Opinion
Civil Action 2:03-CV-272.
March 28, 2008
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Blankenship's Claims for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Stay Blankenship's Claim for Damages, Doc. No. 270 (" Defendants' Motion"). Defendants base their motion on a class action also pending in this Court in which plaintiff Darryl Blankenship is both a named plaintiff and a member of the certified class, John Miller, et al. v. Reginald Wilkinson, et al., C-2-98-275 (S.D.Ohio) (" Miller"). This Court has previously addressed the issue of deferral of plaintiff Blankenship's claims to Miller. See Order, at p. 16, Doc. No. 28; Order, at pp. 4 — 6, Doc. 225. Although defendants base their current motion on recent developments in Miller, this Court is persuaded that it erred in declining to defer the claims of plaintiff Blankenship to Miller. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion will be granted.
The parties consented to disposition of this action by the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Doc. Nos. 100, 140, 141, 142.
Miller
Miller was filed on March 12, 1998, by nine (9) inmate adherents of the Asatru religion, including Darryl Blankenship. Complaint, Doc. No. 6. The original Complaint generally alleges that the defendant state officials acted with indifference to plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and discriminated against the Asatru adherents based on their race and religion. Plaintiffs expressly alleged that prison officials "refuse to recognize Asatru holy days and feast days. . . ." Id., at p. 9. The relief sought in the original Complaint included injunctive relief requiring the "recognition of Asatru holy days and feast days." Id., at p. 28.
The Amended Supplemental Complaint filed on June 28, 1999, Doc. No. 95, incorporated the allegations and claims asserted in the original Complaint. The Amended Supplemental Complaint also asserted class allegations and argued that the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications "which would establish incompatible standards of conduct. . . ." Amended Supplemental Complaint, ¶ 16. Count II of the Amended Supplemental Complaint again alleges, inter alia, that the defendants have refused to recognize "Asatru holy days and feast days," Id., ¶ 25, and the relief sought once again includes, inter alia, "recognition of Asatru holy days and feast days." Id., at p. 6.
On July 16, 1999, the trial judge in Miller characterized the primary issue in that case as the "system-wide policy" of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction towards Asatru adherents. Opinion and Order, at p. 12, Doc. No. 101. The Court therefore certified a class of plaintiffs, pursuant to the provisions of F.R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), defined as "all present and future inmates confined in any institution administered by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction who are adherents of the Asatru religion." Id.
Classes certified under Rule 23(b)(2) are "`mandatory' class actions under which the plaintiff class members do not have an automatic right to notice or right to opt out of the class." Reed v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 435 F.3d 639, 645 (6th Cir. 2006).
Counsel was appointed to represent the plaintiff class, and Miller remains pending in this Court. The issues in that case appear to have been the subject of recent settlement discussions. See Exhibit B attached to Defendants' Motion.
This Litigation
This action was originally instituted on March 31, 2003, by a number of inmates in the custody of the State of Ohio, acting without the assistance of counsel. Although the facts underlying each plaintiff's claims differ in many respects, each plaintiff, including Darryl Blankenship, alleged violations of his rights in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings. Invoking the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, plaintiff Blankenship alleges that he has been denied the opportunity to freely exercise his Asatru religious beliefs and that he has been required to work in contravention of those beliefs. Complaint, Doc. No. 1. In a motion for interim injunctive relief, see Doc. No. 163, plaintiff Blankenship asks that defendants be enjoined from requiring him to work on days and at times that his Asatru religion forbids such work. Class counsel in Miller was appointed to represent him in that matter, Order, Doc. No. 176, and an evidentiary hearing on the motion was held beginning December 5, 2007.
Defendants' Motion
In Defendants' Motion, defendants ask that plaintiff Blankenship's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief be dismissed and that his claims for monetary relief be stayed pending resolution of Miller. Defendants argue that, as a member of the Miller class, plaintiff Blankenship should be required to assert in Miller the claims asserted by him in this case. Moreover, defendants contend that, to permit plaintiff Blankenship to proceed in multiple, duplicative, litigation is to place unreasonable demands on the limited resources of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Plaintiff Blankenship is also a plaintiff in yet another action addressing the rights of Asatru inmates in Ohio, Jason Ratliffe, et al. v. Ernie Moore, et al., C-1-05-582 (S.D.Ohio).
1. Standard
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has recognized that federal courts should seek to avoid "duplicative litigation." Smith v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n, 129 F.3d 356, 360 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976)). Where duplicative federal actions are pending, a federal court may, in the exercise of its discretion, stay one of the actions, permit both actions to proceed, or enjoin parties from proceeding in one of those actions. Id. "In weighing these three options, courts often proceed . . . under the rule of thumb that the entire action should be decided by the court in which an action was first filed." Id. See also Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth), § 21.42 (2004) ("The judges involved [in parallel federal litigation] should coordinate to avoid undue burden, expense, and conflict."). This "first-filed rule" recognizes that the court presiding over the earlier filed action should generally be permitted to proceed to judgment. Zide Sport Shop of Ohio, Inc. v. Ed Tobergate Associates, Inc., 16 Fed. App'x 433, 437 (6th Cir. 2001). This deference is particularly warranted where the earlier filed action has been certified as a class action and addresses state-wide prison policies:
To allow two or more district [court] judges to issue directions to prison officials simultaneously would be to create . . . an "inefficient" situation, fraught with potential for inconsistency, confusion, and unnecessary expense.Groseclose v. Dutton, 829 F.2d 581, 584 (6th Cir. 1987). See also Townsend v. Vasbinder, ___ F.Supp. 2nd ___, 2007 WL 4557715 (E.D. Mich. 2007).
Deferral to an earlier filed action is appropriate, however, only where the litigation is truly duplicative, i.e., "`materially on all fours with the other [litigation and having] such an identity that a determination in one action leaves little or nothing to be determined in the other.'" Smith v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n, 129 F.3d at 360 (quoting Congress Credit Corp. v. AJC Int'l, Inc., 42 F.3d 686, 689 (1st Cir. 1994)).
2. Application
This Court denied defendants' earlier motion to stay plaintiff Blankenship's claims in deference to Miller after characterizing the claims asserted by plaintiff Blankenship in this action and those in Miller as "not entirely co-extensive" and concluding that "resolution of Miller will not be dispositive of all claims asserted by this plaintiff in this case." Opinion and Order, at p. 5, Doc. No. 225.
In reaching this conclusion, however, this Court construed the claims asserted in Miller as "seek[ing] recognition and accommodation of . . . 12 Asatru Holy days." Opinion and Order, at p. 5, Doc. No. 225. This Court contrasted the class claims in Miller from the claims asserted by plaintiff Blankenship in this action, i.e., seeking, inter alia, "accommodation for individual worship time through the grant of a nearly permanent work proscription." Id.
However, as this Court's more detailed summary of Miller, see supra, makes clear, the claims asserted in Miller and the relief sought by the pleadings in Miller are not limited to recognition of only a few Asatru religious feast days; moreover, in certifying a class of plaintiffs, the trial judge characterized Miller as addressing the "department's system-wide policy. . . ." Miller, Opinion and Order, at p. 12, Doc. No. 101. This Court therefore now concludes that the claims asserted by plaintiff Blankenship in this action are subsumed in the class claims asserted in Miller and that the claims asserted by him in this action are truly duplicative of the claims asserted by the class in Miller. Under these circumstances, consideration of judicial economy and of the parties' legitimate interest in avoiding undue burden and expense militates in favor of permitting "the court in which an action was first filed" to resolve all the issues presented by the separate actions. See Smith v. Securities and Exchange Comm'n, 129 F.3d at 360. Moreover, to permit plaintiff Blankenship to individually pursue his own individual claims, even with the assistance of class counsel in Miller, runs the serious risk of interfering with the defendants' ability to formulate a system-wide policy to accommodate the religious convictions of inmate Asatru adherents. See Groseclose v. Dutton, 829 F.2d at 584.
Plaintiff Blankenship attempts to distinguish the claims asserted by him in this action from those asserted by the class in Miller by explaining that his individual observance of Asatru may not be shared by all — or even any — other adherents of the religion. This court remains unpersuaded. Because he is an inmate adherent of the Asatru religion, plaintiff Blankenship falls within the definition of the class certified in Miller. Miller is surely not the first class action in which the members of the class may have differing assessments of their claims or of the appropriate resolution of those claims. In any event, if plaintiff Blankenship concludes that his claims are so dissimilar to those of the other members of his class, his appropriate course of action is to seek a redefinition of the class in Miller. The assertion of claims in multiple, duplicative and overlapping litigation serves the legitimate interests of neither the parties nor the Court.
This Court therefore concludes that the claims asserted by plaintiff Blankenship in this action should be litigated in the first instance in Miller. Under these circumstances, Defendants' Motion, Doc. No. 270, is GRANTED. Plaintiff Blankenship's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are DISMISSED without prejudice to assertion in Miller; plaintiff Blankenship's individual claims for monetary damages are STAYED pending resolution of Miller.
In reaching this decision, the Court is not unmindful of this plaintiff's legitimate interest in seeking vindication of his claimed constitutional rights. However, the dismissal of his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief in this action does not foreclose the assertion of those claims in Miller, where the class is in fact represented by the same counsel who represented him in this action. Moreover, this Court can perceive no reason why the proceedings on plaintiff's motion for interim injunctive relief, including the record made at the evidentiary hearing, could not, if otherwise appropriate, be utilized by the parties in Miller. WHEREUPON Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss and to Stay, Doc. No. 270, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Interim Injunctive Relief, Doc. No. 163, is DENIED. The claims of plaintiff Darryl Blankenship for injunctive and declaratory relief are DISMISSED from this action, without prejudice to assertion in the Miller class action. Plaintiff Blankenship's individual claims for monetary damages are STAYED pending resolution of Miller.