Hudson et al v. Spencer et al

Filing 473

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss of defendants (Docket No. 463 ), as to plaintiffs Mac Hudson, Ralph Brown, Raymond Colon and Umar Salahuddin, is ALLOWED.The plea ding filed by plaintiff Mac Hudson on September 2, 2022, (Docket No. 467 ), is treated as a motion to deny defendants motion to dismiss and is DENIED.Defendants and the remaining plaintiffs are instructed to file an updated notice to t he Court on or before April 14, 2023, regarding the status of their settlement negotiations and readiness for trial. As previously noted, the case will be reassigned to another judicial officer in the event that the parties plan to proceed to trial unless the parties petition otherwise and the Court concurs. See Local Rule 40.1(k)(2).So ordered. (Warnock, Douglas)

Case 1:11-cv-12173-NMG Document 473 Filed 03/02/23 Page 1 of 6

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Commissioner Carol A. Mici, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
Hudson, et al.,

Civil Action No.
11-12173-NMG

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.
The sole issue remaining in the pending case is an
equitable claim brought under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”).

Pro se plaintiff Mac

Hudson and other adherents of the Nation of Islam (“NOI”) faith
(“the plaintiffs”) allege that employees of the Massachusetts
Correctional Institute at Concord (“MCI-Concord”) and the
Massachusetts Department of Correction (“DOC”) (collectively,
“the defendants”) violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. by
improperly imposing a burden on plaintiffs’ exercise of their
religion at the MCI-Concord facility. 1

Carol A. Mici has replaced Luis S. Spencer as the Commissioner
of the DOC during the pendency of the case at bar and will be
substituted as a party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
1

- 1 -

Case 1:11-cv-12173-NMG Document 473 Filed 03/02/23 Page 2 of 6

After extensive pre-trial proceedings, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs Mac Hudson
(“Hudson”), Ralph Brown (“Brown”), Raymond Colon (“Colon”) and
Umar Salahuddin (“U. Salahuddin”) in August, 2022 (Docket No.
463).

Although the Court granted plaintiffs an extended

opportunity to respond to that motion, no oppositions have been
filed.
I.

For the reasons that follow, the motion will be allowed.

Background
Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in December,

2011.

After multiple rounds of dispositive motions, appeals and

appellate decisions of which the parties were aware, a single
equitable claim under the RLUIPA was remanded in November, 2021,
for further proceedings before this Court.
This Court convened a hearing to address the status of the
case in August, 2022, at which defendants announced that only
Edker Rock and Faradan Ibn Salahuddin were viable plaintiffs
because they were the only plaintiffs still resident at MCIConcord.

At that hearing, Hudson nevertheless contended that he

continued to have standing to assert a RLUIPA claim against
defendants.
The Court set a deadline of August 24, 2022, for defendants
to file a motion to dismiss based upon their argument of
mootness.

Defendants timely filed such motion, including a

certificate of service averring that they sent paper copies of
- 2 -

Case 1:11-cv-12173-NMG Document 473 Filed 03/02/23 Page 3 of 6

the motion and supporting memorandum to plaintiffs at their
then-current addresses.

Hudson responded by filing a “motion”

on September 2, 2022, claiming that defendants had waived their
opportunity to file a motion a dismiss.

He stated that he had

not yet received defendants’ motion to dismiss, asserted that
defendants were engaged in a “tactical delay” and sought
sanctions.

The address Hudson provided in that filing matched

the address to which defendants had sent their motion to
dismiss.
On September 7, 2022, defendants responded to Hudson with a
sworn affidavit reaffirming that they had sent paper copies of
their motion to Hudson and the other remaining plaintiffs on
August 24, 2022.

Defendants noted that Hudson had been released

from DOC custody on September 1, 2022, and stated that they
would now serve him by mail at the address provided upon his
release.

In October, 2022, the Court reset the deadline for

plaintiffs to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss to early
November, 2022, but the Court has received no such response
before or after that deadline.
II.

Motion to Dismiss for Mootness
Mootness is a constitutional issue that a court should

ordinarily resolve before reaching the merits of a case. ACLU of
Mass. v. U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 705 F.3d 44, 52
(1st Cir. 2013).

The mootness doctrine ensures that claims are
- 3 -

Case 1:11-cv-12173-NMG Document 473 Filed 03/02/23 Page 4 of 6

justiciable throughout the course of litigation and not only at
the time a claim is initially filed. Id.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has identified the
following circumstances when cases will become moot:
1) when the issues presented are no longer live or the
parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome;
2) when the court cannot give any effectual relief to
the potentially prevailing party; and

3) if events have transpired to render a court opinion
merely advisory.
KG Urban Enters., LLC v. Patrick, 969 F. Supp. 2d 52, 56 (D.
Mass. 2013) (citing Catholic Bishops, 705 F.3d at 52-53).
The only claim remaining in the case at bar is plaintiffs’
claim for equitable relief under the RLUIPA with respect to the
availability of and conditions for group worship by NOI
adherents at MCI-Concord.

Plaintiffs Hudson, Brown, Colon and

U. Salahuddin are no longer incarcerated at MCI-Concord and thus
have no legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the
dispute.

Their claims are therefore moot. See Genesis

Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 72 (2013) (holding
that a plaintiff’s action must be dismissed as moot if an
“intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of a personal
stake in the outcome of the lawsuit”).

- 4 -

Case 1:11-cv-12173-NMG Document 473 Filed 03/02/23 Page 5 of 6

Nor is there any merit to the supposition that the
challenged circumstances are capable of repetition yet will
evade review.

That doctrine applies only in cases where

the party asking the court to exercise jurisdiction
can demonstrate that (1) the challenged action is in
its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to
cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable
expectation that the same complaining party will be
subject to the same action again.
United States v. Mazzillo, 373 F.3d 181, 183 (1st Cir. 2004)
(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v.
Reid, 369 F.3d 619, 626-27 (1st Cir. 2004)).
None of the transferred and/or released plaintiffs in the
pending case has even attempted to make a showing that he
expects to be subjected to the same injurious circumstances
again.

In any event, it would be unreasonable for the Court to

assume that any of the plaintiffs will violate the terms of
their parole or otherwise be subject to detention at MCI-Concord
and thus be “once again place[d] . . . at risk of” the injury
underlying the pending litigation. See, e.g., Ind v. Colo. Dep't
of Corr., 801 F.3d 1209, 1214 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Honig v.
Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 320 (1988)).

- 5 -

Case 1:11-cv-12173-NMG Document 473 Filed 03/02/23 Page 6 of 6

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss of
defendants (Docket No. 463), as to plaintiffs Mac Hudson, Ralph
Brown, Raymond Colon and Umar Salahuddin, is ALLOWED.
The pleading filed by plaintiff Mac Hudson on September 2,
2022, (Docket No. 467), is treated as a motion to deny
defendants’ motion to dismiss and is DENIED.
Defendants and the remaining plaintiffs are instructed to
file an updated notice to the Court on or before April 14, 2023,
regarding the status of their settlement negotiations and
readiness for trial.

As previously noted, the case will be

reassigned to another judicial officer in the event that the
parties plan to proceed to trial unless the parties petition
otherwise and the Court concurs. See Local Rule 40.1(k)(2).
So ordered.

_/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton____
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated:

March 2, 2023

- 6 -