Hale v. Collis

1

MATTHEW HALE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL COLLIS, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-1469 (JEB)

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

July 29, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES E. BOASBERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Matthew Hale is a federal prisoner serving a 40-year sentence for soliciting the murder of a federal judge and obstructing justice. United States v Hale, 448 F.3d 971, 974 (7th Cir. 2006) (Hale I). He is also, in the words of his Complaint, a “philosopher, ordained minister . . ., and accomplished author.” ECF No. 1 (Compl.), ¶ 1. It is perhaps inevitable that prison's restrictions will crimp an inmate's free pursuit of philosophy, religion, and literary glory. That is especially true for Hale since the creed he seeks to preach and practice is that of the World Church of the Creator - also known as “Creativity” - “a white supremacist organization” that the Bureau of Prisons has restricted “because inmates following its tenets have engaged in acts of violence,” including murdering fellow prisoners and starting race riots. See ECF No. 12 (Def. MTD) at 2; Hale v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 759 Fed. App'x 741, 743 (10th Cir. 2019) (Hale II).

Hale's place at the intersection of white-supremacist violence purported religious practice, and literary ambition has produced this lawsuit, in which he brings a raft of religious and free-speech claims against BOP, BOP's Counter Terrorism Unit, and the CTU analyst who i implements many of its policies against him, Michael Collis. See Compl., ¶¶ 1-3. Defendants now move to dismiss.

The Court will grant the Motion in part and deny it in part. As explained below, claim preclusion bars Hale's religion causes of action, but his free-speech claims may proceed - although only against BOP itself.

I. Background

Before setting out the backdrop of our case, the Court believes that a brief tour through Hale's litigation history may help inform the reader.

A. Prior Cases

This is the latest episode in a series of cases arising from Plaintiff's involvement with Creativity. TE-TA-MA Truth Found. - Fam. of URI, Inc. v. World Church of Creator, 297 F.3d 662, 664 (7th Cir. 2002). This trail - which has featured a murder conspiracy and a controversy over what counts as a religion - started, strangely enough, with a squabble over trademarks. In 2002, the Seventh Circuit ruled that Creativity, which Hale was then leading as its Pontifex Maximus, had infringed on the trademark of another organization. TE-TA-MA, 297 F.3d at 667. A federal district court duly ordered Creativity to comply with the judgment. Hale I, 448 F.3d at 975. Instead, Hale tried to have the judge murdered. Id. at 977-79. The plot was foiled, and Plaintiff was once again brought to court - this time as a criminal defendant - where he was sentenced in 2005 to 40 years in prison. Id. at 974.

Even within the walls of a maximum-security prison, however, Hale and Creativity continued to cause problems. Prisoners following Creativity murdered fellow inmates and started race riots, while Plaintiff sent out a press release that was “plainly designed to incite [his] followers and supporters in the Creativity Movement and other white supremacist groups” to target a federal magistrate judge. Hale II, 759 Fed.Appx. at 743-44, 744 n.1 (internal quotation and citation omitted). In response, BOP designated Creativity a security threat group (STG). Id. at 743. The Bureau applies the STG label to organized groups that threaten to cause violence inside and outside prison - such as the Latin Kings, Abdolrazek v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 2010 WL 431313, at *1 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. Feb. 9, 2010), the Aryan Brotherhood, Koch v. Lewis, 96 F.Supp.2d 949, 955 (D. Ariz. 2000), and, now, Creativity.

BOP has found that it cannot safely judge whether any particular communication about an STG might cause violence. Hale II, 759 Fed.Appx. at 749. Because STGs are complicated and shifting networks, BOP struggles to stay abreast of their plans, and, as it scans for threats in inmates' often cryptic messages about STGs, it might fail to connect the dots until their through-line has already ended in a hit or a deadly fight between rival groups. Id. To tamp down this risk, BOP imposes blanket restrictions on prisoners' communications about STGs. Id.

According to the Complaint, which the Court must construe as true at this stage, Hale has thus long been forbidden from sending or receiving any letters about Creativity. Id.; Compl., ¶¶ 21, 28. These restrictions particularly chafe him because he considers Creativity his religion. See Compl., ¶ 20. Not being allowed to, say, write a letter about the Latin Kings might be an inconvenience. But forbidding Hale from sending or receiving letters about his professed religion - including barring “proselytizing to others” when Hale believes in a “religious duty to win over others to [the] faith in the outside world and maintain his particular ministry” - is an intrusion, Hale feels, into his relationship with the very ordering of the world. Id., ¶¶ 20, 28. One conflict between Hale's creed and BOP's policies thus arose because BOP treated Creators differently from other prisoners when they tried to communicate with the outside world.

Another controversy stemmed from BOP's treating Creators the same as everyone else when they sat down to meals. Creativity mandates a diet of “raw fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, or grains.” Compl., ¶ 25. While BOP accommodates the dietary restrictions of many religious prisoners - like those who keep Kosher or Halal - it apparently considers Creativity less a religion and more a prison gang, and so it has long refused to serve Hale his Creativity-mandated diet. Hale II, 759 Fed. App'x at 744; Compl., ¶¶ 25-26.

Fed up, Hale sued BOP in 2014 for (1) rejecting all his correspondence that mentioned Creativity and (2) refusing to accommodate his Creativity-based dietary scruples, along with other grievances not relevant here. Hale v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 14-245, 2018 WL 1535508, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 28, 2018). The district court ruled against Hale on every count, id. at *17, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Hale II, 759 Fed. App'x at 754.

B. This Case

Plaintiff has since been transferred to a Communications Management Unit (CMU) in the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. See Def. MTD at 3 & 3 n.2. CMUs allow BOP to more intensely monitor communications between the outside world and prisoners whose messages might be dangerous - for instance, those who were convicted of terrorism-related crimes; those who have, from inside a prison, furthered crimes outside its walls; or those whose communications with people outside prison create threats anywhere. Aref v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 242, 257 (D.C. Cir. 2016); 28 C.F.R. § 540.201 (enumerating criteria for assigning prisoner to CMU). Whenever a prisoner in a CMU sends or receives a letter, email, or phone call, an intelligence analyst with BOP's Counter Terrorism Unit is reading or listening. See Def. MTD at 4. When the analyst believes that a communication “would jeopardize . . . safety” inside the prison or in the outside world, he recommends that the on-site warden block it. Id. For Hale, that analyst is Defendant Michael Collis. See Compl., ¶ 2.

According to the Complaint, USP Marion has continued to reject all letters to or from Hale that mention Creativity. Id., ¶¶ 21, 28. It has also continued to serve him meals that violate Creativity's commandments. Id., ¶¶ 25-26. And further grievances have piled up. Hale has written a new book that, he alleges, does not refer to Creativity - but BOP has nonetheless refused to let him send the draft from the prison to a publisher. Id., ¶¶ 9-12. He has also written several “articles about current affairs” that BOP has likewise blocked from leaving the CMU. Id. ¶¶ 14-18.

These purported transgressions have led, at last, to the case currently before this Court. Hale is suing BOP, the CTU, and Collis in his personal capacity, arguing that (1) Defendants' rejection of all correspondence mentioning Creativity violates his First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and free speech, as well as his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; (2) Defendants' refusal to serve him Creativity-compliant meals violates his rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and RFRA; (3) Defendants have, on pretextual grounds, rejected his correspondence that has nothing to do with Creativity, violating his First Amendment right to free speech; and (4) Defendants' refusal to allow him to publish his book and articles violates his First Amendment speech rights. Id., ¶¶ 8-33. Hale's Complaint splits these causes of action into five counts. As relief from these purported transgressions, he is seeking $5 million in damages from Collis and injunctive relief from all three Defendants. Id. at 12. Defendants now move to dismiss under multiple subsections of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b).

II. Legal Standard

The Court sets out the standard for Rule 12(b)(6) here and then discusses the other standards in the appropriate analytical sections. Under this Rule, a court must dismiss a suit when the complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court must “treat the complaint's factual allegations as true and must grant plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.” Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ashcroft v Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A court need not accept as true, however, “a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation,” nor an inference...