GLENN v. LIEBEL et al

Filing 8

ENTRY Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - The plaintiff's 3 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. No assessment of a partial initial filing fee is feasible at this time.The plaintiff's 4 motion to appoint counsel is denied as premature.The plaintiff's 7 request is denied for the present. The Court cannot perform research on behalf of litigants. The First Amendment and RLUIPA claims shall proceed against defendants Liebel and Walker. Any clai ms brought under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Indiana Constitution are dismissed because such claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The clerk shall issue and serve process on defendants David Liebel and Rev. D. Walker in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). Process in this case shall consist of the complaint filed on October 31, 2014, applicable forms, and this Entry. **SEE ENTRY** Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/10/2014. (AH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
DOLEN GLENN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
DAVID LIEBEL, and
REV D. WALKER,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:14-cv-00343-JMS-MJD

Entry Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
I.

Preliminary Motions

The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 3] is granted. No assessment
of a partial initial filing fee is feasible at this time.
The plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel [dkt. 4] is denied as premature. The defendants
have not been served and have not responded to the complaint. The Seventh Circuit has found
that “until the defendants respond to the complaint, the plaintiff's need for assistance of counsel
. . . cannot be gauged.” Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 846 (7th Cir. 2013).
The plaintiff’s filing of November 5, 2014, states that he is trying to find the case
Caldwell v. Miller, 790 F.2d 589 (7th Cir. 1986). He asserts that he is “trying to get the Judge’s
statement in the case.” He asks for the Court’s assistance. The plaintiff’s request [dkt. 7] is
denied for the present. First, it is not clear what is meant by “the Judge’s statement.” Second,
the plaintiff has not explained why he cannot obtain a copy of this or any other Seventh Circuit
decision from the prison law library. Moreover, the Court cannot perform research on behalf of
litigants.

II. Background
The plaintiff, Dolen Glenn (“Mr. Glenn”), is incarcerated at the Wabash Valley
Correctional Facility (“Wabash Valley”). This civil rights complaint is brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Glenn has named two defendants: 1) David Liebel, Indiana Department of
Correction (“IDOC”) Religious Services Director; and 2) Rev. D. Walker, Wabash Valley
Director of Religious Services. Mr. Glenn alleges that the defendants violated his rights to free
exercise of religion as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and
also violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(“RLUIPA”). He seeks nominal, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
The complaint is now subject to the screening required by 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(b). This
statute directs that the Court dismiss a complaint or any claim within a complaint that “(1) is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. “A complaint is subject
to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff is not
entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).
III. Screening
A.
To satisfy the notice-pleading standard of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Such a statement must provide the defendant with “fair notice” of
the claim and its basis. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. . . . A claim has facial

plausibility when 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) (internal quotation omitted). Pro se complaints such as that filed by Mr. Glenn
are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94; Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
B.
Mr. Glenn alleges that the defendants have violated his First Amendment and RLUIPA
rights by failing to have his Eastern Orthodox religion placed in the IDOC Handbook of
Religious Belief and Practices (the “Handbook”). He also alleges that he has been denied access
to Eastern Orthodox services, communion, and confession, and to other religious items such as
prayer rope, icons, alter, Bible, Prayer book, cross, prayer rug, candle, incense, holy water, holy
oil, holy writing, and kosher food. He alleges that he has made requests for the Eastern Orthodox
services, priests, items, and placement in the Handbook since 2010, and that Mr. Liebel has told
him to be patient. He has been told that he may request a kosher meal.
Mr. Glenn alleges that he has asked Rev. D. Walker since September 2012 to provide
Eastern Orthodox services (including communion and confession) and studies, and religious
rites such as icons, incense, candles, holy water, and holy oil, prayer rugs, and prayer ropes,
without success. He alleges that on September 28, 2012, when he arrived at Wabash Valley, his
prayer rope bracelet was confiscated from him. Mr. Glenn alleges that the defendants have
imposed a substantial burden on his religious exercise by not having his faith in the Handbook
because now prison staff do not know what offenders are allowed to have at the prison to practice
their religion. He alleges that the defendants have denied his ability to practice religious rites for
over twenty (20) months.

The First Amendment and RLUIPA claims shall proceed against defendants Liebel and
Walker.
C.
In addition to alleging violations of the First Amendment and RLUIPA, Mr. Glenn alleges
that these deprivations violate his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and the
Indiana Constitution. The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims are unnecessary because
the First Amendment protections are sufficient to address the free exercise of religion allegations
in the complaint. Constitutional claims are to be addressed under the most applicable provision.
See Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff’s complaint “gains nothing by
attracting additional constitutional labels”). In addition, there is no private cause of action for
damages under the Indiana Constitution under these circumstances. Cantrell v. Morris, 849
N.E.2d 488, 491-93 (Ind. 2006); Hoagland v. Franklin Twp. Community School Corp., 10
N.E.3d 1034, 1040 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (“[T]here is no right of action for monetary damages
under the Indiana Constitution”); Smith v. Indiana Dep’t of Corrections, 871 N.E.2d 975, 985
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“[N]o Indiana court has explicitly recognized a private right of action for
monetary damages under the Indiana Constitution.”). Any claims brought under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments and the Indiana Constitution are dismissed because such claims fail to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IV. Identification of and Supplement to Claims
If Mr. Glenn contends that the Court has misconstrued or failed to acknowledge any
claims that he intended to assert against any defendants, he shall so notify the Court not later
than December 31, 2014. Otherwise, the claims shall remain as identified and as screened in
this Entry.

V. Service of Process
As noted, the claims that the defendants have violated Mr. Glenn’s rights that are protected
by the First Amendment’s free exercise clause and by RLUIPA shall proceed.
The clerk shall issue and serve process on defendants David Liebel and Rev. D. Walker
in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). Process in this case shall consist of the
complaint filed on October 31, 2014, applicable forms, and this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: November 10, 2014
Distribution:
Dolen Glenn, #860216
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Electronic Service Participant - Court only

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

David Liebel
Indiana Department of Correction
Religious Services
302 W. Washington St., Room E334
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Rev. D. Walker
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Religious Services
6908 S. Old U.S. Hwy 41
P. O. Box 500
Carlisle, IN 47838
NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.