Goddard v. Alexakos et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Defendants C. Eichenlaub, J.F. Caraway, Ian Connors, and Charles Samuel are DISMISSED from this case. 2. Clerk shall prepare "Service Packets" for service upon USA, Federal BOP, and each remaining individual defendant in this case. Service Packets should each consist of summons, complaint, first and second amended complaints, this Order and USM 285; 3. Clerk shall send Service Packets to USM and not date of deliver on docket; 4. USM serve USA by sending Service Packet to Civil Process Clerk at USAO and to OAG; 5. USM shall serve Federal BOP by Sending Service Packet to Civil Process Clerk at USAO; OAG; and Central Office for Federal BOP; 6. USM personally serve each individual dft: Nick Alexakos, T homas Caldwell, Dave Carpenter, Jose Jimenez; J.G. Hallock; S. Lovett; Francisco Quintana; Chaplain Ortiz; Officer Mundy; S. Kern; and FMC-Lexington Official "PLP," 7. Goddard must immediately advice Clerk of any changes in mailing address; 8. if Goddard wishes to seek relief from Court, must do so by filing formal motion sent to Clerk's office. Every motion must include written certification that he has mailed a copy to dfts or their counsel. Court will disregard letters sent to Chambers or motions lacking certificate of service. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 4/17/2017.(STC)cc: Plt,USM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
CALVIN LEE GODDARD,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 5: 16-215-KKC

V.
NICK ALEXAKOS, et al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Defendant.

*** *** *** ***
Inmate Calvin Goddard is confined at the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky
(FMC-Lexington). Proceeding without counsel, Goddard filed a lawsuit against numerous federal
prison officials alleging violations of his constitutional and statutory rights to practice his religion.
[R. 1] This matter is now before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss some of Goddard’s claims and also dismiss some
of the defendants from the case. The Court will then direct that summons be issued to the
remaining defendants so that they can respond to the outstanding claims.
I.
According to Goddard, he is a member of “The Way,” which he describes as a nonProtestant Christian religion. [R. 1, 1-1] Goddard claims that while officials at FMC-Lexington
allow other religious groups to access and hold their services at the prison’s chapel, the officials
have prevented members of The Way from worshipping as a group at the chapel. [R. 1 at 13-14].
While Goddard acknowledges that the prison offers general Christian services, he argues that those
services are Protestant in nature, and he repeatedly emphasizes that he is not a Protestant. In fact,

throughout Goddard’s complaint and attached exhibits, he goes to great lengths to distinguish his
own faith from Protestantism.
In April 2015, Goddard submitted a request through the prison’s administrative process,
formally asking “to no longer be designated in Sentry as Protestant” and requesting that The Way
be permitted to hold its own non-Protestant religious service at the prison on Sunday evenings.
[R. 1-1 at 2-9]. Goddard also requested “a non-protestant choir, an acceptable time to practice, to
have our own guest speakers, [and] to have guest choirs (on occasion),” as well as certain items
for the religious services. [R. 1-1 at 9]
The prison’s Religious Issues Committee met and considered Goddard’s request. [R. 1-1
at 13, 18] In response, a supervisory chaplain and the warden both wrote to Goddard and told him,
“The Religious practices described in this request are typically accommodated in the General
Christian services, often referred to as Protestant.” [R. 1-1 at 13, 18]. That said, they also indicated
that members of The Way could be “accommodated as individual practitioners” who could
“procure religious study material” and also “have access to clergy visits from their spiritual
leader.” [R. 1-1 at 13, 18]. Finally, the supervisory chaplain and warden informed Goddard that
if he “does not wish to be listed in Sentry with a religious preference of ‘Protestant,’ an appropriate
alternative could be ‘Other.’” [R. 1-1 at 13, 18].
Goddard was not satisfied with this response. [R. 1 at 6]. As an initial matter, Goddard
appeared to raise some procedural concerns about the Religious Issues Committee’s meeting. [R.
1 at 6]. Goddard also objected to the substance of the response, arguing again that the general
Christian services are Protestant in nature and, therefore, inconsistent with his religious beliefs,
and that members of The Way should be permitted to worship as a group in the chapel. [R. 1 at 6;
R. 1-1 at 16-17, 20].

2

After exchanging correspondence with some of the chaplains at the prison, it appears that
Goddard at least began to pursue his administrative remedies. Indeed, Goddard attached to his
complaint several documents related to a formal administrative review process. [R. 1-1 at 28-48].
During that process, the warden responded to the request for an administrative remedy by telling
Goddard, “A review of your request has revealed numerous worship and study times for the
General Christian faith tradition which you are part of.” [R. 1-1 at 31]. The warden later said,
“Adding another General Christian Service would give General Christian’s substantially more time
than other faith groups. A lack of equitability in the allotment of time given to each faith group
could lead to a disruption in the smooth orderly running of the institution and cause significant
safety concerns.” [R. 1-1 at 31]. Finally, the Warden told Goddard, “If you find the current
General Christian worship and study times do not meet your religious needs completely, you may
practice your religion as an individual practitioner and may have a Minister of Record.” [R. 1-1
at 31].
After receiving the warden’s response, it appears that Goddard may have pursued his
administrative remedies through the appeals process. Indeed, there are receipts in the record
suggesting that Goddard appealed the warden’s response to the Bureau of Prison’s (BOP’s)
regional and central offices. [R. 1-1 at 32, 40-42]. However, the record is not altogether clear on
this point. That is because the dates and remedy ID numbers on the correspondence between
Goddard and prison officials are at times inconsistent. [R. 1-1 at 28-51]. It also appears that the
issues in the present matter became intertwined with separate allegations that Goddard may have
raised in the past, including a racial discrimination claim related to a Protestant choir at the prison.
[R. 1-1 at 35-36, 50-51]. In any event, Goddard claims that he sent multiple forms to numerous
prison and law enforcement officials, and he has not received a response to date. [R. 1 at 10].

3

Goddard then filed this lawsuit in federal court against numerous prison officials in both
their official and individual capacities. Goddard again argues at length that the general Christian
services offered at the prison are inconsistent with his religious beliefs and that members of The
Way should be permitted to worship as a group in the chapel. [R. 1 at 11-17]. That said, Goddard
also briefly states at the end of his complaint that the defendants have recently “begun to retaliate
as [he] just filed another BP-9 over the fact the Chapel has refused to allow the Plaintiff and others
continued use [of] the Chapel chairs for a Saturday night Bible Study that has gone on for over six
years.” [R. 1 at 17] On that point, Goddard alleges that the defendants “have posted a sign on the
Chapel door that chairs are for Chapel sponsored events only (though others use them), and asked
Officers who work that post to cease opening the Chapel and allow chairs to be used.” [R. 1 at 17].1
Ultimately, Goddard claims that “[t]he defendants have violated [his] 1st, 8th, and 14th
Amendment rights by denying him the right to freely exercise his religion known originally as The
Way, (Christianity).” [R. 1 at 17] Goddard also argues that the defendants have run afoul of the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act (RLUIPA), and 18 U.S.C. § 1001. [R. 1 at 18] Goddard is seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief, including but not limited to an order that “a service be granted to The Way on
Sundays comparable to other religions being allowed two hour services.” [R. 1 at 22]
This matter is now before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
II.
The Court will dismiss some of Goddard’s claims and also dismiss some of the defendants
from the case. The Court will then direct that summons be issued to the remaining defendants so
that they can respond to the outstanding claims.

1

Goddard also echoes his retaliation claim in subsequent submissions to the Court. [R. 5, 11].
4

As an initial matter, the Court will dismiss Goddard’s claim that the defendants violated
18 U.S.C. § 1001. Section 1001, of course, is a federal statute that makes it a crime to make false
statements to the federal government, and Goddard does not have the authority to invoke that
statute in this civil case.
The Court will also dismiss Goddard’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Claims. That
is because, at bottom, Goddard is alleging that federal prison officials violated the rights
guaranteed him by the Free Exercise Clause. Thus, Goddard’s constitutional claim—which he
may bring in federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the doctrine announced in Bivens v.
Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)—is rooted in the First Amendment,
not the Eighth or Fourteenth. And the Supreme Court has indicated that where a constitutional
claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision, the claim must be analyzed under the
standard appropriate to that provision. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 843
(1998); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989). Thus, the Court will not analyze Goddard’s
claim under either the broad rubric of substantive due process, which is presumably what he is
trying to invoke with his reference to the Fourteenth Amendment, or the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, which is simply not on point in this case. Instead,
the Court will dismiss those claims.
This leaves Goddard’s First Amendment Free Exercise claim, RFRA claim, and RLUIPA
claim. It also leaves Goddard’s First Amendment retaliation claim, which he briefly makes at the
end of his complaint [R. 1 at 17] and in subsequent submissions to the Court [R. 5, 11] and for
which he may not have exhausted his administrative remedies. The Court will order service upon
the defendants to address these four claims, which are made against them in both their official and
individual capacities.

5

That said, before the Court directs that summons be issued, the Court will dismiss four
defendants from this case: (1) C. Eichenlaub, the Former Regional Director of the BOP’s MidAtlantic Region; (2) J.F. Caraway, the Current Regional Director of the BOP’s Mid-Atlantic
Region; (3) Ian Connors, the Administrator for National Inmate Appeals at the BOP (Central
Office); and (4) Charles Samuels, the Former Director of the BOP. That is because it does not
appear from Goddard’s complaint that these current or former officials were involved in this case
in any meaningful way, other than simply responding or not responding to Goddard’s
administrative appeals, or that they otherwise purposefully availed themselves of the forum state.
As another federal court put it, “It is not reasonable to suggest that federal prison officials may be
hauled into court simply because they have regional and national supervisory responsibilities over
facilities within a forum state.” Hill v. Pugh, 75 F. App’x 715, 719 (10th Cir. 2003). Therefore,
the Court will dismiss these four defendants from this case.
III.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants C. Eichenlaub, J.F. Caraway, Ian Connors, and Charles Samuel are

DISMISSED from this case.
2.

The Deputy Clerk shall prepare “Service Packets” for service upon the United

States of America, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and each remaining individual defendant in this
case. The Service Packets should each consist of:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
3.

a completed summons form;
the complaint [R. 1];
the first and second amended complaints [R. 5; R. 11];
this Order; and
a completed USM Form 285.

The Deputy Clerk shall send the Service Packets to the USMS in Lexington,

Kentucky and note the date of delivery in the docket.
6

4.

The USMS shall serve the United States of America by sending a Service Packet

by certified or registered mail to the Civil Process Clerk at the Office of the United States Attorney
for the Eastern District of Kentucky and to the Office of the Attorney General of the United States
in Washington, D.C.
5.

The USMS shall serve the Federal Bureau of Prisons by sending a Service Packet

by certified or registered mail to: (A) the Civil Process Clerk at the Office of the United States
Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky; (B) the Office of the Attorney General of the United
States in Washington, D.C; and (C) the Central Office of the Federal Bureau of Prisons in
Washington, D.C.
6.

The USMS shall personally serve each individual defendant in this case at the

Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky, through arrangement with the Federal Bureau of
Prisons. The individual defendants are as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
7.

Nick Alexakos;
Thomas Caldwell;
Dave Carpenter;
Jose Jimenez;
J.G. Hallock;
S. Lovett;
Francisco Quintana;
Chaplain Ortiz;
Officer Mundy;
S. Kern; and
FMC-Lexington Official “PLP”

Goddard must immediately advise the Clerk’s Office of any change in his current

mailing address. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this case.
8.

If Goddard wishes to seek relief from the Court, he must do so by filing a formal

motion sent to the Clerk’s Office. Every motion Goddard files must include a written certification
that he has mailed a copy of it to the defendants or their counsel and state the date of mailing. The

7

Court will disregard letters sent to the Judge’s chambers or motions lacking a certificate of
service.
Dated April 17, 2017.

8