Erie v. Hunter

675 F.Supp.3d 647

Storm ERIE v. Nancy HUNTER

CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-00267-BAJ-RLB

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

Signed May 31, 2023

Garret Scott DeReus, Emily Anne Westermeier, Andrew David Bizer, Bizer & DeReus, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Storm Erie.

Matthew Patrick Roth, Louisiana Department of Justice Civil Rights Section, Baton Rouge, LA, for Nancy Hunter.

RULING AND ORDER

BRIAN A. JACKSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[.]" U.S. Const. amend. I. Jurists still debate the outer limits of the Establishment Clause's reach, but its core guarantee is settled: "government may not 'make a religious observance compulsory.' " Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 597 U.S. 507, 142 S. Ct. 2407, 2429, 213 L.Ed.2d 755 (2022) (quoting Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314, 72 S.Ct. 679, 96 L.Ed. 954 (1952)).

In this case, the evidence shows that Defendant Nancy Hunter—a psychiatric aide at the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System (ELMHS) in Jackson, Louisiana—compelled Plaintiff Storm Erie—a civil detainee confined at ELMHS—to attend a Christian worship service over his express objection and under threat of force. Now the Court must decide if this evidence withstands Ms. Hunter's qualified immunity defense at summary judgment. It does, for reasons set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Summary Judgment Evidence

By Local Rule, the following facts are drawn from Ms. Hunter's Statement Of Uncontested Material Facts (Doc. 20-1), Mr. Erie's responsive Statement of Material Facts (Doc. 21-1), and the record evidence submitted in support of these documents.

ELMHS is Louisiana's only state-run forensic psychiatric hospital, serving all 64 Louisiana parishes. ELMHS's Secure Forensic Facility (SFF) in Jackson treats "residents" that are detained under civil commitment orders for mental illness or addictive disorders, including residents that have been determined to be incompetent to stand trial for criminal offenses, found not guilty of criminal offenses by reason of insanity, and transferred from state prisons. La. R.S. § 28:25.1.

Ms. Hunter, now retired, was a 30-year employee of ELMHS. (Doc. 21-1 at 7:10-9:9, hereinafter "Hunter Depo."). For the 15 years prior to her retirement, Ms. Hunter worked as a psychiatric aide in the SFF. (Id.). Ms. Hunter is Methodist, and attends church "[e]very first and third Sunday." (Id. at 10:7-11:13). In her own words, she "put[s] everything in the Lord's hands because the Lord said he looks high and low 24/7." (Id. at 35:24-25).

Mr. Erie is a civil detainee assigned to the SFF. For 17 years, Mr. Erie has identified as "an ephemeral existentialist." (Doc. 20-3 at 7:22-8:9, hereinafter "Erie Depo."). He believes in God, but does not associate with organized religion. (Id.)

To promote safety and security at the SFF, ELMHS requires that residents be supervised at all times, pursuant to a maximum 15:1 resident to staff ratio. (Doc. 20-1 at ¶¶ 3-4). There are no exceptions to these rules. Still, however, these rules may not be applied in a way that burdens residents' freedom of conscience. To the point, ELMHS policy also provides that SFF residents maintain the "[r]ight to refuse to attend religious services," that residents should "never [be] force[d]" to attend religious services, and that if a resident exercises his right to refuse attendance at a religious service, "ever[y] effort should be made to assist the [residents] who do want to attend and leave the [residents] on the unit who do not want to attend." (Doc. 21-3 at 2, 12; see Doc. 20-4 at 17:10-19:16, hereinafter "Bertucci Depo."; see also Doc. 20-6 at 9:9-22, hereinafter "Boatner Depo.").

On January 9, 2021, Ms. Hunter and her supervisor, non-party Nurse Tonya Boatner, were the only ELMHS staff members assigned to supervise 26 residents in the SFF. (Doc. 20-1 at ¶¶ 5-6). Just before 10:00 a.m., Ms. Hunter made rounds, knocking on each residents' bedroom door and announcing "it's church time." (Hunter Depo. at 7:9-18, 14:17-15:9). Twenty-five SFF residents responded promptly, leaving their bedrooms and assembling without protest in the recreation hall for a Christian worship service. (Id. at 15:10-16:14, 17:8-18:11; see also Erie Depo. at 17:20-25).

When Ms. Hunter reached Mr. Erie's door, however, Mr. Erie objected, saying "I ain't going to church." (Hunter Depo. at 15:2-3, 17:9). Ms. Hunter knew of Mr. Erie's "right to refuse." (Id. at 23:12-13, 41:25-41:11). She also understood that Mr. Erie's right of refusal could be accommodated by notifying Nurse Boatner of Mr. Erie's objection, so that a staff member—Ms. Hunter, Nurse Boatner, or a security guard—could be assigned to sit outside Mr. Erie's door during the service, allowing Mr. Erie to remain in his bedroom. (Id. at 37:20-38:16). According to Nurse Boatner, however, Ms. Hunter "didn't even come to me regarding that statement from Mr. Erie." (Boatner Depo. at 14:3-8).¹ Instead, by Mr. Erie's account, Ms. Hunter "replied that I would have to go and if I refused to go she [Ms. Hunter] would get a guard to force me." (Erie Depo. at 12:11-21). According to Mr. Erie, Ms. Hunter added that "everyone would have to go to the church service" because she was the only psychiatric aide on the floor, and residents cannot go unsupervised. (Id. at 15:21-22, 16:5-13).

Facing a threat of physical force, and additional disciplinary action if he did not comply, (Erie Depo. at 42:8-43:10), Mr. Erie relented, leaving his bedroom and taking a seat in the rear of the recreation hall, as far as possible from the Reverend leading the worship service. (id. at 22:11-14). Mr. Erie's apprehension that he would be punished if he disobeyed Ms. Hunter's order was well-founded: SFF Director Gino Bertucci later confirmed that had Mr. Erie ultimately refused Ms. Hunter's order to proceed to the recreation hall, it would have been a "medium" rule violation punishable by "[l]oss of 50 percent of your [canteen] points, no canteen for one week and start your [good behavior] level over." (Bertucci Depo. at 45:17-46:16).

During the worship service—which consisted of prayer, hymns, and a sermon, (Hunter Depo. at 18:2-11)—Mr. Erie was allowed to wear headphones, but could still hear what was occurring, particularly after Ms. Hunter demanded that he lower the volume of his music. (Erie Depo. at 19:10-20:14; Hunter Depo. at 18:14-24).

Following the service, Mr. Erie immediately reported the morning's events to his attorneys who, in turn, promptly informed ELMHS's CEO, Hampton Lea, expressing concern that "Mr. Erie's Constitutional Rights under the First Amendment" were violated. (Doc. 21-1). At Mr. Lea's command, Director Bertucci conducted an investigation, which ultimately concluded that "there was [sic] other options [Ms. Hunter] could have use [sic] to locate other staff to stay with the [residents] who do not want to go to attend the religious services," and that Ms. Hunter's actions violated Mr. Erie's "[r]ight to refuse to attend religious services." (Doc. 21-3 at 1-2; see Bertucci Depo. at 17:10-19:8). Ms. Hunter received a written reprimand, (Doc. 21-3 at 1, 6), and, thereafter, all SFF staff were required to sign a memorandum expressly acknowledging residents' "right to decline attending religious services," (id. at 12).

B. Procedural History

Mr. Erie initiated this action on May 10, 2021, alleging one constitutional claim against Ms. Hunter in her individual capacity: specifically, that his forced attendance at the January 9 worship service violated his Establishment Clause right to be free from compulsory religious observation. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 40-43).

On August 3, 2021, the State moved to dismiss Mr. Erie's claim on the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that Mr. Erie's constitutional rights were not clearly established, and that faced with "two options"—either prohibiting all residents from attending worship, or requiring all residents to attend—Ms. Hunter reasonably "exercise[d] her discretion in deciding to choose the latter." (Doc. 8-1 at 8). On March 23, 2022, this Court issued its Order rejecting Ms. Hunter's qualified immunity defense, ruling that the state of the law in January 2021 gave Ms. Hunter "fair warning" that her alleged actions violated the Establishment Clause, and that while Ms. Hunter's "motive/intent may ultimately bear on the outcome of Plaintiff's Establishment Clause claims—particularly if those motives are consistent with the 5 state's interest in maintaining safety of all ELMHS residents—such issues cannot be determined from the allegations of Plaintiff's complaint and require factual development." Erie v. Hunter, 593 F. Supp. 3d 374, 383 (M.D. La. 2022) (Jackson, J.).

Now, the record is developed, and the State moves for summary judgment, doubling down on its position that Ms. Hunter's actions are shielded by qualified immunity. Mr. Erie opposes the State's motion. (Doc. 21).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard

The summary judgment standard is well-set: generally, to prevail, the moving party must show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. 56(a). Here, however, the State invokes qualified immunity. Thus, the tables are turned, and Mr. Erie "bears the burden to demonstrate the inapplicability of the defense." Rogers v. Jarrett, 63 F.4th 971, 975 (5th Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted). To meet this burden, Mr. Erie must "(1) raise a fact dispute on whether his constitutional rights were violated by [Ms. Hunter's] conduct, and (2) show those rights were clearly established at the time of the violation." Id. (quotation marks omitted).² Still, when conducting the qualified immunity analysis, the Court views all evidence and makes all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Mr. Erie. Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014).

B. Discussion

1. Mr. Erie has raised a fact dispute on whether his constitutional...