Opinion
C. A. 4:21-0670-TMC-TER
10-14-2021
DEMETRIUS ALEXANDER BROWN, plaintiff, v. MAJ. CHANAE LUMPKIN, CAPT. BLANDING STAFF SGT. RICHARDSON, AND MISS. WHITE Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Thomas E. Rogers United States Magistrate Judge
This is a civil action filed pro se by Demetrious Alexander Brown (“Plaintiff”/ “Brown”) on March 8, 2021. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 5, 2021, Plaintiff is currently a pre-trial detainee housed at the Sumter-Lee Regional Detention Center. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages based on alleged civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. This matter is currently before the court on Defendant White's motion to dismiss filed August 25, 2021. (ECF No. 43). As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court issued an order on or about August 26, 2021, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the motion to dismiss procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on September 1, 2021. (ECF No. 43). Defendant White filed a reply on September 8, 2021. (ECF No. 47). Plaintiff filed a sur-reply on September 16, 2021.(ECF No. 51).
All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), DSC. Because this is a dispositive motion, the report and recommendation is entered for review by the District Judge.
In Brown v. Dennis, No. 4:19-CV-2790-TMC, 2021 WL 805664, at *3 (D.S.C. Mar. 3, 2021), the court noted that “Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules provide for the ability to file a sur-reply as a matter of right. . . the undersigned issued a standing order directing that a party ‘may not file, nor will the court consider, any sur-reply to a motion absent a showing of good cause and leave of the court.'” In re: Sur-Replies, Standing Order (D.S.C. Nov. 5, 2020).” Pursuant to this standing order, Plaintiff's sur-reply will not be considered.
STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the court on Defendant White's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Fed.R.Civ.P., “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Lokhova v. Halper, 995 F.3d 134, 141 (4th Cir. 2021) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Although for the purposes of a motion to dismiss we must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true, we ‘are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.' ” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).
ALLEGATIONS
In the amended complaint filed April 5, 2021, Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant White are as follows:
Miss White the foodservice manager for the facility whom is employed by Trinity Food Services/Trinity Services Group the corporation whom is contracted by the facility to provide foodservice services to the facility while acting under color of state and local law violated by First Amendment right to freedom of religion, my right to freedom of religion under the RLUIPA, and my Fourteenth Amendment right to not be discriminated against under the equal protection of the laws by intentionally and purposely denying me the ten day fast for Hajj which is required by my faith belief of Islam, by denying me the two holoday meals for my religious feast days, by denying me a substitute for my medically allergic foods as she does for other similarly situated I/M's of the facility, and for her denying me a beverage with all my meals as she does for other similarly situated I/M's of the facility.(ECF No. 10 at 7 of 25)(quoted verbatim).
Further, Plaintiff alleges:
On April 23, 2020 the month of Ramadan come in and it ended on May 23, 2020 the EID FITR our Holy Feast Day ending the month long fast of Ramadan. During the month of Ramadan I requested to Lt. Shirah that I be provided with a holiday meal just as other similar situated I/M's of the facility are provided with a holoday meal for that Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year, and Easter and he informed me that Miss. White the food service manager whom works for Trinity Food Services/Trinity Services Group the company that is contracted to provide FoodService services for the Sumter-Lee Regional Detention Center was going to make sure I was provided with a holiday meal for the EID FITR, but
instead I was intentionally and purposely served the same meal that was on the menu for that day by Miss. White and she added an extra piece of meat and told me that was to be considered my holiday meal when other similar situated I/M's of the facility actually receive special meals for their holodays.
In July of 2020 I informed Lt. Shirah that my obligatory ten day fast for Hajj since I couldn't make the pilgrimage due to by incarceration that during the month of Hajj which began Aug. 9, 2020 and I recited parts of Chapter 2 verse 196 out of the Holy Quran stating that in the event I was prevented from completing the Hajj pilgrimage in the service of “Allah”, that I [should] fast a total of ten days and fear ALLAH and know that Allah is strict in punishment. But, he informed me that Miss. White said she would not honor my ten day fast when it was the same as the thirty day fast for Ramadan, but just for ten days, but Lt. Shirah said that Miss. White would give me a holiday meal for the EID AHDA the last day of the month of Hajj representing our second Feast Day which was on Aug. 19, 2020, but when the day came Miss. White intentionally and purposely neglected to provide me with a holiday meal like every other similar situated I/m's of the facility who actually receive special meals for their holidays and Miss. White just told the officers to give me two trays for whatever was served for dinner that day to be considered my holiday meal. When I exhausted my administrative remedies based on the facility's grievance policy per the facility's handbook via the kiosk; I served Sheriff Dennis, Chief Gardner, and Dir. Ray with a federal Violation warning (Denial of Rights Under Color of Law) from COL disclosing the issues and violations in this section, but they all neglected to respond to me to the date of this complaint, which is truly stressful and depressing and causing e anxiety issues, emotional distress, and mental anguish knowing that I am being violated and discriminated against but at the same time the whole issue/situation is being neglected and ignored.(ECF No. 10 at 15-16 of 25)(quoted verbatim).
Defendant White argues that the action should be dismissed against her because Plaintiff fails to plead a constitutional deprivation, fails to state a claim under RLUIPA against her, the monetary relief sought is unavailable in individual capacity claims brought under RLUIPA, and Plaintiff has not alleged facts consistent with an award of punitive damages against her.
A plaintiff asserting a claim under RLUIPA must allege that: (1) he seeks to engage in an exercise of religion; and (2) the challenged practice substantially burdens that exercise. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(b).
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff has only requested monetary damages against Defendant White. A prisoner bringing a cause of action under RLUIPA is not entitled to money damages against state defendants in either their individual or official capacities. See Ellis v. Lassiter, 848 Fed.Appx. 555, 556 (4th Cir. 2021) citing Wall v. Wade, 741 F.3d 492, 496 n.5 (4th Cir. 2014) (explaining that compensatory damages are not available under RLUIPA); Edwards v. Stephon, No. 220CV02459CMCMGB, 2021 WL 2419565, at *3 (D.S.C. May 6, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:20-CV-2459-CMC, 2021 WL 2417858 (D.S.C. June 14, 2021) (“a prisoner bringing a cause of action under RLUIPA is not entitled to money damages against state defendants in either their individual or official capacities.” citing Wall v. Wade, 741 F.3d at 496 n.5 (explaining that Congress did not authorize damages claims against state officials under RLUIPA). Accordingly, It is recommended that Defendant White's motion to dismiss be granted due to solely pursuing monetary damages under RLUIPA.
Plaintiff has not requested injunctive relief in the amended complaint.
Defendant White argues that Plaintiff, an adherent to Islam, does not allege facts, if true, that would establish that the accommodation was unreasonable in violation of the First Amendment. Specifically, Defendant White argues that Plaintiff failed to allege what his religious requirements are for observance of Eid Fitr or Eid Ahda, only identifying them each as a feast day observed by adherents of Islam and failed to allege that he actually informed Defendant White of these requirements, or again, how the accommodations provided to him were unreasonable such to constitute a constitutional deprivation.
As discussed above, Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges Defendant White violated his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights denying his ten-day fast for Hajj under Islam and holiday meals for religious feast days. (ECF No. 10 at 7, 16). Here, Plaintiff has alleged that he informed Defendant White, albeit through Lt. Shirah, that he needed accommodations for his ten-day fast but was denied by Defendant White because he had just completed his thirty-day fast for Ramadan. Further, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant White violated his religious rights and discriminated against him by not providing a “special” holiday tray for him as provided for other inmates for holidays such as Christmas,
Thanksgiving, Easter, etc.
As set forth above, “to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.). This court need only accept as true the complaint's factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff alleges that he was not allowed to participate in the ten-day fast and did not receive his “special” trays to be able to celebrate the two feasts pursuant to his religion. Plaintiff asserts that he has not been able to do this because Defendant White refused to allow him to participate in the ten-day fast by failing to provide his trays before sun-up and after sundown and provided him with an extra piece of meat for one feast and two dinner trays for the second feast instead of a holiday tray. Under the First Amendment, inmates clearly retain the right to free exercise of religion in prison. O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987). The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the adoption of laws designed to suppress religious beliefs or practices. See Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648, 656 (4th Cir.2001). To state an actionable violation under the Free Exercise Clause, a plaintiff must show both that he has a sincerely held a religious belief and that the defendant's actions substantially burdened his religious freedom or expression. See Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161, 168 (4th Cir. 2017); Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 185 (4th Cir. 2006). “.. [A] ‘substantial burden' is one that ‘put[s] substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs,' ... or one that forces a person to ‘choose between following the precepts of [his] religion and forfeiting [governmental] benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of [his] religion ... on the other hand.' ” Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 187 (internal citations omitted). In his amended complaint, Plaintiff has set forth that he holds a religious belief in Islam, the meaning of Ramadan, the meaning of the ten-day fast, the meaning of the two feasts, and set forth what it means in his religion if he does not participate in these events. Although his specific allegations against Defendant White do not include much detail, Plaintiff has pleaded facts sufficient to allege that Defendant White has burdened his attempts to practice his religion. Therefore, dismissal at this stage of the litigation as to these claims is not appropriate.
The Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff has a sincerely held religious belief in Islam
The undersigned finds that Plaintiff makes sufficient factual allegations as to a claim under §1983 for violation of First Amendment right to free exercise of his religion, a violation under the Fourteenth Amendment, and an equal protection claim. Therefore, it is recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied as to these claims.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above reasoning, it is recommended that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant White be granted as to any claims under RLUIPA for monetary damages and the motion to dismiss be denied with respect to the remaining claims.
Further, if this Report is adopted by the district judge, it is recommended that Defendant White be given twenty days from the date of the order to file an answer to the second amended complaint or otherwise plead and that an amended scheduling order be entered once an answer is filed.
The parties' attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.