Charles Mack v. Warden Loretto FCI
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18336
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Charles Mack, a Muslim federal inmate at FCI Loretto, worked in the commissary and received religious accommodations (no pork handling, prayer area, Friday services).
- Correctional Officer Roberts physically slapped Mack, placed an “I LOVE BACON” sticker on his back, and shouted anti‑Muslim remarks; Officer Venslosky witnessed and laughed.
- Mack alleges the harassment created a hostile environment that caused him to refrain from praying at work and that he was fired from his commissary job shortly after orally complaining to supervisors.
- Mack made multiple oral complaints (to Stephens, the Warden Yost) and filed a written grievance after termination; prison responses gave a pretextual reason for firing (bringing in other inmates’ slips).
- District Court dismissed all claims (First Amendment retaliation and Free Exercise, Fifth Amendment equal protection, and RFRA/RLUIPA issues) for failure to state a claim; Mack appealed and the Third Circuit appointed counsel.
- The Third Circuit: affirms dismissal of Free Exercise and equal protection claims; vacates dismissal and remands First Amendment retaliation and RFRA claims (allowing individual‑capacity RFRA damages), but dismisses retaliation claims as to supervisors not personally involved (Yost, Kuhn).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an inmate’s oral complaint to prison staff is protected petitioning under the First Amendment | Mack: his oral complaint to Stephens seeking redress for anti‑Muslim harassment is protected petitioning and retaliation for it violates the First Amendment | Govt: oral complaints by inmates are not protected; allowing them would flood courts and undermine prison grievance administration | Held: Oral, informal complaints can be protected petitioning when they timely, reasonably, and specifically seek redress (Mack’s oral complaint was protected); retaliation claim survives against officers who acted but is dismissed as to supervisors not personally involved |
| Whether Mack exhausted administrative remedies for his First Amendment retaliation claim | Mack: formal grievance and appeals alerted prison that termination was pretextual and that he sought redress | Govt: grievance did not mention the oral complaint specifically, so exhaustion failed | Held: Exhaustion satisfied — grievance reasonably alerted officials to the nature of the wrong (pretextual termination/retaliation) |
| Whether a Bivens action exists for First Amendment retaliation by federal officers | Mack: Bivens extends to First Amendment retaliation claims by prisoners | Govt: Bivens should not be extended to this context | Held: Third Circuit recognizes Bivens remedy for First Amendment retaliation in this context (precedent supports it); qualified immunity not available at this stage for officers who allegedly retaliated |
| Whether RFRA applies to individual officers and allows monetary damages from them | Mack: RFRA’s text covers officials/ persons acting under color of law and authorizes “appropriate relief,” including damages from individual officers | Govt: RFRA targets laws/policies and sovereign immunity limits damages; RLUIPA analogies show limits | Held: RFRA applies to individual federal officers acting under color of law and permits suits for monetary damages in individual capacity; Mack sufficiently alleged a substantial burden (he refrained from praying at work due to harassment) |
| Whether a Free Exercise Bivens claim or Fifth Amendment equal protection claim is available | Mack: seeks Bivens damages under Free Exercise and alleges discriminatory treatment as a Muslim | Govt: Free Exercise damages not available via Bivens given RFRA; equal protection insufficiently pleaded | Held: Declines to create a Free Exercise Bivens remedy (RFRA provides alternative); equal protection claim dismissed for failure to allege discriminatory treatment vs similarly situated inmates |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizing an implied damages action against federal officers)
- Milhouse v. Carlson, 652 F.2d 371 (3d Cir.) (prisoner retaliation recognized under Bivens)
- Paton v. La Prade, 524 F.2d 862 (3d Cir.) (First Amendment Bivens action rationale)
- Pearson v. Welborn, 471 F.3d 732 (7th Cir.) (oral inmate complaints can be protected petitioning)
- Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60 (remedies available under implied causes of action; "appropriate relief" includes damages absent clear congressional intent otherwise)
- City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (RFRA scope and limits discussion)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (framework for extending Bivens to new contexts)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (RFRA as providing broad protection for religious exercise)