Sirleaf v. Pearson et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM OPINION. READ OPINION FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 02/16/2017. Copy mailed to Sirleaf as directed. (ccol, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, JR., II FEB I62BIF ^ CLERK U.S. DiSTRiCt COURT 'RICHMOND. VA Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:15CV301 EDDIE PEARSON, et aL, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr., a Virginia inmate proceeding/pro se and informa pauperis, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.' Inhis Complaint, Sirleafargues that, during his incarceration at the Greensville Correctional Center ("GCC"), Defendants^ have violated his right to practice his religion as a member of "theJewish race and... the Jewish religion." (Compl. tt 2,12 ECF No. 1.)^ The Court construes Sirleafto raise the following claims for relief: ' That statute provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute ... of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereofto the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.... 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ^The named Defendants are: Eddie Pearson, the Warden ofGCC (Compl. 13), and Jarratt, a colonel at GCC {id 14). ^While the Complaint names "Plaintiffs," as previously explained by the Court to Sirleaf, "Momolu Sirleafis the only individual who signed the Complaint. The action will proceed with Momolu Sirleafas the soleplaintiff. To the extent anyother inmate wishes to pursue an action under 42U.S.C. § 1983, hemust submit his own new civil action." (Mem. Order 1,ECF No. 6.) Claim One: Defendants placeda substantial burdenon Sirleafs exercise of his religion in violation of (a) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA")'^ and (b) the First Amendment^ right tofree exercise of his religion by placingSirleafs housingunit on lockdown for a bi-annual shakedown, wMchprevented Sirleaf from celebrating Rosh Hashanah in September 2014. (Id. Claim Two: 5-6,12.)^ Defendants violated Sirleafs Fourteenth Amendment' right toequal protection of the law by "allow[ing] the KAIROS retreat to be held, but den[ying] the scheduled Jewish holy day Rosh Hashanah to be held on the 2d and last day" in September 2014. {Id. 13.) The matter is now before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 23.) Despite providing Sirleafwith appropriate Roseboro^ notice, Sirleafhas not responded. This matter is ripe for judgment. For the reasons stated below. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED. 1. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment imder Rule 56 is appropriate only when the Court, viewing the record as a whole and in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, determines that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, All U.S. 317,322-24 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., Ml U.S. 242,248-50 (1986). "A fact is material ifthe existence or non-existence thereof could lead a jury to different resolutions of the case." Thomas v. FTS USA, LLC, No. 3:13cv825, '^42U.S.C. §2000cc-l(a). ^"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." U.S. Const, amend. I. ® Court corrects the spelling inthe quotations from Sirleafs submissions. The ' "No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection ofthe laws." U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1. ® Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). October 2014 {id. End. B); (4) a copy ofa September 21,2014 Incident Report regarding GCC Cluster S3 (id. End. C); and, (5) a copy ofthe 2014 calendar for KAIROS atGCC {id End. D). While Sirleafdid notrespond to theMotion for Summary Judgment, he has sworn to the contents of the Complaint under penalty of pequry. (Compl. 5.) Sirleafhas also submitted a Declaration ofReligious Beliefs, which sets forth an overview ofhis "sincerely held religious beliefs." (ECF No. 4,at 1.) Because this document makes no reference to Rosh Hashanah, the Court has notconsidered it for purposes of summary judgment. In light of the foregoing submissions, the following facts are established for the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court draws all permissible inferences in favor of Sirleaf. II. Pertinent Facts UnderVirginiaDepartment of Corrections' ("VDOC") guidelines, all institutions that are classified as Security Level 3, such as GCC, must "complete a facility lockdown search at least twice per year." (Jarratt Aff. 14.) GCC "consists ofthree Clusters, with each cluster being the approximate size of a normal correctional facility." {Id.) Therefore, eachcluster conducts a shakedown twice per year. {Id.) During a shakedown, "all activities of the Cluster are locked down and cancelled and offenders arerestricted to theircell[s]." {Id.) Offenders continue to receive basic necessities such as food, hygiene, and medical services. {Id. 4, 5.) "[M]ost programs and services are severely curtailed and offenders are not allowed out-of-cell activities." {Id ^ 4.) Religious services are suspended, but offenders are permitted to practice their faith inside their cells. {Id. 15.) During shakedowns, "regular functions and activities must besuspended in order to accomplish priority security measures, including searches for contraband." {Id) "Ofparamount importance during a lockdown isthe preservation ofsecurity and maintaining the safety and welfare of all offenders and staff." {Id.) Assistant Warden Jarratt "schedule[s] institutional lockdowns at the beginning ofeach year." {Id. H6.) When scheduling lockdowns, he"make[s] every effort to avoid known major holidays and observances. However, it would be essentially impossible to accommodate every religious holiday observed by offenders at" GCC. {Id.) In September 2014, the shakedown of Cluster S3 was scheduled tooccur September 21-26,2014. {Id End. A.) Asearch ofHousing Unit 7 in Cluster S3, to which Sirleaf was assigned, was scheduled for September 22-23,2014. {Id. 16; id. End. A.) On September4,2014, an Institutional Chaplainat GCC sent to the Institutional Programs Manager a memorandum that provided guidance asto when the Jewish High Holy Days of Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkoth would beobserved in 2014. {Id. End. B,at 1.) According to the memorandum, adherents of the Messianic Jewish and House of Yahweh faiths could observe Rosh Hashanah from sundown on September 25,2014, through sundown on September 26,2014. {Id. at 2.) No special meals were authorized, but group Rosh Hashanah services for offenders in Cluster S3 were scheduled tooccur on September 26,2014. {Id.) The Institutional Programs Manager approved the memorandiun on September 23,2014. {Id. at 1.) The lockdown ofCluster S3 began at 10:45 a.m. on September 21,2014. (Jarratt Afif. f 9.) "Although offender Sirleafwas unable to participate ina group service during the lockdown, he was allowed to observe Rosh Hashanah inhis cell." {Id. f 8.) The shakedown of Cluster S3 was completed on September 25,2014. {Id. End. C, at 1.) During the shakedown, staffconfiscated five weapons, as well as suspected marijuana and heroin. {Id) Accordingly, Cluster S3 was placed on modified lockdown "beginning with the breakfast meal on Friday, September 26,2014 and retum[ed] to normal operations on Saturday, September 27,2014." {Id.) On September 27,2014, after the modified lockdown concluded, offenders in Cluster S3 who adhere to the KAIROS faith were able to meet for the scheduled reunion. (Jarratt Aff ^ 11; see also id End. D.)' Sirleaf requested that GCC provide "analternative day of congregational observance for Rosh Hashanah." (Compl. |8.) However, the request wasdenied. The Institutional Chaplain had advised staffatGCC that "Jewish tenets do not allow its followers to change the RoshHashanah observance." (Jarratt Aflf. H10.) 111. RLUlPA and Free Exercise Claims A. RLUlPA RLUlPA provides, in pertinent part, that: No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . unless the government demonstrates thatimposition of theburden on thatperson— (1) is in furtherance ofa compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering thatcompelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-l(a). Thus, tobegin, Sirleafmust demonstrate that Defendants' policies impose a "substantial burden" onhis religious exercise. Indetermining if Sirleaf has met this standard, the Court must answer two questions: "(1) Isthe burdened activity 'religious exercise,' and ifso (2) isthe burden 'substantial'?" AdJdns v. Kaspar, 393 F.Bd 559, 567 (5th Cir. 2004); see Couch v. Jabe, 679 F.3d 197,200-01 (4th Cir. 2012) (employing similar two-part inquiry). Sirleafcontends that the KAIROS reunion was allowed to take place on September 26, 2014, the last day ofRosh Hashanah, while the lockdown was still inplace. (Compl. f 9.) Sirleaf, however, has failed todemonstrate personal knowledge ofthis fact. Assistant Warden Jarratt contends that, to the best of his knowledge, Sirleaf"did not submit a request for special consideration or a rescheduling of Rosh Hashanah." (Jarratt Aff. 110.) 1. Whether the Burdened Activity Is a Religious Exercise "RLUIPA defines the term 'religious exercise' broadly to include 'anyexercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief" Couch, 679 F.3d at200 (quoting 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-5(7)(A)). Sirleafs claim implicates one activity—^the celebration of Rosh Hashanah. {See Compl. m 5-6,12.) Given RLUIPA's broad definition of religious exercise, and Defendants' failure to address this portion ofthe inquiry, the Court assumes this activity constitutes religious exercise. See Whitehouse v. Johnson, No. I:10cvll75 (CMH/JFA), 2011 WL 5843622, at *3 (E.D, Va. Nov. 18,2011) (assuming inmate's enrollment in seminary course constituted religious exercise for purposes of RLUIPA). 2. Sirleaf Fails to Demonstrate a Substantial Burden RLUIPA fails to definethe term substantial burden. See Couch, 619 F.3d at 200. The United States Court ofAppeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that the Supreme Court's jurisprudence interpreting the Free Exercise Clause provides guidance on theissue. See Lovelace v. Lee, All F.3d 174,187 (4th Cir. 2006). Thus, the Fourth Circuit has explained that a substantial burden is one that put[s] substantial pressure onan adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, or one that forces a person to choose between following the precepts of h[is] religion and forfeiting [governmental] benefits, on the one hand, andabandoning one of theprecepts of h[is] religion ... on the other hand. Couch, 679 F.3d at 200 (alterations and omission in original) (quoting Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 187). Inconducting the substantial burden inquiry, the plaintiff "isnot required... toprove that the exercise at issue is required byoressential tohis [or her] religion." Krieger v. Brown, 496 F.App'x 322,325 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725 n.l3 (2005)). Nevertheless, "at a minimum the substantial burden test requires that a RLUIPA plaintiffdemonstrate that the government's denial of a particular religious... observance was more than an inconvenience to one'sreligious practice." Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255,1278 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town ofSurfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004));" see Krieger, 496 F. App'x at 326 (affirming grant ofsiramiary judgment where inmate failed to "show that the deprivation ofan outdoor worship circle and the requested sacred items modified hisbehavior and violated his religious beliefs" (citing Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 187)). Thus, no substantial burden occurs ifthe government action merely makes the "religious exercise more expensive or difficult," but fails to pressure the adherent to violate his or her religious beliefs orabandon one ofthe precepts ofhis religion. Living Water Church ofGod v. Charter Twp. ofMeridian, 258 F. App'x 729,739 (6th Cir. 2007). Two recent cases from the Fourth Circuit illustrate a plaintiffs responsibility with respect to demonstrating a substantial burden. InCouch, the plaintiff"testified that the primary religious texts of Islam command that he growa beardand that the refusal to maintain a beard is a sin comparable inseverity to eating pork." Couch, 679 F.3d at200. The VDOC's grooming policy prohibited inmates from growing beards and VDOC enforced this rule by placing a noncompliant inmate in a program that "restricted orlimited [the inmate's] access to personal property, movement rights, the rightto eat and associate with others, recreation time, and visitation time." Id. at 199. The Fourth Circuit concluded that VDOC's grooming policy and enforcement mechanism "fit squarely within the accepted definition of 'substantial burden'" because it placed substantial pressure onthe plaintiffto modify his behavior and violate his beliefs. Id at 200-01 (citing Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989,995-96 (9th Cir. 2005)). " In Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277,293 (2011), the Supreme Court abrogated Smithes ultimate holding that RLUIPA allows for monetary damages against state officials acting intheir official capacity. In Krieger, the Fourth Circuit declmed to find an inmate had demonstrated a substantial burden where prison officials denied "his requests for an 'outdoor worship circle' and certain 'sacred items' related tohis religious practice ofAsatru." Krieger, 496 P. App'x at322. The plaintiff"asserted that deprivation ofthe outdoor worship circle would require him to pray indoors, and that the 'Blot' ceremony is performed outdoors."' Id. at 325 (emphasis added). The Fourth Circuit concluded that the mere denial ofthe optimal manner for performing the "Blot" ceremony could not constitute a substantial burden where the plaintiff"failed tooffer any explanation regarding the reason why indoor worship would compromise his religious beliefs." Id. Similarly, the inmate failed to demonstrate a substantial burden with respect to tiie denial of additional sacred items simply by the "blanket assertion" that "the sacred items were 'necessary' to perform 'well-established rituals.'" Id. at 326. The Fourth Circuit noted that plaintiff"didnot identify those rituals, or explain why the absence of the sacred items hadan impact on the rituals and violated his beliefs." Id. Krieger illuminates another consideration in conducting the substantial burden inquiry. The availability to an inmate, inthe most general sense, ofother means to practice his orher faith is not relevant to the RLUIPA substantial burden inquiry.'^ Al-Amin v. Shear, 325 F. App'x 190,193 (4th Cir. 2009). "Nevertheless, courts properly consider whether the inmate retains other means for engaging in the particular religious activity, such as the "Blot" ceremony, in assessing whether adenial ofthe inmate's preferred method for engaging that religious Under First Amendment Free Exercise jurisprudence, in assessing whether a prison regulation passes constitutional muster,the courts considerwhether an inmate is able to "participate inother religious observances oftheir faith." O'Lone v. Estate ofShabazz, 482 U.S. 342,352 (1987). Thus, in O'Lone, the Supreme Court concluded that the prison regulation which prevented Muslim inmates fi-om attending a Jumu'ah prayer service was constitutional because, inter alia, the inmates "could fireely observe anumber oftheir [other] religious obligations." Id. exercise imposes a substantial burden." Shabazz v. Va. Dep't Corr., 3:10CV638,2013 WL 1098102, at *7 (E.D. Va. Mar. 15,2013) (citing Krieger, 496 F.App'x at 326; Coleman v. Governor ofMick, 413 F. App'x 866,875-76(6th Cir. 2011)). Thus, theShabazz Court recognized an earlier Eighth Circuit ruling under RLUIPA holding that an inmate failed to demonstrate that the denial ofadditional group study time imposed a substantial burden upon his religious exercise because prison officials already provided "other means for engaging inthe particular religious activity:" namely, three hours of group study and w^orship time and time for aninmate to study in his cell. Id. (citing Van Wyhe v. Reisch, 581 F.3d 639, 656-57 (8th Cir. 2009). Similarly, the United States Court ofAppeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that prison policies which limited the inmates' access to religious radioand television broadcasts failed to substantially burden the inmates' religious exercise because the inmates "may receive religious literature via the mail and may receive visitors atthe prison to discuss their religious beliefs." Coleman, 413 F. App'x at 876. In Claim One (a), Sirleaf contends that Defendants substantially burdened his free exercise of religion byplacing his housing unit on lockdown for a bi-annual shakedown, which prevented Sirleaffrom celebrating Rosh Hashanah inSeptember 2014. (Compl. 5-6,12.) Defendants, however, have established that, while Sirleaf"was unable to participate ina group service [during the lockdown], he was allowed to observe Rosh Hashanah in his cell." (Jarratt Aff. 18.) To the extent that Sirleafalleges that Defendants interfered with his religious exercise by prohibiting the Rosh Hashanah group services during the lockdown, Sirleafprovides no evidence to explain the religious significance of a group service for Rosh Hashanah. See Van Wyhe, 581 F.3d at 656-57; Krieger, 496 F. App'x at 325-26; Peters v. C/arfe, No. 7:14CV00598,2015 WL 5042917, at *7 (W.D. Va. Aug. 26,2015) (granting summary 10 judgment to defendants on plaintiff's RLUIPA claim because plaintiff had failed to provide "any documentation of the tenets of his Rastafarian faith regarding a regularpractice of groupworship or whatpurpose groupservices servein an individual's exercise of that faith"). Because Sirleaf fails to demonstrate that his inability to participate in a groupRosh Hashanah service during the September 2014 lockdown placed pressure on him to violate his religious beliefs or abandon one of the precepts of his religion, Living Water ChurchofGod, 258 F. App'x at 739, Claim One (a) will be DISMISSED. B. Free Exercise Similar to RLUIPA, in order for Sirleafto survive summary Judgmentfor his First Amendment clauu, Sirleafmust demonstrate Defendants' conductsubstantially burdens his religious exercise. Whitehouse, 2011 WL 5843622, at *5. "RLUIPA provides considerably more protectionfor an inmate's religiousexercise than does the Free Exercise Clause ofthe Constitution of the United States." Id. at *5 (citing Lovelace, All F.3d at 186). Thus, "[w]here an inmate has not put forth sufficient evidence under RLUIPA to demonstrate a substantial burden on his religious exercise, his claim fails under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as well." Van Wyhe, 581 F.3d at 657—58 (citing Patel v. U.S. Bureau ofPrisons, 515 F.3d 807, 813 (8th Cir. 2008)). As explainedabove, Sirleafhas failed to demonstrate a substantial burden on his religious exercise. Accordingly, Claim One (b) willbe DISMISSED. IV. Equal Protection The Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment commands that similarly situated persons betreated alike. See City ofCleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (citing Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202,216 (1982)). To survive summary judgment, Sirleafmust demonstrate: (1) "that he has been treated differently from others with whom he is 11 similarly situated"; and, (2) that the differing treatment resulted from intentional discrimination. Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648,654 (4th Cir. 2001). Tosucceed onan equal protection claim, a plaintiff must setforth "specific, non-conclusory factual [evidence] thatestablish[es] improper motive." Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391,405 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998)).'^ Ifa plaintiffsatisfies the above, "the court proceeds to determine whether the disparity intreatment canbejustified under the requisite level of scrutiny." Morrison, 239 F.3d at 654 (citations omitted). "Ina prison context," disparate treatment passes muster so long as "the disparate treatment is 'reasonablyrelated to [any] legitimate penological interests."' Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726,732 (4th Cir. 2002) (alteration in original) (quoting Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223,225 (2001)). In Claim Two, Sirleafcontends thatDefendants violated his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by "allow[ing] the KAIROS retreat tobe held, but den[ying] the scheduled Jewish holy day Rosh Hashanah to beheld onthe 2d and last day" inSeptember 2014. (Compl. 113.) He alleges that the KAIROS retreat was allowed to take place on September 26,2014, the last day ofRosh Hashanah, while the lockdown was still inplace. {Id. 19.) Sirleafappears to compare himselfto those inmates in Cluster S3 who participated inthe KAIROS reunion. Sirleaffails todemonstrate that he is similarly situated to these inmates. The Equal Protection Clause does notrequire "things which are different in fact or opinion to betreated in law as though they were the same." Moss v. Clark, 886 F.2d 686,691 (4th Cir. 1989) (quoting Plyler, 457 U.S. at216). Instead, "the class to which [an inmate] belongs consists ofthe persons No evidence exists thatDefendants' cancellation of thegroup Rosh Hashanah service wasmotivated by an intent or desire to discriminate against Sirleaf because he is a sincere believer of the Jewish faith. 12 confined ashe was confined, subject to the same conditions to which he was subject," Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Koyce v. U.S. Bd. ofParole, 306 F.2d 759,762 (D.C. Cir. 1962)). Here, Sirleafwas unable to attend a group Rosh Hashanah service on September 26,2014, because Cluster S3 was on limited lockdown following confiscation of several weapons and suspected drugs. (JarrattAfF. End. C, at 1.) Conversely, Cluster S3 returned to normal operations on September 27,2014, allowing offenders who adhere to the KAIROS faith to attend the reimion thatoccurred on that date. Although Sirleafalleges thatthe KAIROS reunion occurred on September 26,2016, while the lockdown was still in place, he fails to demonstrate personal knowledge of this or explain his basis of knowledge forhis allegation. Because Sirleaf fails to demonstrate that he was similarly situated to those iimiates from Cluster S3 who attended the KAIROS reunion, this alone forecloses Sirleafs equal protection claim. Accordingly, Claim Two will be DISMISSED. V. Outstanding Objections Sirleaf"appeal[s] de novo to the United States District Court Judges... the Memorandum Order of [the] Magistrate Judge ... denying 'without prejudice plaintiffs motion for the requesting of the appointment of counsel' the denying of plaintifif['s] motion for temporary restraining order... and motion forpreliminary injunction... 'without prejudice'." (ECFNo. 18,atl.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a partymay seekreview of nondispositive pretrial matters by a district court judge. The Rule provides: When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order statmg the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy, A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case must 13 consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Court construes Sirleafs "Appeal" as objections permitted under Rule 72(a) ("Objections"). First, to the extent that Sirleaf objects to the purported denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order or motion for preliminary injunction, Sirleaf filed no motion for a temporary restraining order or motion for preliminary injunction in the instant action. Thus, no order exists against which Sirleaf could lodge an objection. Second, the Court construes Sirleaf to object to the Magistrate Judge's March 23,2016 Memorandum Order denying without prejudice his Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (See Mem. Order 1, ECF No. 17.) Sirleaf, however, provides no argument in support of his protest of the Magistrate Judge's denial of his Motion for Appointment of Coimsel. The Magistrate Judge determined that counsel need not be appointed for Sirleaf because "[t]his action presents no complex issues or exceptional circumstances" and because Sirleafs "pleadings demonstrate that he is competent to represent himself in the action." (Mem. Order 1, ECF No. 17.) The Court discerns no error in the Magistrate Judge's conclusion. Sirleafs Objections (ECF No. 18) will be OVERRULED. 14 VI. Conclusion Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) will be GRANTED. Sirleafs claims will be DISMISSED. Sirleafs Objections (ECF No. 18) will be OVERRULED. The action will be DISMISSED. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandirai Opinion. M. Hannah Laucfi United States District Judge Date: tELLSJOIIRichmond, Virginia 15

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?