Byrd v. Haas

17 F.4th 692

Gerald BYRD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Randall HAAS, Warden, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-2286

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: October 19, 2021

Decided and Filed: November 9, 2021

ARGUED: Jeffrey A. Crapko, MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Jennifer A. Foster, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey A. Crapko, Amanda Rauh-Bieri, MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Jennifer A. Foster, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.

Before: GILMAN, THAPAR, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge.

Six years ago, Robert Byrd requested that the Michigan Department of Corrections allow him to worship with other members of his Ifa faith and to obtain certain religious property fundamental to that faith. But to this day, many of his requests remain unanswered. Since such a long delay is tantamount to a denial, we reverse and remand.

I.

We divide this section into three parts. First, we outline the Department's policy. Then we trace Byrd's journey, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Byrd. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). And last, we describe the case's procedural history.

A.

Both parties agree the Department's policy lays out the framework that governs an inmate's religious requests. That policy recognizes "[r]eligious freedom is a constitutionally guaranteed right" that prisoners may enjoy "within the constraints necessary for the safety, security, and good order of the facility." R. 80-2, Pg. ID 758. Inmates may hold formal group services or possess certain religious property only if the Department has formally recognized their faith. Buddhists, for example, may own one strand of meditation beads and a single picture of the Buddha. Muslims meanwhile are allowed a prayer rug, a strand of dhikr beads, a star-and-crescent pendant that may be worn as a necklace, and either a kufi cap or a hijab. Ifa adherents may keep a set of sixteen cowry shells, one strand of white consecrated beads, and one picture of the Orisha, a group of important deities in the faith.¹ Though the Department recognizes the Ifa faith, it is one of only three recognized religions that was denied group services. The record doesn't tell us why. But the policy tells us a group is not guaranteed religious services if there are "less than five prisoners within the same security level" in a facility.² Id. at 761. And the Department adds that it may bar group services if they may pose "safety and security" concerns. Appellees’ Br. 6 (citing R. 80-2, Pg. ID 761).

The parties also agree that the policy offers a straightforward path for inmates to request group-worship rights and religious property. The inmate's role is minimal. He need only submit a request "in writing to the Warden or designee and include a description of the religious item along with an explanation of its significance" to his faith. R. 80-2 at 763. As the Department concedes, once the prisoner submits this request, there is "no further role for the prisoner to play." R. 87-9, Pg. ID 1763. The duty then shifts to the warden (here, Randall Haas) or his designee to "forward the request and any supporting documents to the [ ] Special Activities Coordinator through the appropriate chain of command." R. 80-2, Pg. ID 763. And this duty is a mandatory one. The warden has no "discretion over whether or not to forward" Byrd's request to the special activities coordinator. R. 87-9, Pg. ID 1762.

The policy likewise circumscribes the special activities coordinator's role. Upon receiving the request, the special activities coordinator (here, David Leach) must study it before making a recommendation to the Department's deputy director. As part of this review, the special activities coordinator typically forwards the request to the Chaplaincy Advisory Council, a volunteer group of local religious leaders who help him assess religious claims. Both the council and the special activities coordinator are tasked with evaluating whether an inmate's requested religious property "is necessary to the practice of [the prisoner's] religion." R. 87-11, Pg. ID 2030–36. They then file separate recommendations with the deputy director (here, Kenneth McKee).

The deputy director must make the final decision. Besides considering the council's and special activities coordinator's recommendations, he must also determine whether the requested religious item "poses a threat to the custody and security of the facility." R. 87-18, Pg. ID 2218. If an inmate's request survives both hurdles, then the deputy director must approve it.

B.

As far as bureaucracy goes, the policy seems simple. Discretion is minimal and requests appear straightforward. But Byrd's story paints a different picture. Between his conversion to the Ifa faith in August 2015 and filing this lawsuit more than two years later, Byrd sent four requests for Ifa group services and nine items that he considers essential to the Ifa faith. These items include, among other things, a straw mat for prayer, herbs, and more beads. How did the Department respond to these requests? It didn't. Not one made its way to McKee for a final decision. And since this lawsuit began, Byrd has filed a fifth request. But the Department hasn't fully resolved that request either.

First Request : While housed in the Saginaw Correctional Facility, Byrd sent his first request in September 2015 to both Leach and his warden. Leach responded three months later, telling Byrd that he must first send his request to the warden. But the Saginaw warden never responded to Byrd's request or forwarded the letter to Leach.

Second Request : Now at Macomb Correctional Facility, Byrd tried again. He sent his second request in February 2016 to Haas, his new warden, along with Leach and McKee. For good measure, Byrd attached a letter explaining that he had "sent one copy to [his] last facility's warden ... and received no response so a response would be greatly appreciated." R. 87-15, Pg. ID 2162. He also copied each official listed under the policy to ensure that they all knew the letter had reached Haas. Time stamps show that Haas received the letter no later than the end of March 2016. In fact, Haas sent the request to the prison's chaplain for advice. But he never forwarded the request to Leach. Why? He didn't "recall receiving this document." R. 87-9, Pg. ID 1797.

Third Request : After another month without a response from the defendants, Byrd sent letters to both Leach and McKee. Byrd reminded Leach that he had submitted the same request twice before to no avail despite making "every possible attempt to comply with [the policy]." R. 87-22, Pg. ID 2291. He stressed once more that both group services and his requested religious property are "necessary for the practice" of the Ifa faith, and that the Department was violating the Constitution when it denied his requests while "similarly situated" prisoners were allowed comparable privileges. Id. He closed by expressing his "sincere[ ] hope" that "this may be resolved without" litigation. Id. Neither Leach nor McKee responded.

But Leach did ask Chaplain Leroy White if he knew anything about Byrd's request. In response, White interviewed Byrd in mid-May and then photocopied Byrd's request. The chaplain notified Leach that Byrd was still asking for personal religious items and group services. R. 87-10, Pg. ID 1891. Thus, by May—almost nine months after Byrd's first request—Leach not only knew about the requests, but also knew that Byrd had fully complied with the policy. Yet he still did not submit Byrd's request to either the council or McKee. Nor did he ask Haas about Byrd's claims.

Fourth Request : Two more months passed without a response. So Byrd wrote a follow-up letter to Haas in July 2016 seeking a status update. Haas again failed to respond to Byrd or forward the request to Leach. Instead, he let the request sit after writing a note to discuss it with White.

Fifth Request : After litigation began, Byrd sent yet another request to his warden in July 2019. And earlier this year—almost six years after Byrd's first request—the acting special activities coordinator notified Byrd that the Ifa faith would now be approved for group religious services. He also stated that Byrd's request for religious articles "will be sent back to the [council] for recommendations on services and religious property." Reply Br. 3 n.1. And yet, according to Byrd, "[t]he policy has not been amended and group services are still not allowed." Id. On remand, the district court can monitor the state of Byrd's fifth request and determine whether these developments moot Byrd's request for injunctive relief.

C.

After almost two years of having his religious-liberty claims ignored, Byrd sued various Department officials for alleged violations of his statutory and constitutional rights. More precisely, Byrd contends that Haas, Leach, and McKee have violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the Free Exercise Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. Byrd also alleges that Haas violated his Fourteenth Amendment procedural-due-process rights.

The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding qualified immunity for the officials on Byrd's constitutional claims. It also ruled that Byrd's RLUIPA claims against Haas and Leach were moot because they have retired since Byrd filed suit, and granted summary judgment for McKee on Byrd's remaining RLUIPA claim.

II.

In this case, framing is everything. Byrd alleges that the defendants have "restrict[ed]" him "from freely practicing his religion by refusing to approve group religious services and personal religious property." R. 24, Pg. ID 92. As he puts it, his complaint "is not—and has never been—just...