Tenth Circuit Finds Prisoner's First Amendment Claim Substantive and Remands Case
Tenth Circuit Finds Prisoner's First Amendment Claim Substantive and Remands Case
On March 10, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a Colorado prisoner's civil rights claim against prison guards and officials was not frivolous. The case arose out of a November 2011 housing shakedown at Kit Carson Correctional Center during which an officer confiscated two three-ring binders given to the plaintiff Audrey Lee Tennyson by the prison chaplain for the purpose of storing songs performed by the prison choir. Plaintiff took no issue with the confiscation, but sent through the grievance process a complaint that pictures of his daughter that were in the binders, were not returned along with other items removed from the binders after confiscation.
Tennyson's grievances were denied and he was dismissed from the choir.
Plaintiff brought suit seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 2000 CC to 2000 CC-5; the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA); and state law. He alleged curtailment of his right to free exercise and expression of his religion in violation of RLUPIA and the First Amendment, retaliation by prison authorities for his use of the grievance process, and violation of his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights for punishment not imposed on other members of the prison choir who practiced the same behavior. District Court Judge sua sponte dismissed the claim as legally frivolous. Plaintiff appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed the district court on the First Amendment and RLUIPA issues, on the “clear-cut” retaliation issue; and on the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim. The Court upheld the lower court’s dismissal of Tennyson's Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim, and his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim for deprivation of property as a result of an institutionally authorized procedure, the dorm “shakedown,” as legally frivolous and insufficient.
The Court of Appeals likewise remanded the case to the lower court to resolve several issues that were raised by the plaintiff but not addressed. Among these issues were questions of procedural due process in connection with the plaintiff's suspension from the choir and failure to train and supervise subordinates in procedural customs, practices, and policies in connection with the matters addressed by the suit. See:Tennyson v. Carpenter, 558 Fed. Appx. 813 (10th Cir. 2014).
Related legal case
Tennyson v. Carpenter
| Year | 2014 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 558 Fed. Appx. 813 (10th Cir. 2014) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |