Muhammad v. City of New York Dept. of Corrections

904 F. Supp. 161

Abdul-Shahid Farrakhan MUHAMMAD, Darrell X. McKinney, Victor Santos, Curtis McDowell, Uriah Webb, Horace Betard, Lashango LeGrand, and Kenneth Hammonds, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Anthony Schembri, Commissioner, City of New York Department of Correction; Allyn R. Sielaff, former Commissioner, City of New York Department of Correction; and Catherine M. Abate, former Commissioner, City of New York Department of Correction, Defendants.

No. 91 Civ. 6333 (LAP).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

October 17, 1995.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher by Mitchell A. Karlan, Mary P. Donlevy, Robin L. Baker, Colleen D. Duffy, Robert E. Malchman, W. James Hall, New York City, for Plaintiffs.

Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel for the City of New York by Martha A. Calhoun, Chlarens Orsland, New York City, for Defendants.

                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................................................ 165
  FINDINGS OF FACT ................................................................. 167
     I. The Nation of Islam ........................................................ 167
    II. Plaintiff Muhammad's Allegations ........................................... 170
   III. Testimony of Imam Askia Muhammad ........................................... 171
    IV. DOC Religious Accommodation Policy ......................................... 173
     V. The Testimony of Imam Luqman ............................................... 173
    VI. NOI Volunteers in DOC Facilities: The Testimony of Antonio McCloud ......... 176
   VII. Testimony of Robert Daly and Robert Wangenstein Concerning DOC's Operations
        and Allocation of Resources ................................................ 177
        A. Overview of the relevant DOC Operations ................................. 177
        B. The Rationale of Generic Services ....................................... 180
        C. Operations at the Brooklyn House of Detention ........................... 181
        D. Analogous Procedures on Rikers Island ................................... 182
        E. Evidence Concerning the Number of NOI Inmates ........................... 183
        F. Federal Bureau of Prisons' Religious Accommodations ..................... 186
  CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ............................................................... 187
    I. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act ....................................... 187
       A. Substantial Burden ....................................................... 189
          1. Ministers ............................................................. 189
          2. Congregate Services ................................................... 190
          3. Literature ............................................................ 192
          4. Holidays .............................................................. 192
          5. Other ................................................................. 192
       B. Compelling Interest and Least Restrictive Means .......................... 193
   II. First Amendment Claims ...................................................... 195
       A. Free Exercise ............................................................ 195
       B. Establishment Clause ..................................................... 197
  III. Equal Protection ............................................................ 199
   IV. New York Law ................................................................ 199
       A. State law ................................................................ 199
       B. City Regulations ......................................................... 201
    V. Qualified Immunity .......................................................... 201
  CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 203

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

PRESKA, District Judge:

Plaintiff Abdul-Shahid Farrakhan Muhammad ("Muhammad") seeks (i) a declaratory judgment that defendants have unlawfully deprived him of his rights under the federal and state law to practice his religion, that of the Nation of Islam ("NOI"); (ii) a permanent injunction requiring the City of New York Department of Correction ("DOC") to take a variety of actions concerning the exercise of his religion in DOC facilities; (iii) compensatory damages; and (iv) costs and attorneys' fees. For the reasons stated below which largely relate to the unique characteristics of the DOC system, I find that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Muhammad commenced a pro se action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that DOC staff prevented him from freely exercising his religion as a member of the NOI. On or about June 17, 1993, I appointed Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher to represent Muhammad. By an amended complaint dated February 18, 1994, joining as plaintiff Darrell X. McKinney and as defendants, along with DOC Staff (or the "City defendants"), the State of New York Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") and Thomas Coughlin (collectively, the "State defendants"), plaintiffs alleged that DOC and DOCS had violated their rights to practice their religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of New York. By a second amended complaint dated July 8, 1994 (the "Second Amended Complaint"), plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction requiring defendants to take the following actions:

(i) to recognize the Nation of Islam faith as a religion within the meaning of defendants' policies and practices;

(ii) to make available to plaintiff class members free and adequate access to Nation of Islam ministers for spiritual guidance and support;

(iii) to make available to plaintiff class members free and adequate access to religious services conducted by a Nation of Islam minister or inmate follower of the Nation of Islam;

(iv) to promulgate directives recognizing the holy days of the members of the Nation of Islam and permitting daylight fasting on the holy days requiring it;

(v) to allow plaintiff class members to possess religious literature of the Nation of Islam that does not present a clear and present danger to the institution as determined by an impartial board employing specific criteria;

(vi) to refrain from any conduct that substantially burdens the right of members of the class to exercise their religion if that conduct is not the least restrictive alternative of furthering a compelling state interest; and

(vii) to refrain from making any distinction among religions based on defendants' assessment of the content of the tenets of any religion.

(Second Am.Compl. at 17.) Plaintiffs also sought compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and certification of a class of followers of NOI who are or will be incarcerated in the City and State correctional systems.

In response to plaintiffs' application to move to certify a class, the State and City defendants stipulated that any injunctive relief awarded to the individual plaintiffs would be implemented on a system-wide basis, thus obviating the need to litigate the class certification issue.

On or about July 25, 1994, the City and State defendants filed a motion to dismiss the RFRA claims on the ground that RFRA is unconstitutional. The State defendants, but not the City defendants, subsequently withdrew their constitutional challenge. The City defendants' motion is still pending before the Court.¹

On November 8, 1994, the parties entered into a stipulation permitting six additional plaintiffs to intervene in the action.

A bench trial was conducted on December 8, 9, 12 and 13, 1994, and January 17, 18 and 30, 1995. Numerous witnesses testified, including the plaintiffs, all of whom are NOI followers; Robert Green, an NOI minister known as "Minister 9X"; four orthodox Muslim imams,² two of whom formerly belonged to the NOI and all of whom are employed by either DOCS or DOC;³ one professor, Dr. C. Eric Lincoln ("Professor Lincoln"), who has written extensively about NOI for over thirty years; and Antonio McCloud, DOC's Director of Volunteer Services, who frequently attends NOI religious services in New York and New Jersey. In addition, on December 9, 1994, a site visit was conducted to the Anna M. Kross Center ("AMKC"), a DOC correctional facility on Rikers Island. During the trial, the plaintiffs and the State defendants reached a settlement, and I subsequently approved a consent decree. No settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the City defendants. Of the eight plaintiffs, only Muhammad has asserted claims against the City defendants.⁴

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. The Nation of Islam

There are dozens of Islamic sects, each sharing certain fundamental tenets, but also having distinctive beliefs, practices and spiritual leaders. (Tr. 97-101, 555-57.) The prophet Muhammad is said to have predicted that there would ultimately be seventy-two Muslim sects. (Tr. 556.) Imam Umar testified that he could currently name twenty to twenty-six such Muslim sects, and Professor Lincoln testified to fourteen splinter groups that came out of the NOI alone. (Tr. 49-50, 101, 557.)⁵

Turning to the NOI in particular, the NOI was founded in 1930 by Fard Muhammad, also known as W.D. Farad or Fard. After Fard's unexplained disappearance in 1934, his assistant, Elijah Muhammad, assumed leadership of the movement until his death in 1975. (Pl.Ex. 55 at 12, 15-16, 267.) According to Professor Lincoln, NOI leaders developed a theology aimed specifically at addressing the unique situation and need of African-Americans, including perceived needs for dignity, economic security and security from the police. (Tr. 41-42, 53.)...