Opinion
No. C00-0024, No. C00-0063, No. C00-0180
February 6, 2002
ORDER
This matter comes before the court pursuant to a trial on the merits conducted on September 4, 2001. The parties consented to the resolution of this matter by a United States Magistrate Judge. The three plaintiffs contend that while incarcerated at the Linn County Corrections Center (LCCC) they were prohibited from freely exercising their religion. All three men are practicing Muslims and are challenging the validity of the LCCC's policies forbidding prayer rugs in the facility's day room and the refusal to allow a prayer service with only two inmates present. The plaintiffs' are seeking compensatory damages for the denial of the use of the prayer rugs in the past and an order requiring that the prayer rugs be made available in the future.
The defendants contend that the policy prohibiting the use of prayer rugs in the day room is primarily due to the ability of the inmates to conceal contraband in the rolled up rugs and the potential problem the rugs would create among inmates with disparate property privileges. The defendants contend that prayer rugs are not essential to these plaintiffs' religious observance and support the claim with expert testimony. Based on the evidence and argument, it is ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants.
FACTS
The plaintiffs' were incarcerated at the LCCC at various times and Mr. Gillon was still being held there at the time of the trial. Mr. Shelton was at the Iowa State Penitentiary in Fort Madison and Mr. Baftiri was being held at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota.
Mr. Baftiri was incarcerated at the LCCC from December 6, 1999 until August 17, 2000. He testified that he was born Muslim and has only known that religion. Mr. Baftiri stated that he entered the LCCC at the beginning of Ramadan. Practicing Muslims fast from sun-up to sun-down during Ramadan. He contends that meals were delivered after sun-up. Mr. Baftiri said that the meals arrived late a couple of times but the situation was straightened out fairly quickly. He also contends that he was unable to adequately pray in the day room because he was forbidden from using a prayer rug outside of his cell. The day room also had a toilet in it and the plaintiffs contend that the floor was not clean enough for them to pray on. Cleanliness, they testified, is an essential part of the Islamic prayer ritual. His last complaint arises from the alleged refusal to announce the gathering for the jum'ah prayer. He contends that his grievances about the lack of announcements went unanswered and there was a general disregard by the LCCC to accommodate the Muslim inmates.
Mr. Shelton was incarcerated at the LCCC from December 18, 1999 until June of 2000. He testified that he has been a practicing Muslim for eleven years. He supplemented Mr. Baftiri's testimony, stating that if an inmate removed a prayer rug from a cell, it would be confiscated by the guards. He testified that the announcements for the jum'ah services were not made and the LCCC only provided them a small room for the jum'ah services. He said that the Christians were allowed to use a large room in the gym for their services, but the Muslims were forced to conduct the jum'ah services in a conference room. Jailors told Mr. Shelton that three Muslims were required to have a religious service. He admits this but argues that they still should have been able to pray together even without an official religious service. Mr. Shelton testified that the day room was not clean enough for the Muslims to pray in because it was a high traffic area and there was a toilet in the room.
Mr. Gillon was at the LCCC at the time of the trial. He had been there since May of 2000. He testified that he had been a practicing Muslim for seven years. He contends that the LCCC ridiculed his beliefs. Mr. Gillon wrote several grievances to the LCCC administration regarding the allowance of jum'ah services when only two inmates are interested in attending. He argues that only two inmates were needed to conduct a jum'ah service. Essentially the jum'ah service is intended, according to Mr. Gillon, to facilitate the congregation of Muslims to pray and discuss the Koran. No inmate is prohibited from praying or discussing theology.
He took issue also with the LCCC policy prohibiting the use of prayer rugs in the day room. He does not believe that using a towel is an adequate substitute for the prayer rug. Mr. Gillon testified that the day room is an inappropriate place to pray because there was a toilet in the room and it was generally unclean. He used toilet paper to clean his prayer area. His final contention is that the soaps and shampoos at the LCCC contain pork by-products, the use of which violate Islamic dictates, which prohibit contact with pork products. On cross-examination, Mr. Gillon admitted that the LCCC policy was changed to allow two inmates to gather for a jum'ah service and agreed that a chemical analysis of the shampoos used in the LCCC found no pork by-products.
Mr. Carr, a named defendant and the administrator of the LCCC, testified at the trial. He stated that the LCCC policy allowed inmates to keep prayer rugs in their cells but could not take them into the day room. He claims that security concerns justify the restriction use of prayer rugs. Specifically, the policy is designed to reduce the possibility that an inmate would conceal and transport contraband in the rug. The inmates are allowed to take towels into the day room because they are allowed to shower at anytime during the day. To the extent possible, Mr. Carr does not want some inmates to appear to have additional privileges. Every inmate has a towel, so possession of a towel by an inmate is not an issue. Mr. Carr indicated that inmates of different faiths are held in a common area and there is the potential for misuse of religious articles, like prayer rugs, by those inmates that do not attach any religious importance to the article. An example would be an inmate laying on the prayer rug in the day room as a substitute for a cushion. Mr. Carr said the policy at the LCCC dealt with the safety and security of the facility which is paramount to his duties as administrator and does not single out any one religion.
Mr. Carr indicated that Imam Taha Tawil was under contract with the LCCC to act as the religious advisor to the Muslim inmates and was contacted frequently about Islamic issues. Under the terms of the regulations in effect at the LCCC, a religious service is held in the chapel and is distinguished from an informal gathering by the presence of a religious advisor. Mr. Carr stated that the concerns about the possibility of pork by-products in the soap and shampoo were satisfied by simply switching to an all-purpose soap/shampoo at the LCCC. It has no pork by-products in it. On cross-examination, Mr. Carr indicated that because of the need for Muslims to pray five times per day, a request to pray in a room without a toilet was impossible because each cell has a toilet and the day room has a toilet. To accommodate the situation, Mr. Carr indicated that the inmates are given cleaning supplies twice daily to clean their areas.
Imam Taha Tawil testified as a joint expert on the tenets of the Islamic faith. He has a degree in Islamic law and arrived in Cedar Rapids in 1983. The Imam went to the University of Iowa and finished his graduate study in religion. Since 1986 he has been a consultant to the Department of Corrections, first on a voluntary basis, then under a contract. After a brief overview of the Islamic faith, the Imam testified that there are three cleanliness requirements to the daily prayer ritual. The place a person prays must be clean, the person's body must be clean, and the person must be wearing clean clothes. In order for the place to be considered clean, it must be dry. The person's body must be washed either by shower or by washing the hands, face, and feet. Items (a book, shoes, a briefcase) may be placed an arm's length away from the person praying to create a spiritual barrier between the clean place intended for prayer and the surrounding area. The Imam testified that there is no requirement that each Muslim have a prayer rug. He said anything that is dry and clean can be used as a substitute. He testified that as long as a towel is dry, it can be used as a substitute for a prayer rug. In terms of cleaning the space to pray in, using paper towels to clean the area is suitable, but it is the minimum one can do in order to prepare a place for prayer. The Imam stated that three people must be present for a jum'ah service to be held. If only two persons are present, they are congregating for daily prayers.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Prisoners do not lose all rights to free exercise of religion upon incarceration. See O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987). Nonetheless, a prisoner's free exercise right "is necessarily limited by the fact of incarceration, and may be curtailed in order to achieve legitimate correctional goals or to maintain prison security.Id. In Rouse v. Benson, the Eighth Circuit held that prison officials may restrict the religious practices of inmates only if such deprivation is necessary to further legitimate penological interests. 193 F.3d 936, 942 (8th Cir. 1999). Prison regulations that infringe on the constitutional rights of prisoners to free exercise of religion are judged by a reasonableness standard and prison officials are not required to choose the least restrictive means possible in furthering legitimate penological interests. See Salaam v. Lockhart, 905 F.2d 1168, 1171 (8th Cir. 1990).
The court must consider four factors to determine if regulation of exercise of religion is reasonable. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). First, there must be a valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it. Second, a reviewing court must assess whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates. Third, a court must determine the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prisoner resources generally. Finally, the absence of ready alternatives to the prison regulation must be explored. The existence of obvious, easy alternatives may be evidence that the regulation is not reasonable. Id., see also, Youngbear v. Thalacker, 174 F. Supp.2d 902, 913 (N.D.Iowa 2001). Before the Turner factors are applied to the plaintiffs' free exercise claim, they must first establish the existence of a sincerely held religious belief, and that the challenged regulation or conduct infringes upon that belief. See Iron Eyes v. Henry, 907 F.2d 810, 813 (8th Cir. 1990).
First, the court finds that the plaintiffs sincerely believe in their chosen religion. All were practicing Muslims before they were incarcerated and each attempted to continue practicing while incarcerated. The challenged prison regulations infringe to some degree upon the plaintiffs' beliefs.
The first factor articulated in Turner, is whether there is a "valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate government interest put forward to justify it." Turner, 482 U.S. at 89. In this case the plaintiffs' contend that the prohibition against carrying prayer rugs into the day room violates their respective rights to free exercise of religion. In response the LCCC administrator cites safety to the guards and the inmates as the reason that prayer rugs are not allowed outside the cells. The administrator indicted that contraband could be concealed in the rolled up prayer rug. See Bolin v. Rice, 2000 Westlaw 342676 (N.D.Cal. 2000) (the defendant cited legitimate penological reasons for confiscating prisoner's yarmulke, including that the caps could be used to conceal contraband.); Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 1997) (regulation requiring the confiscation of an inmate's prayer pipe did not violate the First Amendment. The court held that the prohibition of all "contraband" was a neutral law of general applicability.) Another concern of the LCCC is for the inmates themselves. The possession of a prayer rug in a common area could be the catalyst that ignites disputes between inmates of different religions or those inmates that simply want to take someone else's property. See Sutton v. Stewart, 22 F. Supp.2d 1097 (D.Ariz. 1998) (court noted that regulation barring inmates from have scented oils as sought by an inmate was reasonable and logically related to legitimate penological concerns. The oil had a flammable nature and the possession by only Muslim inmates presented safety and security threats, and inmates had other means of exercising religion.) This explanation of the policy at the LCCC satisfies the first step of the Turner test. There is a valid, rational connection between the regulation prohibiting the use of prayer rugs outside individual cells and the government interest in maintaining a safe, secure prison facility.
The second Turner factor is whether there are alternatives available to the plaintiffs to exercise their religion. Id. at 90. The prison regulations allowed each inmate to carry a towel into the day room. The regulations also allowed the Muslim inmates to use their towels as substitutes for a prayer rug. The Islamic religious leader, Imam Taha Tawil, testified that as long as the towel is dry, it could be used in place of a prayer rug. The plaintiffs' also contend that they were not allowed to hold jum'ah services. A jum'ah service is held on Fridays and has an Imam lead those assembled in a formal sermon called the Khutbah and is followed by the prayers. The jum'ah service is usually held at noon. The initial regulations prohibited jum'ah services unless three inmates were interested. After some complaints were filed, the regulations were changed to only require two persons in order to have a jum'ah service. The plaintiff argue that they were unable to congregate to pray. They were in fact held in a common area with all inmates. Daily prayers could be done together. Inmates can congregate to discuss the Koran. Religious services at the LCCC required that a religious advisor officiate the service. The Muslim inmates are allowed to meet in a conference room but can only use the chapel for religious services. The LCCC did provide alternatives for the plaintiffs. As a result the secondTurner factor weighs in favor of the defendants.
The third factor under Turner requires the court to determine the impact the accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources.Id. at 90. The plaintiffs contend that they should be allowed to pray five times a day in a room without a toilet. Mr. Carr testified that the all the inmates are held in the day room which has a toilet and each individual's cell has a toilet in it. The request to be removed from the day room or their cells and watched while praying five times a day would have an adverse impact on the guards and on the prison resources. The plaintiffs' were issued prayer rugs for their cells by the LCCC. They were given cleaning supplies twice a day to clean their prayer areas. The Iman does not criticize the use of a towel as a prayer rug. There was no indication exactly how many times the plaintiffs missed the jum'ah service because of a failed announcement. The third Turner factor also weighs in favor of the plaintiff.
The final Turner factor is whether an inmate claimant can point to an alternative that fully accommodates the prisoner's rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interests. A court may consider that as evidence that the regulation does not satisfy the reasonable relationship standard. Id. at 91. The plaintiffs' do not provide any real accommodation recommendations. On cross-examination of Mr. Carr, the LCCC administrator, the question about the difference between a towel and a rug was asked. The plaintiffs' counsel indicated that contraband could also be concealed in a towel but the LCCC allowed everyone to carry a towel out of the cell. Mr. Carr answered that all the inmates had towel and they were a common item. The significance of possessing a towel was negligible given the fact that everyone already had one. By allowing some inmates to have prayer rugs, possession would become an issue. As for the jum'ah services, announcements are now being made, and only two inmates are required to participate as opposed to the old regulation requiring three. The potential pork by-product problem in the soap has been satisfied and there was no indication that any of the previous soaps or shampoos used at the LCCC contained any pork by-products. The fourthTurner factor also weighs in favor of the defendants.
After analyzing the plaintiffs' claims under the four factors of theTurner case, the court concludes that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the LCCC regulations violated their First Amendment rights.
IT IS ORDERED that the court finds in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. Judgment shall be entered in favor of the defendants.