Marria V. Broadus
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Marria v. Broaddus, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003) [2] Constitutional Law KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Beliefs Protected; Inquiry Into Beliefs Declined to Follow by Harrison v. Watts, E.D.Va., March 26, 2009 2003 WL 21782633 Analysis of whether a claimant sincerely holds a Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. particular belief and whether the belief is United States District Court, religious in nature, and thus subject to protection S.D. New York. under free exercise clause of First Amendment, seeks to determine the subjective good faith of Rashaad MARRIA, Plaintiff, an adherent in performing certain rituals and can v. be guided by such extrinsic factors as a Dr. Raymond BROADDUS, Deputy Commissioner purported religious group’s size and history, of Programs; G. Blaetz, Chairperson of Green whether the claimant appears to be seeking Haven Correctional Facility Media Review material gain by hiding secular interests behind Committee; Warith Deen Umar, Coordinator for a veil of religious doctrine, and whether the Islamic Affairs; and Glenn Goord, Commissioner claimant has acted in a manner inconsistent with of the New York State Department of Corrections, his professed beliefs; however, courts are not Defendants. permitted to ask whether a particular belief is appropriate or true, however unusual or No. 97 Civ.8297 NRB. | July 31, 2003. unfamiliar the belief may be. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. Prisoner brought action against New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) and various 2 Cases that cite this headnote officials alleging violation of his rights under First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The District Court, Buchwald, J., held that: (1) prisoner’s beliefs as a member of the Nation of Gods and Earths were both sincere and “religious in [3] Constitutional Law nature” and therefore entitled to Religious Land Use and Prisons and Pretrial Detention Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and First Prisons Amendment, and (2) DOCS’ classification of Nation of Religious Practices and Materials Gods and Earths as a security threat group and its absolute ban on Nation literature violated prisoner’s free exercise Prisoner’s beliefs as a member of the Nation of rights under First Amendment and RLUIPA. Gods and Earths were both sincere and “religious in nature” and therefore entitled to Order in accordance with opinion. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and First Amendment protection under the free exercise clause; despite Nation members’ reluctance to call the Nation of Gods and Earths a “religion,” prisoner lived by West Headnotes (4) the Nation’s teachings and observed the Nation’s holy days to the extent possible under [1] corrections regulations, Nation carried the same Constitutional Law significance for its members as Christianity, Beliefs Protected; Inquiry Into Beliefs Judaism, and Islam did for their adherents, and Nation’s contrasting belief system meant that A court’s scrutiny of whether a plaintiff one could not be a part of those religions and the deserves free exercise protection extends only to Nation simultaneously. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. whether a claimant sincerely holds a particular 1; 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(g). belief and whether the belief is religious in nature. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1. 12 Cases that cite this headnote 2 Cases that cite this headnote [4] Constitutional Law 1 Marria v. Broaddus, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003) Prisons and Pretrial Detention other members of the group. He seeks declaratory and Prisons injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Religious Practices and Materials violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Religious Land Use and Department of Correctional Services’ (DOCS) Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), the classification of Nation of Gods and Earths as a New York State Constitution, and state law. Plaintiff’s security threat group and its absolute ban on federal due process and analogous state law claims were Nation literature violated prisoner’s free dismissed on qualified immunity grounds at the summary exercise rights under First Amendment and judgment stage of this case. See Marria v. Broaddus, 200 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized F.Supp.2d 280, 301-302 (S.D.N.Y.2002). Persons Act (RLUIPA); Department failed to establish that its complete ban on Nation The Court held a five-day bench trial during which the materials, literature, and activities furthered a parties presented evidence bearing on the issue of whether compelling security interest and was the least plaintiff’s beliefs as a member of the Nation are entitled restrictive means of doing so under RLUIPA. 42 to Constitutional protection and, if so, what proper the U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). scope of protection would be. Having reviewed the testimony and evidence that has been presented, we find that plaintiff’s sincerely-held beliefs as a member of the 21 Cases that cite this headnote Nation are entitled to First Amendment and RLUIPA protection, and thus grant plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief in part and remand in part for further consideration and action by DOCS not inconsistent with this decision.2 Our findings of fact and conclusions of law are set forth below. Opinion OPINION AND ORDER BACKGROUND BUCHWALD, J. The Nation’s history, teachings, and practices are largely not contested, nor are the existence and application of *1 Plaintiff Intelligent Tarref Allah, formerly known as DOCS’ policies concerning the Nation. Rashaad Marria1 (hereinafter “plaintiff”), has been an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”) since June 1995. For the duration of his incarceration within DOCS, plaintiff A. The Nation of Gods and Earths has been a member of the Nation of Gods and Earths The Nation, whose adherents are commonly referred to as (“Nation”), which he joined in August of 1994 while “Five Percenters,” the “Five Percent”, or the “Five awaiting trial at Rikers Island. Defendants are DOCS Percent Nation,” was founded in New York nearly 40 employees sued in their individual and official capacities: years ago. The Nation traces its roots to the Black Muslim defendant Glenn S. Goord (“Goord”) is current the movement that emerged in the midtwentieth century and Commissioner of DOCS; defendant Dr. Raymond most directly to the Nation of Islam (“NOI”)-a group that Broaddus (“Broaddus”) was the Deputy Commissioner DOCS classifies as a religion pursuant to the settlement in for Program Services of DOCS at all times relevant to this Muhammad v. Coughlin, No. 91 Civ. 6333 (S.D.N.Y), action; defendant G. Blaetz (“Blaetz”) was a Senior and one with which the Nation shares some teachings and Counselor and the Media Review Committee Chairperson its central text (known to Nation members as the 120 3 at DOCS’ Green Haven Correctional Facility (“Green Degrees). See Trial Tr. at 162:11-17; Trial Tr. at Haven”); and defendant Warith Deen Umar (“Umar”) was 56:18-23. The concept of the “Five Percent” from which the Coordinator for Islamic Affairs at DOCS at all times the Nation derives its colloquial name was first set forth relevant to this action (collectively, “defendants” or by NOI leader Elijah Muhammad, who separated the “DOCS”). world’s population into three categories: the Five Percent, the Ten Percent, and the Eighty-Five Percent. See Trial Plaintiff challenges DOCS’ policy classifying the Nation Tr. at 54:6-20. According to Elijah Muhammad, the Ten as an “unauthorized” or “security threat” group and Percent teach the Eighty-Five Percent to believe in the DOCS’ consequent prohibition on his receipt of Nation existence of a “mystery God” and thereby keep the materials and literature, including the group’s central texts Eighty-Five Percent enslaved by having them worship and its newspaper, and ban on formal gatherings with something that they cannot see. See id. Muhammad 2 Marria v. Broaddus, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003) characterized the remaining Five Percent as the poor, 302:15-20; Pl. Trial Ex. 180 (anthropological righteous teachers who do not believe in the teachings of “syncretism” created by plaintiff witness Ted Swedenberg the Ten Percent and instead teach the identity of the true comparing the Nation of Gods and Earths to various and living God, as well as freedom, justice, and equality religious traditions); Blocker Decl. ¶ 8. Members of both to all human families of the planet earth. See id. The term groups also observe dietary restrictions, such as refraining “Five Percenter,” while commonly used to describe from eating pork, and fast on holy days.4 Finally, the members of the Nation, can be used more generally to Nation’s emblem, known to members as the “Universal describe a person who subscribes to the belief that Flag,” is reminiscent of the one used by NOI. Compare humankind can be broken down into the Five Percent, the Pl. Trial Ex. 1 (cover of Five Percenter newspaper Ten Percent, and the Eighty-Five Percent. Thus, not all containing the “Universal Flag”) with http:// people who might nominally identify themselves as “Five www.noi.org/ (visited May 26, 2003) (NOI web page percenters” are necessarily members of the Nation of displaying crescent emblem). Gods and Earths. See Trial Tr. at 55:15-25. *3 Although plaintiff asserts that his belief system as a *2 The Nation of Gods and Earths began in 1964 when its member of the Nation would be commonly understood as founder Clarence 13X Smith broke with the NOI. See a religion, he and other nation members reject the label Trial Tr. at 56:18-23. In contrast to the NOI’s belief that “religion” in describing the Nation because they believe Allah (God) appeared on Earth solely in the person of its that the term “religion” connotes “belief in the mystery founder Master Fard Muhammad, Smith and his followers God”-i.e., the false religious belief systems promulgated professed the central belief that every black man is an by the Ten Percent to enslave the minds of others.