Miles v. Moore et al

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 2/21/12. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

JOSEPH A. MILES, HI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 3:10cvl62

WILLIAM MOORE, III, et a/.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joseph A. Miles, III, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed

this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Miles claims that Defendants violated his rights under

the First Amendment1 and the Religious Land use and Institutionalized Persons Act

("RLUIPA")2 by denying his right to freely exercise his religion. On March 3,2011, by
Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
and dismissed Miles's claims. Miles v. Moore, No. 3:10cvl62, 2011 WL 837164, at *7 (E.D.
Va. Mar. 3, 2011). Miles appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit. On October 19, 2011, the Fourth Circuit affirmed this Court's dismissal of

Miles's First Amendment claim and vacated this Court's dismissal of Miles's RLUIPA claim.3

Miles v. Moore, No. 11-6466, 2011 WL 4957956, at *2 (4th Cir. Oct. 19, 2011).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof. .. ." U.S. Const, amend. I.

242 U.S.C. §2000cc-l(a)(l)-(2).

3In the March 3, 2011 Memorandum Opinion, the Court held that Miles failed to show
that "the allegedly burdened religious exercises [were] important 'beliefs'" within the meaning
of RLUIPA. Miles, 2011 WL 837164, at *6. Consequently, the Court reasoned, Miles could not
establish a substantial burden upon his religious exercise. Thus, Miles failed to shift the burden

In its October 19,2011 opinion, the Fourth Circuit held that the record established that
Defendants placed a substantial burden on Miles's religious exercise within the meaning of
RLUIPA. Id. at *2. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal of Miles's RLUIPA

claim and ordered this Court to "proceed to the next step of determining whether [Defendants]

could demonstrate that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest by the least
restrictive means.... [by] evaluating] whether the open enrollment policy is the least restrictive
means to further a compelling governmental interest." Id.

In accordance with the Fourth Circuit's opinion, Defendants will be DIRECTED to

submit a motion for summary judgment supporting their position that the open enrollment policy
furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that
interest.4

Additionally, Miles has submitted a Motion to Disqualify in which he argues that the
Court should not allow the Virginia Office of the Attorney General to represent Defendant

Moore because Moore, an institutional chaplain, is not a state employee. (Mot. Disqualify 1.)
On October 22, 2010, Miles made a Motion to Strike in which he advanced this same argument.

(Docket No. 30.) On February 16, 2011, the Court denied Miles's Motion to Strike. (Docket
No.33.) The Fourth Circuit found no error in this denial. Miles, 2QU WL 4957956, at *1.

Accordingly, Miles's Motion to Disqualify (Docket No. 47) will be DENIED.

to Defendants to demonstrate that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest by the
least restrictive means. Id. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Miles's RLUIPA claim.

4The Court reminds Defendants that both this Court and the Fourth Circuit found
Defendants' initial briefing on this issue inadequate. See Miles, 2011 WL 837164, at *6 n.9;
Miles, 2011 WL 4957956, at *2 ("On this record, we cannot conclude that the open enrollment
policy is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling interest."). The Court also
reminds Defendants that their memorandum must comply with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d
309(4thCir. 1975).

Miles also has filed a document entitled Motion for Settlement. This document appears

to be an offer of settlement directed to Defendants. Thus, it requires no action from the Court.
Accordingly, the Clerk will be DIRECTED to TERMINATE the Motion for Settlement (Docket
No. 49) as a pending motion. No further action will be taken on the Motion for Settlement.

An appropriate Order shall issue.

JaL
Date:£"P-/~/£Richmond, Virginia

James R. Spencer

United States District Judge