Sims v. Kan. Dep't of Corr.

ERIC D. SIMS, Plaintiff, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 18-01259-EFM-KGG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

September 17, 2019

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Kansas Department of Corrections ("KDOC") and Joe Norwood's respective motions to dismiss. Additionally, the Court is prepared to rule on three motions filed by Plaintiff Eric Sims: a motion to stay the case, for leave to file a supplemental response, and to sever two claims. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant Kansas Department of Corrections' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) and Defendant Joe Norwood's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18). And the Court denies Plaintiff Eric Sims' Motion to Stay and for Leave to File a Supplemental Response (Doc. 40), Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Response (Doc. 45), and Motion to Sever (Doc. 48).

I. Factual and Procedural Background¹

Sims has been an inmate in the custody of KDOC since 1993. During his incarceration, Sims became involved with Heritage Family Church's Kansas Apostolic Prison Ministry ("KAPM") and developed a relationship with the church's pastor, Jonathan Dudley. Although Sims states that he converted to the Apostolic Faith approximately 20 years ago, Sims first informed KDOC, via a change of religion request form, that he was a member of the Apostolic Faith in 2008. The essential tenets of Sims' religious beliefs include participating in weekly worship services, taking communion, being baptized, and wearing long-sleeved clothing to promote modesty. Additionally, Sims' religious beliefs preclude him from worshiping with members of any other faith, including all Protestant denominations.

Since at least 2016, Sims has made repeated requests that KDOC officially recognize the Apostolic Faith as its own distinct religion separate from Protestantism. Sims alleges that KDOC allows 17 different religions to hold weekly group worship services—what the parties refer to as "call-outs"—but does not offer call-outs for members of the Apostolic Faith at every KDOC facility. Sims alleges that KDOC's lack of separate Apostolic services forces him to either worship with Protestants (a violation of his religious beliefs) or abstain from worshiping entirely (also a violation of his religious beliefs). Given this choice, Sims has refused to attend a single Protestant or Ecumenical service in the last 20 years.

In addition to weekly call-outs, Sims has made other requests for religious accommodation. For example, Sims requested religiously sanctioned clothing in the form of long-sleeved shirts. Although KDOC approved his request, Sims takes issue with the length of time it took KDOC todo so: approximately three months. Sims also submitted a request for Pastor Dudley to use the prison's chapel for a baptism service; Sims did not seek to be baptized at this service but was requesting permission on behalf of 12 other Apostolic inmates. KDOC denied the request and stated that Apostolic inmates must have their baptisms performed by a Protestant pastor. Sims also alleges that he and two other Apostolic inmates were restricted from holding a Bible study during their free time even though inmates of other faiths were allowed to engage in religious study under similar circumstances. Finally, Sims ordered several Apostolic books and materials that KDOC's mailroom received but never distributed to him. In general, Sims alleges that KDOC officials either failed to respond to his requests for religious accommodation or provided incomplete responses.

On May 5, 2018, Sims—in conjunction with Pastor Dudley and Heritage Family Church—sent a demand letter to KDOC outlining potential legal action and demanding the following concessions: that KDOC recognize the Apostolic faith as a discrete religion and allow Apostolic inmates at all KDOC facilities to hold separate weekly services, be baptized by an Apostolic minister, and wear long-sleeved shirts. Approximately two weeks after sending the demand letter, KDOC transferred Sims pursuant to the Kansas Interstate Compact statute to a Florida Department of Corrections ("FDOC") facility in Orlando, Florida. According to Sims, KDOC officials provided several competing reasons for his transfer, including that Sims was transferred for "security" or "housing" reasons, that he had "compromised [prison] staff and volunteers," that hewas "misleading legislators,"² and that Sims filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance regarding wages paid to inmate workers.

Sims, Heritage Family Church, and Pastor Dudley filed suit for injunctive relief against KDOC as well as 11 KDOC officials, including Joe Norwood, who at the time was KDOC's Secretary of Corrections. Heritage Family Church and Pastor Dudley have since voluntarily dismissed all claims against all defendants and are no longer parties in this lawsuit. Sims voluntarily dismissed his claims against every defendant except KDOC and Norwood. Sims' Complaint brings the following claims: (Count 1) Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") violation; (Counts 2-3) First Amendment Free Exercise, Free Speech, and Free Assembly violations; (Counts 4-5) Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process violations; (Count 6) First Amendment retaliation; and (Counts 7-8) Kansas Constitution Free Exercise, Free Speech, and Free Assembly violations.

Sims' request for injunctive relief is extraordinarily broad. The abridged version includes an order from the Court that KDOC return Sims to EDCF, that KDOC be prohibited in perpetuity from transferring Sims to a different facility, that KDOC officially recognize the Apostolic faith as a discrete religion, and that KDOC provide various accommodations to Apostolic inmates at all KDOC facilities.

Shortly after filing this suit, Sims filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. The Court held a hearing on the motion and ultimately denied it.³ The two defendants remaining in this lawsuit, KDOC and Norwood, filed motions to dismiss. When Simsfiled his original responses to these motions, he was represented by counsel. After both motions were fully briefed, Sims' counsel withdrew from the case. Proceeding pro se, Sims filed a motion requesting the Court stay ruling on the dispositive motions and allow him to file a supplemental response; a month later, Sims filed another motion seeking leave to file a supplemental response and he attached a copy of his proposed pleading. Finally, Sims has filed a motion to sever Counts 5 and 6 from this case and for the Court to order the Clerk of the Court to docket a new case specifically on those claims.

II. Legal Standard

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a party may move for dismissal of "a claim for relief in any pleading" that fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Upon such motion, the Court must decide "whether the complaint contains 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' "⁴ "[T]he mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient;" rather, the pleading "must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims."⁵ The Court does not "weigh potential evidence that the parties might present at trial," but assesses whether the complaint "alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for which relief may be granted."⁶ In determining whether a claim is facially plausible, the Court must draw on its judicial experience and common sense.⁷ All well-pleaded facts are assumed to be trueand are construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.⁸ "Although plaintiff need not allege every element of [its] action in specific detail, [it] cannot rely on conclusory allegations."⁹

III. Analysis

A. Sims' Motion to Stay and Leave to File a Supplemental Response

Sims filed a motion asking the Court to stay its ruling on the two pending motions to dismiss to allow him the opportunity to supplement his Response. Before the Court ruled on this motion, Sims filed a second motion for leave to file a supplemental response or, in the alternative, to amend the responses filed by his withdrawn counsel; Sims attached his proposed pleading to his motion. Because Sims filed his proposed supplemental response before the Court issued its ruling on either motion to dismiss, Sims' Motion for a Stay is denied as moot.

Sims argues that his supplemental response is necessary because his withdrawn counsel, Daniel Cortez, who filed the Responses to Norwood and KDOC's motions to dismiss, previously represented Corizon Health Services ("Corizon"), a company providing healthcare to KDOC inmates. Sims states that on August 27, 2018—before this lawsuit was filed—Cortez "informed [Sims] he could not pursue a claim against one of the defendants listed in his Complaint because of a conflict of interest with both himself and his firm regarding Corizon."¹⁰ Sims does not specify which defendant named in the complaint or what type of claim he wished to pursue that relates to Corizon. Sims also states that Cortez refused to conform the Complaint and his Response to"newly-discovered evidence introduced by Defendants" at the hearing for a preliminary injunction. Sims highlights evidence the Defendants presented at the hearing that Sims was transferred to Florida because of issues Sims had with Corizon's medical services.

It was Defendants' position at the preliminary injunction hearing that Sims was not transferred in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights but rather to ensure he could receive the medical services he needed. Defendants argued that Sims was unhappy with his medical care from Corizon and that Sims was transferred to Florida because the FDOC does not contract with Corizon. Evidently, Sims wishes...