3.

The property policy limiting prisoners to only possessing one authoritative

religious text book and twenty additional books (unless in an approved religious study course).
Identified by Rowe as Policy No. 02-01-101. See dkt. 127-1 at 31 ¶ 118. (The Court was unable to
locate a copy of this policy in the record or online).
4.

The correspondence policy prohibiting offender-to-offender mail when one of the

prisoners is on any type of segregation unit. Identified by Rowe as Policy No. 02-01-103. See dkt.
127-1 at 33 ¶¶ 130-131. (The relevant portion of this policy is attached to this Entry as Exhibit C).
5.

The correspondence policy which Rowe describes as prohibiting “item censorship”

of religious publications/correspondences. Identified by Rowe as Policy No. 02-01-103. See dkt.
127-1 at p. 38, ¶ 184. (The relevant portion of this policy is attached to this Entry as Exhibit D).
6.

The department-wide ban on the swastika. Dkt. 128 at p. 36, see also Exhibit E.

3

RLUIPA does not authorize any kind of relief against public employees. See Vinning-El v. Evans, 657 F.3d
591, 592 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2009)).

6

IV. Rowe’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Rowe seeks summary judgment on his claims. Rowe’s cross-motion for summary
judgment, however, fails to show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that he
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Most problematic is the fact that Rowe did not present a
statement of facts not in dispute as required by Local Rule 56-1(a). Instead, Rowe states that he
“incorporates all factual representations [he] made in the above statement of material facts in
dispute” as well as any material facts stated in the arguments section of his brief. This he cannot
do. The Court has no obligation to parse through these materials in search of a basis on which to
determine that Rowe is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d
955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”);
Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir. 1994) (“[D]istrict courts are not
obliged . . . to scour the record looking for factual disputes. . . .”). To conclude otherwise would put
the defendants in the impossible position of having to guess which facts the Court might identify as
being material facts not in dispute and then formulate a response in opposition. In this case, the
defendants did not even try.
Accordingly, Rowe’s cross motion for summary judgment [dkt. 128] must be denied
because the record fails to establish that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to his
claims.
V. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
The defendants’ also seek resolution of this action through summary judgment. The
defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity and that the “plaintiff can neither
establish that defendants’ actions constituted constitutional violations nor prove they violated
RLUIPA.” Dkt. 90 at p. 29. This is a proper basis upon which to seek summary judgment because

7

the “burden on the moving party may be discharged by ‘showing’--that is, pointing out to the
district court--that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.”
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325.
A. Material Facts
On the basis of the pleadings and the expanded record, the following facts are undisputed
for purposes of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment or if disputed are recited in the
manner most favorable to Rowe as the non-movant.4
Rowe is currently incarcerated at Wabash Valley.
Rowe believes in Identity Christianity. Rowe is an associate pastor of the CJCC and an
ordained reverend of the Church of the Nat’l Knights, both of which are Identity Christian
churches. See dkt. 127-1 at 50. According to Rowe, every Identity Christian believes in and
advocates racial separatism and some adherents (including Rowe) interpret the Bible as saying that
the White Aryan race are mentally and spiritually superior to non-white races. Dkt. 128 at 15. The
CJCC is recognized by the IDOC. See dkt. 127-1 at p. 51-52, see also Exh. E (IDOC Religious
Handbook, CJCC excerpt) attached to this Entry. The Aryan Nations is the political arm of the
CJCC. Dkt. 128 at p 17. The Aryan Nations Standard is a symbol which is used by both the CJCC
and its political arm, the Aryan Nations. See dkt. 128 at 19 and Exh. F attached to this Entry.
Publications containing the Aryan Nations standard have been confiscated.
Rowe is recognized by the IDOC as a validated member of a white supremacist prison gang
or STG. Rowe denies that he is a member of a prison gang and argues that the STG label has been
erroneously applied to him. Rowe states that he is merely a validated Identity Christian adherent
4 The facts which relate to the individual defendants presented in the defendants’ statement of
undisputed facts are not, as the plaintiff points out, supported by a citation to any evidence. See dkt. 90 at p.
2-3 (fact numbers 1-18). The plaintiff’s objection on this basis is sustained. See dkt. 128 at 14. Local Rule
56-1(e) states that a party must support each fact asserted in a brief with a citation to supporting evidence in
the record. Because the defendants failed to do so these unsupported facts are disregarded.

8

and member of Identity Christian Churches. Dkt. 128 at p. 16.
Rowe has numerous swastika tattoos that he displays.
Racial tension and STG activities affect non-STG members and staff safety.
Department policy provides that mail should be withheld if it is a danger to the safety and
security of the facility or if it would foil a reformative goal of the department. Publications threaten
the safety and security of the facility if they would inflame already high racial tensions, advocate
violence, have incendiary language or symbols, or contain information that is useful in attempts to
escape or make weapons.
Race based and religion based violence has occurred in prisons.
B. First Amendment Claims against Individual Defendants
Rowe seeks compensatory, 5 punitive and nominal damages against the individual
defendants. “[T]o recover damages under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that a defendant was
personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.” Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d
579, 583 (7th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation omitted). “A defendant will be deemed to have
sufficient personal responsibility if he directed the conduct causing the constitutional violation, or
if it occurred with his knowledge or consent.” Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir.
2001); Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 593-94 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Section 1983 does not establish
a system of vicarious responsibility. Liability depends on each defendant's knowledge and actions,
5 The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) makes compensatory damages for mental or
emotional damages unavailable to Rowe under the circumstances alleged. The PLRA provides A[n]o
Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for
mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.@ 42 U.S.C.
' 1997e(e). Accordingly, Rowe’s call for compensatory damages is limited in this regard. In addition, there
is no evidence in the record which would support a finding of punitive damages. Punitive damages may be
awarded when a defendant’s conduct is motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or
callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983);
Gloria Coleman v. Nurse Ruth Rahija, 114 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 1997). Thus, even if the individual defendants
were not entitled to qualified immunity, it appears (although not argued by either party) that the most Rowe
could recover is nominal damages against the individual defendants.

9

not on the knowledge or actions of persons they supervise. . . . Monell’s rule [is that] that public
employees are responsible for their own misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.”)(citing Monell v.
New York City Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)).
The defendants argue that they did not violate Rowe’s constitutional rights and that they
are entitled to qualified immunity. The 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.”
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Qualified immunity balances two important
interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly
and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their
duties reasonably. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009); accord, e.g., Whitlock v.
Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567, 580 (7th Cir. 2012).
To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must take two steps. First, the
plaintiff must first allege and then show facts amounting to an actual violation of his or her
constitutional rights. Second, the plaintiff must show that the violation of constitutional rights was
clearly established under applicable law at the time and under the circumstances that the defendant
official acted. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. In other words, the plaintiff must show not only that his
constitutional rights were violated, but that any reasonable official under the circumstances would
have realized that his rights were being violated.
For the reasons explained below, the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment
is granted on all claims alleged against them on the basis that they are entitled to qualified
immunity.

10

1.

Review and Confiscation of Correspondence

Defendants Alberta Potter (PCF’s Mailroom Supervisor) and Walter Peterson (PCF’s STG
Coordinator) are allegedly responsible for delaying Rowe’s receipt of Identity Christian materials
dealing with violence or white supremacy for excessive amounts of time. See dkt. 1-1 at p. 1-2.
a.

Alberta Potter

Rowe claims that Potter violated his right to due process by forwarding his mail to Peterson
without notice. Specifically, Rowe claims that Potter failed to complete a “Notice and Report of
Action Taken on Correspondence” (State Form 11984) on fourteen occasions. Dkt. 128 at p. 67.
The defendants explain that Potter directed Rowe’s Identity Christian materials dealing with
violence or white supremacy and identified as possible STG materials to Peterson for evaluation,
as neither the chaplain nor the mailroom supervisor are trained to evaluate STG materials. Potter is
entitled to qualified immunity because Potter did not violate Rowe’s constitutional rights and such
rights were not clearly established under applicable law at the time. First, § 1983 protects plaintiff
from constitutional violations, not violations of state laws or departmental regulations. See Scott v.
Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2003). No constitutional violation exists for failing to fill
out a state form. Second, Rowe has no constitutional right to dictate who reviews his materials and
the forwarding of most of Rowe’s Identity Christian materials which were identified as possible
STG materials to Peterson, a STG Coordinator, for review is reasonably related to preserving the
order of the penal institution. Even if Rowe’s materials were not timely evaluated by Peterson,
Potter is not personally responsible for this inaction. Accordingly, defendant Potter is entitled to
qualified immunity as to this claim.

11

b.

Walter Peterson

Rowe alleges that Peterson consistently took an excessive amount of time to review and
deliver his Identity Christian materials and that materials were confiscated which should not have
been.
A prison mail policy restricting access to potential violence producing materials is valid
under the First Amendment. Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1999) (discussing
withholding of CJCC and Aryan Nations materials) (citing McCabe v. Arave, 827 F.2d 634, 638
(9th Cir. 1987) (holding that a total ban on literature advocating racial purity “cannot be
constitutionally banned as rationally related to rehabilitation” but recognizing that literature
advocating violence or illegal activity could be banned); Murphy v. Missouri, 814 F.2d 1252,
1256–57 (8th Cir. 1987) (holding a total ban on Aryan Nation materials too restrictive, but stating
a policy restricting materials that advocate violence or that are racially inflammatory would be
valid); Winburn v. Bologna, 979 F. Supp. 531, 534 (W.D. Mich. 1997) (prison mail policy
withholding material that promotes violence and racial supremacy reasonable and valid); Thomas
v. United States Secretary of Defense, 730 F. Supp. 362 (D. Kan. 1990) (regulation rejecting mail
that communicates information designed to encourage prisoners to disrupt institution by strikes,
riots, racial or religious hatred does not violate First Amendment)).
In addition, it is undisputed that Peterson did not implement a total ban on CJCC materials
and that Rowe received most of the materials which Peterson reviewed. See dkt. 128 at p. 47, fn.
27. See e.g., Williams v. Brimeyer, 116 F.3d 351, 354 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding plaintiff entitled to
receive certain CJCC publications where the publications do not counsel violence and there is no
evidence that they have ever caused a disruption). In addition, Rowe has not presented any
evidence that would suggests that any delay in reviewing his correspondence which was identified

12

as potential STG material was intentional or excessive. There was no clearly established
constitutional right to receive correspondence within a certain timeframe under applicable law at
the time Peterson conducted his review. See generally Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 404
(1989) (discussing Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations that authorized wardens to reject
incoming publications that were determined to be detrimental to the institution's security or that
might promote criminal activity following individual review). Under these circumstances,
Peterson is entitled to qualified immunity as to the claim that he violated Rowe’s First Amendment
rights in reviewing certain correspondence identified as possible STG materials to determine
whether they posed a threat to institutional security. Even if Peterson did violate Rowe’s
constitutional rights, such rights were not clearly established under applicable law at the time.
If Rowe believes that specific publications were improperly withheld from him following
review and if those publications have still not been provided to him, he could have requested that
the denial of these specific materials be reviewed for the purpose of obtaining injunctive relief
under RLUIPA.6 No such claim for injunctive relief is understood to be pursued in this action.
2. Swastika
Rowe also alleges that certain defendants violated his First Amendment rights in
prohibiting him from possessing a swastika necklace. The defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity as to this claim. There is no evidence to suggest that denying Rowe the opportunity to
wear a swastika necklace violated Rowe’s clearly established First Amendment rights. See
Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.
“Regardless of its ancient or historic origins, the swastika today is a potent symbol of
6 Rowe states that he challenges the confiscation of 11 publications. Dkt. 128 at p. 49. He specifically
alleges that publications were improperly confiscated on November 30, 2010, and January 19, 2011. Dkt.
128 at p. 36. In particular, Rowe takes issue with Peterson’s decision to confiscate materials which depict
gatherings of the KKK and the Aryan Nations Standard on the basis that it is a gang symbol and STG
material. See Exhibit F (picture of the Aryan Nations Standard).

13

intolerance, hatred, and violence. As such, prison officials may have a valid penological interest in
prohibiting the wearing of swastikas.” Dickinson v. Austin, 1991 WL 166411, 2 (9th Cir. August
30, 1991) (unpublished opinion). In addition, the Seventh Circuit has held that inmates can be
denied symbols which identify prisoners with gangs or other non-religious separatist groups.
Kaufman v. Karlen, 270 Fed.Appx. 442, 445, 2008 WL 744140, 2 (7th Cir. 2008). The IDOC has
identified the swastika as such a symbol. See Exhibit E. Further, no applicable federal law has
been identified which upholds the right of a prisoner to keep a wearable swastika medallion. Rooks
v. Zavares, 2001 WL 34047959, *12 (D.Colo. 2001); see also Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.
396, 416 (1974) (suggesting that material which might encourage violence could be banned).
Under these circumstances, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.
3. Implementation of Facially Neutral Policy
All the other defendants (including Dodd, Rogers, Bodlovich, Davis, Hemling, Buss,
Morton, Richardson, Fowler, VanNatta, Ash, Pavese, Hall, Scaife, and Wilson) are only alleged to
have implemented facially neutral policies in reviewing and denying Rowe’s grievances. See dkt.
128 at p. 37. These policies (which form the basis for Rowe’s RLUIPA claims) are valid under the
First Amendment because they are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.7 There is a

logical connection between the policies at issue and the legitimate government interest to justify it.
Clearly, eliminating potential threats to the security or order of the facility is a legitimate interest.
Ochs v. Thalacker, 90 F.3d 293, 296 (8th Cir. 1996) (stating that “the most compelling
governmental interest in a prison” is institutional security). Under these circumstances, the
defendants’ actions did not violate the First Amendment and the defendants are entitled to
summary judgment as to these claims.

7 The specific legitimate penological interest associated with each policy is identified below in Part V(C) of this
Entry.

14

C. RLUIPA Claims
Rowe also seeks unspecified injunctive relief on the basis that the six policies identified
above violate RLUIPA. These claims are understood to be alleged against the IDOC. For the
reasons explained below, the IDOC is not entitled to summary judgment as to these claims.
To establish a claim under RLUIPA, an incarcerated plaintiff must demonstrate that he or
she seeks to engage in an exercise of religion and that the challenged practice places a substantial
burden on that exercise of religion. Koger, 523 F.3d at 796. Even if the plaintiff establishes these
elements, the defendant may defeat the claim by showing that the burden is in furtherance of a
compelling governmental interest and it is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. 42
U.S.C. § 2000cc–1(a)(1)–(2); Koger, 523 F.3d at 796. Importantly, the substantial-burden inquiry
does not invite the court to determine the centrality of the religious practice to the adherent’s faith;
and free-exercise doctrine makes it clear that the test for substantial burden does not ask whether
the claimant has correctly interpreted his religious obligations. Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654,
683 (7th Cir. 2013).
1.

The Zero Tolerance Policy on Security Threat Groups (“STG”), identified by

Rowe as IDOC Policy No. 02-03-105. See dkt. 127-1 at p. 25, ¶¶ 48-50. (Attached to Entry as
Exhibit A). The IDOC’s legitimate interest in institutional security justifies this policy. This policy
is problematic to Rowe for two reasons. First, Rowe argues that the IDOC’s definition of STG is
overly broad and could be interpreted to include religious groups and churches including the
CJCC. In fact, Rowe claims that his religion CJCC has been labeled an STG. Dkt. 128 at p. 46.
This conclusion is a material fact in dispute. There is no dispute that the IDOC has labeled Rowe as
a validated member of a white supremacist prison gang or STG, but it is unclear the basis upon
which this label was applied to Rowe.

15

Second, it appears that the CJCC’s close affiliation with the Aryan Nations (the undisputed
political arm of the church) and the content of some CJCC publications have subjected Identity
Christian publications to additional scrutiny as STG material. Rowe complains that his Identity
Christian materials have been sent to the STG Coordinator for review instead of the chaplain and
that some materials have been confiscated as STG related. Rowe argues that his Identity Christian
materials should be reviewed only under the religious services policy which contemplates
RLUIPA.
The IDOC seeks summary judgment on the basis that Rowe has not been substantially
burdened in the exercise of his religion as a result of the policy. However, if the CJCC has been
determined to be an STG or if all CJCC publications have been deemed STG materials then these
determinations create a substantial burden to the practice of Rowe’s religion given the zero
tolerance policy. Whether the IDOC has a compelling governmental interest in labeling the CJCC
as a STG is a material fact in dispute. Accordingly, this claim cannot be resolved through summary
judgment.
2.

The visitation policy prohibiting current prisoners from receiving visits from

ex-prisoners that are not immediate family to the current prisoner. Identified by Rowe as IDOC
Policy No. 02-01-102. (Attached to Entry as Exhibit B). The IDOC’s legitimate interest in
deterring trafficking of illicit materials into prison, promoting rehabilitation, and protecting
institutional security justifies this policy. Rowe explains that most free-world administrative
overseers of the CJCC’s prison ministry are ex-offenders and the policy being challenged prohibits
Rowe from receiving visits from them. Rowe intends to have ex-offenders from the CJCC prison
ministry visit him as a way to practice his religion and he would like to visit offenders following
his release.

16

The defendants argue that this claim is moot, but Rowe alleges that his need to receive
ex-offenders as visitors (in particular James Read, his spiritual advisor) is on-going. This claim
requires further development and summary judgment is denied.
3.

The property policy limiting prisoners to only possessing one authoritative

religious text book and twenty additional books (unless in an approved religious study course).
Identified by Rowe as Policy No. 02-01-101. See dkt. 127-1 at 31 ¶ 118. (The Court was unable to
locate a copy of this policy in the record or online). The IDOC has a legitimate interest in
restricting the number of books and publications that may be used to hide various types of
contraband or may be used as weapons to promote facility security. The defendants explain that
the book and publication limit for Level 3 and 4 facilities is twenty books and one authoritative
religious text. Rowe argues that he needs at least 60 books generally and at least 10 to 15 different
books a day to effectively practice Identity Christianity. Dkt. 128 at p. 73.
Whether or not the book limit is a substantial burden on Rowe’s religious exercise is a
material fact in dispute. In addition, whether the book and publication limit protects the
compelling governmental interest of facility safety and security also requires further development.
Summary judgment on this claim is denied.
4.

The correspondence policy prohibiting offender-to-offender mail when one of

the prisoners is on any type of segregation unit. Identified by Rowe as Policy No. 02-01-103.
See dkt. 127-1 at 33 ¶¶ 130-131. (The relevant portion of this policy is attached to this Entry as
Exhibit C). The IDOC has a legitimate government interest which justifies this policy. That is, by
restricting communications between offenders on segregation and the general prison population,
prison staff is able to better preserve facility order, prevent organized attacks, and remove the
leaders of STGs from their gangs. The defendants argue that this claim is moot because Rowe is no

17

longer in administrative segregation. Rowe admits that he is not on a segregation unit but states
that he likely will be in the future. Rowe states that he would like to write several people on
administrative segregation as a religious exercise but he cannot because the policy prohibits him
from doing so. Whether Rowe’s practice of his religion is substantially burdened by this policy and
whether the IDOC has a compelling interest in prohibiting this type of correspondence are material
facts in dispute given the current record. Summary judgment on this claim is denied.
5.

The correspondence policy prohibiting “item censorship” of religious

publications/correspondence. Identified by Rowe as Policy No. 02-01-103. See dkt. 127-1 at p. 38,
¶ 184. (The relevant portion of this policy is attached to this Entry as Exhibit D). Rowe contends
that IDOC’s policy of banning an entire document because of any objectionable content violates
RLUIPA, and he would advocate for censoring only the objectionable parts (“item censorship”).
Specifically, he would like certain books, which contain components advocating violence against
the Jewish people, use racial slurs and/or depict swastikas and Klan gatherings redacted by facility
staff at his request. Dkt. 128 at p. 35.
The IDOC has a legitimate government interest which justifies this policy. That is, banning
violent materials promotes security and reviewing each page of every single document would
cause unreasonable delay in the delivery of documents sent to the facility. In addition, it is possible
that staff could miss material that should be censored in longer documents creating a security risk.
Whether Rowe’s exercise of religion is substantially burdened by this policy and whether
the IDOC has a compelling governmental interest which is furthered by the policy which is the
least restrictive means of furthering that interest is a material fact in dispute. Accordingly,
summary judgment is not proper as to this RLUIPA claim.

18

6.

The department-wide ban on the swastika. Rowe states that he would like to

obtain and wear a swastika necklace as religious exercise and that the ban prevents him from doing
so. Dkt. 128 at p. 36, see also Exhibit E. He also wants to send and receive materials with a
swastika displayed. He seeks a personal religious exception to the ban on swastikas. The
defendants’ claim that the swastika is the primary symbol of white supremacist STG is not
supported by admissible evidence. Rowe disputes any assertion that the swastika, in isolation, is a
gang symbol. Dkt. 128 at p. 60. This claim requires further development and summary judgment is
not appropriate given the current record.
VI. Conclusion
The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to the § 1983 claims for
money damages alleged against them. This Entry resolves all claims against all defendants with
the exception of the RLUIPA claims against the IDOC.
The RLUIPA claims against the IDOC remain for resolution. The issues for trial are the
following: 1) whether the IDOC’s Zero Tolerance Policy on STGs violates RLUIPA; 2) whether
the IDOC’s visitation policy prohibiting current prisoners from receiving visits from ex-prisoners
that are not immediate family to the current prisoner violates RLUIPA; 3) whether the IDOC’s
property policy limiting prisoners to only possessing one authoritative religious text book and
twenty additional books (unless in an approved religious study course) violates RLUIPA; 4)
whether the IDOC’s correspondence policy prohibiting offender-to-offender mail when one of the
prisoners is on any type of segregation unit violates RLUIPA; 5) whether the correspondence
policy prohibiting “item censorship” of religious publications/correspondence violates RLUIPA;
and 6) whether the ban on the swastika as a religious symbol violates RLUIPA. All other RLUIPA
claims are understood to be moot or abandoned. See dkt. 128 at 32-33 and 36.

19

The only remaining remedies Rowe is entitled to seek in this action for the alleged
RLUIPA violations are equitable in nature. The defendants’ made a jury demand, but “[t]here is no
right to a jury where the only remedies sought (or available) are equitable.” Kramer v. Banc of
America Securities, LLC, 355 F.3d 961, 966 (7th Cir. 2004); see, e.g., Marseilles Hydro Power,
LLC v. Marseilles Land and Water Co., 299 F.3d 643, 648 (7th Cir. 2002) (“If the only relief
sought is equitable ... neither the party seeking that relief nor the party opposing it is entitled to a
jury trial.”). Having found that there is no federal right to a jury trial on the remaining issues in this
case, see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 39(a)(2), this action will be set for a bench trial in a
separate Entry.
If Rowe requests counsel to represent him at the bench trial of this action, the court will
undertake efforts to attempt to recruit counsel to represent him for that purpose. Rowe shall have
through March 20, 2014, to make such a request.
Consistent with the foregoing, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [dkt. 128] is
denied and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment [dkt. 89] is granted in part and
denied in part. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims resolved in this
Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

03/03/2014
Date: __________________
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

20

Distribution:
JEFFREY ALLEN ROWE
DOC # 116017
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Electronic Service Participant -- Court Only
All Electronically Registered Counsel

21