×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Colorado Prisoners Win Partial Reversal on Religious Claims
Two Colorado state prisoners won partial reversal of an adverse summary
judgment ruling in their civil rights suit contesting Colorado Department
of Corrections (CODOC) administrative regulations prohibiting practice of
their Christian Identity Faith and classifying Christian Identity as a
Security Threat Group (STG).
Jacob Ind and Jeffrey Pfleger are prisoners in CODOC custody and members
of a religious sect known as Christian Identity. Christian Identity
teaches the superiority of the White race to all other races and advocates
racial separation. Under CODOC administrative rules 300-26 and 800-1,
Christian Identity is classified as an illegitimate religion and a STG.
Consequently, Ind and Pfleger were denied many Christian Identity
religious materials. Further, they requested, and were denied, Passover
meals, a communion packet and leaven-free foods during Passover week.
Ind and Pfleger sued CODOC officials under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for First
Amendment violations. The district court granted summary judgment to the
officials on several grounds, and Ind and Pfleger appealed.
The Court of Appeals applied Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413
(1989), and Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987), to Ind and
Pfleger's claims that administrative rule 300-26 was facially overbroad
and unconstitutional as applied to Christian Identity. The appeals court
held that rule 300-26 was designed to prohibit materials that could incite
violence, disorder or rioting in prison by espousing hatred or contempt of
others or by encouraging violence to others. The court noted that Ind and
Pfleger "have [not] been denied the main texts of their religion,
including the King James Bible, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, and
Young's Analytical Concordance." Denying materials that raised security
concerns to prison officials, the court held, was reasonable and related
to a legitimate penological interest. Also, there were no "easy
alternatives" to banning the material. The appellate court, after
examining the withheld materials personally, held that those materials
were properly excluded under rule 300-26.
The district court held that Ind's and Pfleger's claims of entitlements to
special foods and a communion packet raised no triable issues of fact. The
appeals court, citing LeFevers v. Saffle, 936 F.2d 1117, 1119 (10th Cir.
1991), held that this was the wrong standard. Under LeFevers, it is
irrelevant if the requested foods are required by, central to, or even
part of the general beliefs of the faith group. The proper inquiry is
whether the plaintiffs genuinely and sincerely adhered to those practices.
The appeals court also found that it was error for the district court not
to rule on plaintiffs' claims that CODOC's classification of Christian
Identity as a STG was unconstitutional, that CODOC rule 800-1 defining
a "legitimate" faith group was unconstitutional, and that CODOC officials
violated due process in withholding certain religious materials from the
plaintiffs. On petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc, the
appeals court denied rehearing en banc but did rehear the appeal. The
court then restored one dismissed defendant to the suit based on evidence
in the record of the defendant's personal participation in violating Ind's
and Pfleger's rights.
The district court's judgment was affirmed in part and reversed and
remanded in part for further proceedings. This case is published in the
Federal Appendix and is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See:
Ind v Wright, 52 Fed.Appx. 434 (10th Cir. 2002).
judgment ruling in their civil rights suit contesting Colorado Department
of Corrections (CODOC) administrative regulations prohibiting practice of
their Christian Identity Faith and classifying Christian Identity as a
Security Threat Group (STG).
Jacob Ind and Jeffrey Pfleger are prisoners in CODOC custody and members
of a religious sect known as Christian Identity. Christian Identity
teaches the superiority of the White race to all other races and advocates
racial separation. Under CODOC administrative rules 300-26 and 800-1,
Christian Identity is classified as an illegitimate religion and a STG.
Consequently, Ind and Pfleger were denied many Christian Identity
religious materials. Further, they requested, and were denied, Passover
meals, a communion packet and leaven-free foods during Passover week.
Ind and Pfleger sued CODOC officials under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for First
Amendment violations. The district court granted summary judgment to the
officials on several grounds, and Ind and Pfleger appealed.
The Court of Appeals applied Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413
(1989), and Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987), to Ind and
Pfleger's claims that administrative rule 300-26 was facially overbroad
and unconstitutional as applied to Christian Identity. The appeals court
held that rule 300-26 was designed to prohibit materials that could incite
violence, disorder or rioting in prison by espousing hatred or contempt of
others or by encouraging violence to others. The court noted that Ind and
Pfleger "have [not] been denied the main texts of their religion,
including the King James Bible, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, and
Young's Analytical Concordance." Denying materials that raised security
concerns to prison officials, the court held, was reasonable and related
to a legitimate penological interest. Also, there were no "easy
alternatives" to banning the material. The appellate court, after
examining the withheld materials personally, held that those materials
were properly excluded under rule 300-26.
The district court held that Ind's and Pfleger's claims of entitlements to
special foods and a communion packet raised no triable issues of fact. The
appeals court, citing LeFevers v. Saffle, 936 F.2d 1117, 1119 (10th Cir.
1991), held that this was the wrong standard. Under LeFevers, it is
irrelevant if the requested foods are required by, central to, or even
part of the general beliefs of the faith group. The proper inquiry is
whether the plaintiffs genuinely and sincerely adhered to those practices.
The appeals court also found that it was error for the district court not
to rule on plaintiffs' claims that CODOC's classification of Christian
Identity as a STG was unconstitutional, that CODOC rule 800-1 defining
a "legitimate" faith group was unconstitutional, and that CODOC officials
violated due process in withholding certain religious materials from the
plaintiffs. On petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc, the
appeals court denied rehearing en banc but did rehear the appeal. The
court then restored one dismissed defendant to the suit based on evidence
in the record of the defendant's personal participation in violating Ind's
and Pfleger's rights.
The district court's judgment was affirmed in part and reversed and
remanded in part for further proceedings. This case is published in the
Federal Appendix and is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See:
Ind v Wright, 52 Fed.Appx. 434 (10th Cir. 2002).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Ind v. Wright
| Year | 2002 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 52 Fed.Appx. 434 (10th Cir. 2002). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
[U] Ind v. Wright, 52 Fed.Appx. 434 (10th Cir. 11/25/2002)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 01-1338
[3] 52 Fed.Appx. 434, 2002
[4] November 25, 2002
[5] JACOB IND; JEFFREY PFLEGER, PLAINTIFFS - APPELLANTS,
v.
RICK WRIGHT; DAN FOSTER; LARRY REID; STEVE SHUH; LEE HENDRIX; COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEFENDANTS - APPELLEES.
[6] D. C. No. 00-B-428 (D. Colorado)
[7] Before Kelly, Briscoe, and Lucero, Circuit Judges.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary Beck Briscoe, Circuit Judge
[9] This matter is before us on plaintiffs' petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. For the following reasons, we grant the rehearing petition in part and deny in part.
[10] Plaintiffs brought this civil rights action against the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) and its employees, alleging that the DOC's policies and practices infringed on their First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims. As part of its judgment, the district court dismissed the claims against defendant Shuh for lack of personal participation.
[11] In our order and judgment, issued August 14, 2002, we affirmed the district court's judgment in part and reversed in part. Because the district court failed to consider plaintiffs' due process claim regarding the reading materials screening process, we remanded this claim for further action. In their petition for rehearing, plaintiffs argue that DOC employee Shuh should be reinstated as a defendant regarding the due process claim because he was a member of the prison's reading committee. As the record contains evidence to support a finding that Shuh personally participated in the reading materials screening process, we grant plaintiffs' rehearing petition in part, and order that Shuh be reinstated as a defendant with regard to the due process claim only. In all other respects we deny the rehearing petition. A copy of the amended order and judgment is attached to this order.
[12] Plaintiffs' suggestion for rehearing en banc has been transmitted to all the judges of the court in regular active service in accordance with Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. No member of the hearing panel and no judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the suggestion for rehearing en banc is denied. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
[13] AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT*fn1
[14] After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
[15] Plaintiffs Jacob Ind and Jeffrey Pfleger appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on their civil rights lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and several other federal statutes. Because plaintiffs have not shown the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the district court committed legal error regarding: (1) the Eleventh Amendment dismissal of claims against defendants in their official capacities; (2) the dismissal of claims against certain defendants for lack of personal participation, except for the dismissal of plaintiffs' due process claim against defendant Shuh; (3) the constitutionality of Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) administrative regulation 300-26, on its face and as applied, as a restriction on plaintiffs' First Amendment rights; and (4) the failure to provide separate taped religious programming, we affirm those portions of the district court's judgment. Because the district court failed to address plaintiffs' arguments regarding: (1) the classification of their religious group as a "Security Threat Group"; (2) the constitutionality of DOC administrative regulation 800-1 as applied to members of the Christian Identity Faith; and (3) the adequacy of the due process protections surrounding the censorship process, we remand this case for determination of those issues. Finally, because the district court used an incorrect analysis to evaluate plaintiffs' claim to Passover-related food and a communion packet, we reverse that portion of the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
[16] Plaintiffs are members of the "Christian Identity Faith" who are currently incarcerated at the Colorado State Penitentiary. The Christian Identity Faith rests upon White Supremacy principles, teaching that all other races and religions are inferior. Plaintiffs brought this action against the DOC and its employees, alleging that DOC policies and practices deprived them of the right to practice their religion and discriminated against their religion.
[17] In particular, plaintiffs complained about DOC administrative regulation 300-26, which describes the types of reading material an inmate may receive or possess consistent with the DOC's goals of maintaining security, good order, and public safety, as well as its goal of encouraging rehabilitation. See R. I, doc. 23, Ex. A. Pursuant to this regulation, the DOC prohibits materials that an objective person could reasonably believe "encourage or endorse: violence or disorder; . . . hatred or contempt of other persons; [or] vengeance against other persons." Id. at 2. The regulation specifically identifies as excludable "[a]ny publication advocating hatred or contempt of other persons," and "[a]ny . . . material produced or distributed by Security Threat Groups (STGs) or . . . material advocating or depicting association or membership in a STG which is contrary to the security interests of the facility." Id. Many of plaintiffs' Christian Identity reading materials have been prohibited under these standards.
[18] Plaintiffs alleged that DOC administrative regulation 300-26 was unconstitutionally overbroad and that it had been applied in a discriminatory fashion. They also alleged that the regulation, both on its face and as applied, violated due process based on inadequate notice, no t ime limit for making the censorship decisions, and no opportunity to appeal the decisions.
[19] Plaintiffs also complained that DOC administrative regulation 800-1 used an unconstitutional standard to exclude them from the category of a "legitimate" faith group and that their constitutional rights were violated by the prison's refusal to provide them with a Passover meal, a communion packet, and leaven-free foods during the Passover week. Finally, plaintiffs alleged that they were constitutionally entitled to Christian Identity taped religious programming.
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 01-1338
[3] 52 Fed.Appx. 434, 2002
[4] November 25, 2002
[5] JACOB IND; JEFFREY PFLEGER, PLAINTIFFS - APPELLANTS,
v.
RICK WRIGHT; DAN FOSTER; LARRY REID; STEVE SHUH; LEE HENDRIX; COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEFENDANTS - APPELLEES.
[6] D. C. No. 00-B-428 (D. Colorado)
[7] Before Kelly, Briscoe, and Lucero, Circuit Judges.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary Beck Briscoe, Circuit Judge
[9] This matter is before us on plaintiffs' petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. For the following reasons, we grant the rehearing petition in part and deny in part.
[10] Plaintiffs brought this civil rights action against the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) and its employees, alleging that the DOC's policies and practices infringed on their First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims. As part of its judgment, the district court dismissed the claims against defendant Shuh for lack of personal participation.
[11] In our order and judgment, issued August 14, 2002, we affirmed the district court's judgment in part and reversed in part. Because the district court failed to consider plaintiffs' due process claim regarding the reading materials screening process, we remanded this claim for further action. In their petition for rehearing, plaintiffs argue that DOC employee Shuh should be reinstated as a defendant regarding the due process claim because he was a member of the prison's reading committee. As the record contains evidence to support a finding that Shuh personally participated in the reading materials screening process, we grant plaintiffs' rehearing petition in part, and order that Shuh be reinstated as a defendant with regard to the due process claim only. In all other respects we deny the rehearing petition. A copy of the amended order and judgment is attached to this order.
[12] Plaintiffs' suggestion for rehearing en banc has been transmitted to all the judges of the court in regular active service in accordance with Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. No member of the hearing panel and no judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the suggestion for rehearing en banc is denied. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
[13] AMENDED ORDER AND JUDGMENT*fn1
[14] After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
[15] Plaintiffs Jacob Ind and Jeffrey Pfleger appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on their civil rights lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and several other federal statutes. Because plaintiffs have not shown the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the district court committed legal error regarding: (1) the Eleventh Amendment dismissal of claims against defendants in their official capacities; (2) the dismissal of claims against certain defendants for lack of personal participation, except for the dismissal of plaintiffs' due process claim against defendant Shuh; (3) the constitutionality of Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) administrative regulation 300-26, on its face and as applied, as a restriction on plaintiffs' First Amendment rights; and (4) the failure to provide separate taped religious programming, we affirm those portions of the district court's judgment. Because the district court failed to address plaintiffs' arguments regarding: (1) the classification of their religious group as a "Security Threat Group"; (2) the constitutionality of DOC administrative regulation 800-1 as applied to members of the Christian Identity Faith; and (3) the adequacy of the due process protections surrounding the censorship process, we remand this case for determination of those issues. Finally, because the district court used an incorrect analysis to evaluate plaintiffs' claim to Passover-related food and a communion packet, we reverse that portion of the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
[16] Plaintiffs are members of the "Christian Identity Faith" who are currently incarcerated at the Colorado State Penitentiary. The Christian Identity Faith rests upon White Supremacy principles, teaching that all other races and religions are inferior. Plaintiffs brought this action against the DOC and its employees, alleging that DOC policies and practices deprived them of the right to practice their religion and discriminated against their religion.
[17] In particular, plaintiffs complained about DOC administrative regulation 300-26, which describes the types of reading material an inmate may receive or possess consistent with the DOC's goals of maintaining security, good order, and public safety, as well as its goal of encouraging rehabilitation. See R. I, doc. 23, Ex. A. Pursuant to this regulation, the DOC prohibits materials that an objective person could reasonably believe "encourage or endorse: violence or disorder; . . . hatred or contempt of other persons; [or] vengeance against other persons." Id. at 2. The regulation specifically identifies as excludable "[a]ny publication advocating hatred or contempt of other persons," and "[a]ny . . . material produced or distributed by Security Threat Groups (STGs) or . . . material advocating or depicting association or membership in a STG which is contrary to the security interests of the facility." Id. Many of plaintiffs' Christian Identity reading materials have been prohibited under these standards.
[18] Plaintiffs alleged that DOC administrative regulation 300-26 was unconstitutionally overbroad and that it had been applied in a discriminatory fashion. They also alleged that the regulation, both on its face and as applied, violated due process based on inadequate notice, no t ime limit for making the censorship decisions, and no opportunity to appeal the decisions.
[19] Plaintiffs also complained that DOC administrative regulation 800-1 used an unconstitutional standard to exclude them from the category of a "legitimate" faith group and that their constitutional rights were violated by the prison's refusal to provide them with a Passover meal, a communion packet, and leaven-free foods during the Passover week. Finally, plaintiffs alleged that they were constitutionally entitled to Christian Identity taped religious programming.