Vinson #194753 v. Riley et al
Filing
52
OPINION ; signed by Judge R. Allan Edgar (Judge R. Allan Edgar, cam)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
CALVIN VINSON, JR., #194753,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:09-cv-46
v.
Honorable R. Allan Edgar
GERALD RILEY, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION
Plaintiff Carl Vinson, Jr., an inmate currently confined at Baraga Maximum
Correctional Facility (AMF), filed this pro se civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against defendants Chaplain Gerald Riley, Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor Denise
Gerth, and Warden David Bergh. On September 27, 2010, this Court entered an Opinion
[Doc. No. 37] and Order [Doc. No. 38] granting the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Bergh as well as Plaintiff’s Due
Process claims. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied as to Plaintiff’s
First Amendment and RLUIPA claims against Defendants Riley and Gerth. Doc. No. 38.
The defendants’ motion was granted as to all claims against them in their official capacities.
Doc. No. 37, p. 12. On October 6, 2010, Defendants Riley and Gerth (“Defendants”) filed
a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Opinion and Order. Doc. No. 39. On October
14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ motion.1 Doc. No. 45. Plaintiff then filed
a motion entitled “Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order” on June 10, 2011. Doc. No. 48.
The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the matter is now ready for decision.
A district court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for any
reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). To be successful in a motion for
reconsideration, “[t]he movant shall not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the
Court and the parties have been misled, but also show that a different disposition of the
case must result from a correction thereof.” W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.4(a). Presenting the same
issues ruled on by the Court is insufficient. Id.
RLUIPA Claim
In their motion for reconsideration, Defendants argue that it was palpable error to
allow Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim to proceed, because his transfer to a different facility has
mooted his request for declaratory and injunctive relief, and because monetary damages
are not available under RLUIPA. Doc. No. 39, p. 2. The Court need not deal with these
issues here since in his subsequently filed “Motion for Relief”, Plaintiff states that he never
included an RLUIPA claim in his complaint. The Court will treat Plaintiff’s statements in his
“Motion for Relief” as a voluntary dismissal of this claim.
Qualified Immunity
In their motion for reconsideration, Defendants point to this Court’s statement that
Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d, “for the first time held that Michigan’s use of a test to determine
1
While Local Rule 7.4(b) indicates that an answer to a motion for reconsideration will
not be allowed unless requested by the Court, the Court has decided to consider Plaintiff’s
response, in keeping with the spirit of the liberal pleading standard afforded to pro se
inmates. See Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 395 (6th Cir. 1999), citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).
2
whether an inmate knows enough about his religion is improper because it is based on an
improper constitutional standard.” Doc. No. 37, p. 9. Defendants then argue “that it was
palpable error to deny them qualified immunity [because] any right clearly established by
Colvin was not clearly established at the time they took the actions which [Plaintiff]
complains of.” Doc. No. 39, p. 4.
The procedure for evaluating a qualified immunity claim has three parts. First, we
determine whether a constitutional violation occurred; second, we determine whether the
right that was violated was a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would
have known; finally, we determine whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts, which
are supported with sufficient evidence, to indicate that what the official allegedly did was
objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights. Williams v.
Mehra, 186 F.3d 685, 690 (6th Cir. 1999).
In their motion, Defendants argue that the second prong of the qualified immunity
test is not met. When determining whether a right is clearly established, this Court must
look first to decisions of the United States Supreme Court, then to decisions of the Sixth
Circuit and to other courts within this Circuit, and finally to decisions of other circuits.
Dietrich v. Burrows, 167 F.3d 1007, 1012 (6th Cir. 1999).
An official action is not
necessarily protected by qualified immunity merely because the very action in question has
not previously been held to be unlawful.
Rather, in light of pre-existing law, the
unlawfulness of the official’s conduct must be apparent. Dietrich, 167 F.3d at 1012;
Wegener v. City of Covington, 933 F.2d 390, 392 (6th Cir. 1991).
Defendants’ argument is based on an erroneous interpretation of Colvin. Colvin did
not “clearly establish” a constitutional right. Instead, it recognized the already established
3
right that an inmate has to the free exercise of religion. See O’Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S.
342, 348 (1987). The Sixth Circuit based its reasoning regarding the Michigan Department
of Corrections’ objective knowledge religious test on the following concept: “the touchstone
for determining whether a religious belief is entitled to free-exercise protection [in the prison
setting] is an assessment of ‘whether the beliefs professed . . . are sincerely held,’ not
whether ‘the belief is accurate or logical.” Colvin, 605 F.3d at 298, citing Jackson v. Mann,
196 F.3d 316, 320 (2nd Cir. 1999) (emphasis in original).
It is well established that First Amendment protection is only required for the sincerely
held religious beliefs of inmates. See Flagner v. Wilkinson, 241 F.3d 475, 481 (6th Cir.
2001). Moreover, Supreme Court precedent establishes that prison officials should not
attempt to evaluate the truth or validity of a prisoner’s religious beliefs when inquiring into
their sincerity. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-85 (1965); see also Thomas v.
Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 713 (1981) (“[R]eligious beliefs
need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit
First Amendment protection.”). Given this precedent, the concept that it is improper to rely
on an inmate’s objective knowledge of his religion to determine his religious sincerity was
apparent before the “very action in question” was found to be improper in Colvin.
Defendants have therefore failed to show that a palpable error occurred in the Court’s
denial of qualified immunity.
Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment Claim
In his “Motion for Relief”, Plaintiff argues that the Court mistakenly treated his
Fourteenth Amendment claim as a Due Process Claim instead of an Equal Protection claim.
Doc. No. 48, p. 1. Plaintiff did list an Equal Protection claim in his complaint. This claim
4
remains before the Court since Defendants did not address it in their motion for summary
judgment. Defendants are therefore not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim.
Conclusion
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 39] will be denied. Plaintiff’s
“Motion for Relief” [Doc. No. 48] will be granted to the extent that the Court finds he has
stated a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim. Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim will be
dismissed without prejudice. This case remains pending on the following claims: (1)
Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim; and (2) Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Equal
Protection claim.
An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.
Dated: 9/16/2011
/s/ R. Allan Edgar
R. ALLAN EDGAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?