×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Qualified Immunity Denial Upheld in Jewish Prisoner's Religious Freedom Claim
Qualified Immunity Denial Upheld in Jewish Prisoner's Religious Freedom
Claim
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld denial of qualified
immunity to defendant prison officials by a California federal district
court in a case where a Jewish prisoner had been denied the right to
attend Jewish religious services.
Thomas Hagen, a.k.a. Israel Mizrahi, sued California prison officials
Kamal Abdul-Jabaar and Len Moskowitz under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violating
his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Hagan/Mizrahi is
Jewish and attended Jewish religious services,. He faithfully practiced
and sincerely believed in his religion. He also attended Muslim worship
services for what he termed "academic purposes." Abdul-Jabaar and
Moskowitz told Haben/Mizrahi he must choose one religion or the other, and
when he declined to do so, they banned him from both Jewish and Muslim
services until he made a choice.
After Hagen/Mizrahi sued, Abdul-Jabaar and Moskowitz moved for summary
judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied the
motion. Abdul-Jabaar and Moskowitz appealed, claiming that the district
court erred in not applying the qualified immunity test in Saucier v.
Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).
The appeals court reviewed the Saucier test and the district court
decision. The appeals court held that while it was error for the district
court not to apply the Saucier test, that error was harmless. The reason
the error was harmless was because Haben/Mizrahi, a known faithful,
sincere practitioner of Judaism, had a clearly established right to attend
Jewish religious services. For penological or security reasons, the
defendants could have banned Hagen/Mizrahi from Muslim services, since he
admitted he was attending them only for academic purposes, but they could
not ban him from both Muslim and Jewish services. Their conduct was
objectively unreasonable and they were not entitled to qualified immunity.
The district court's decision was affirmed. This case is published in the
Federal Appendix and is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. Note
that Abdul-Jabaar's name is misspelled in the case caption. See: Hagen v.
Jabar, 56 Fed.Appx. 302 (9th Cir. 2002).
ED. NOTE: Actions involving prisoners' religious rights may now be
brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§2000cc, et. seq.
Claim
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld denial of qualified
immunity to defendant prison officials by a California federal district
court in a case where a Jewish prisoner had been denied the right to
attend Jewish religious services.
Thomas Hagen, a.k.a. Israel Mizrahi, sued California prison officials
Kamal Abdul-Jabaar and Len Moskowitz under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violating
his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Hagan/Mizrahi is
Jewish and attended Jewish religious services,. He faithfully practiced
and sincerely believed in his religion. He also attended Muslim worship
services for what he termed "academic purposes." Abdul-Jabaar and
Moskowitz told Haben/Mizrahi he must choose one religion or the other, and
when he declined to do so, they banned him from both Jewish and Muslim
services until he made a choice.
After Hagen/Mizrahi sued, Abdul-Jabaar and Moskowitz moved for summary
judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied the
motion. Abdul-Jabaar and Moskowitz appealed, claiming that the district
court erred in not applying the qualified immunity test in Saucier v.
Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).
The appeals court reviewed the Saucier test and the district court
decision. The appeals court held that while it was error for the district
court not to apply the Saucier test, that error was harmless. The reason
the error was harmless was because Haben/Mizrahi, a known faithful,
sincere practitioner of Judaism, had a clearly established right to attend
Jewish religious services. For penological or security reasons, the
defendants could have banned Hagen/Mizrahi from Muslim services, since he
admitted he was attending them only for academic purposes, but they could
not ban him from both Muslim and Jewish services. Their conduct was
objectively unreasonable and they were not entitled to qualified immunity.
The district court's decision was affirmed. This case is published in the
Federal Appendix and is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. Note
that Abdul-Jabaar's name is misspelled in the case caption. See: Hagen v.
Jabar, 56 Fed.Appx. 302 (9th Cir. 2002).
ED. NOTE: Actions involving prisoners' religious rights may now be
brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§2000cc, et. seq.
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
Hagen v. Jabar
| Year | 2002 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 56 Fed.Appx. 302 (9th Cir. 2002). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
1. Hagen v. Jabar, No. 01-56437 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT , 56 Fed. Appx. 302; 2002 U.S. App. , December 3, 2002, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California, December 20, 2002, Filed, RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
OVERVIEW: Prison officials' denial of inmate's right to attend both Jewish and Muslim services until he chose to practice one religion exclusively was unconstitutional, and district court properly denied prison officials' qualified immunity defense.
OVERVIEW: Prison officials' denial of inmate's right to attend both Jewish and Muslim services until he chose to practice one religion exclusively was unconstitutional, and district court properly denied prison officials' qualified immunity defense.