424 F. App'x 546
6th Cir.2011Background
- Hayes, an inmate under TDOC since 1975, sought recognition of his Christian Identity faith and related literature in 2005 at Brushy Mountain.
- TDOC Policy 507.02 barred certain religious literature deemed related to security threats; the Warden rejected Hayes’s mail as containing STG-related content.
- Fellow inmate Harper, also in Christian Identity, obtained the same materials without obstruction after Hayes’s rejection.
- TDOC internal review (Colson) upheld denial, citing denigrating content and potential threat to security.
- Hayes sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment free exercise claims and RLUIPA; the district court granted summary judgment against Hayes on both claims, later moot on a change to Hayes’s religious designation.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the free-exercise dismissal, reversed the RLUIPA dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TDOC 507.02, as applied, violated Hayes’s First Amendment free-exercise rights. | Hayes argues policy discriminatory in application since Harper received the materials. | Defendants contend the policy is reasonable for security and applied consistently with penological interests. | First Amendment claim affirmed (dismissal proper) |
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Hayes’s RLUIPA claim. | Hayes contends rejection burdened religious exercise and was not the least restrictive means. | Defendants maintain rejection furthered compelling security interests and was least restrictive. | RLUIPA claim reversed and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (regulation must be reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (U.S. 1989) (courts defer to prison officials on characterization of regulation's reach and necessity)
- Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2001) (deference to prison officials in applying policies; heavy burden to show improper application)
- Thompson v. Campbell, 81 F. App’x 563 (6th Cir. 2003) (policy’s broad discretion does not preclude constitutional analysis; consistent application is not per se invalid)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (prison security and orderly operation justify deference to officials)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (U.S. 2005) (RLUIPA aims to protect religious exercise while respecting security needs; must be neutral among faiths)