Ajala v. West
106 F. Supp. 3d 976
W.D. Wis.2015Background
- Ajala, a Muslim prisoner at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, seeks to wear a kufi outside his cell; policy bars religious headgear outside cell or group services (DAI Policy 309.61.02).
- Plaintiff asserts RLUIPA, free exercise, establishment, and equal protection claims; defendants move for summary judgment.
- Court declines to grant summary judgment on whether banning kufi outside cell is the least restrictive means under RLUIPA, but finds no clearly established constitutional violation to warrant money damages.
- Case proceeds to trial for injunctive and declaratory relief; plaintiff cannot obtain money damages under RLUIPA.
- Case posture includes denial of plaintiff’s extension-motion, non-class nature, and standing narrowed to kufi restriction outside cell; segregation status complicates applicability to group worship.
- Court discusses scope of RLUIPA, substantial burden, least restrictive means, and consideration of other prisons’ practices; Raemisch dismissed; case stayed for counsel recruitment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RLUIPA substantial burden exists? | Ajala's kufi is central to his religious exercise; restriction outside cell substantially burdens it. | Restrictions are not a substantial burden because kufi is allowed in cell and during services, and other means exist. | Genuine issue; not granted summary judgment; burden to trial. |
| Is the kufi restriction the least restrictive means? | Restriction is not narrowly tailored; other secure alternatives exist; ban not least restrictive. | Restriction addresses gang, contraband, and conflict concerns; necessary for security. | Not decided at summary judgment; issues survive to trial. |
| Damages available under RLUIPA/Constitution? | Religious rights violations entitle damages. | RLUIPA permits declaratory/injunctive relief only; money damages barred. | Damages denied; RLUIPA relief remains available at trial. |
| Constitutional claims and qualified immunity? | First Amendment/Establishment/Equal Protection violations occurred. | No clearly established right to wear kufi at all times; qualified immunity applies. | Defendants granted qualified immunity; constitutional claims insufficiently established. |
| Is Raemisch a proper party; can West remain? | West should participate; Raemisch no longer in position to act. | Raemisch dismissed; West may have influence; not dismissed at this stage. | Raemisch dismissed; West remains for potential injunctive relief considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (RLUIPA substantial burden standard; deference to religious exercise protections)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (RLUIPA least restrictive means and compelling interest framework)
- Schlemm v. Wall, 784 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2015) (skepticism toward broad restrictions on religious headgear in prisons)
- Young v. Lane, 922 F.2d 370 (7th Cir. 1991) (restrictive headgear rule judged under First Amendment in prisons)
- Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2012) (RLUIPA damages limitation; scope of relief)