52 F.4th 614
4th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff David Richardson, a deaf and blind inmate at Deerfield Correctional Center, sued VDOC alleging violations of Title II of the ADA (failure to reasonably accommodate) and RLUIPA (head‑covering policy burdening his Nation of Islam practice).
- VDOC submitted affidavits and documentary evidence showing multiple accommodations: scheduled ASL interpreter time, video interpreter services during COVID, visual‑contrast devices, magnifier, JPay tablet access, UbiDuo and SARA devices, adjusted law‑library computer access and settings, and other communication aids.
- Deerfield suspended some in‑person services during COVID and limited ASL hours post‑COVID; Richardson sought more ASL time and caregiver assistance for legal materials.
- VDOC changed its head‑covering policy after suit to permit religious head coverings throughout facilities; Richardson seeks prospective relief to prevent reinstatement of the prior restrictive policy.
- The district court granted summary judgment to VDOC on ADA and RLUIPA claims (finding no ADA violation and no substantial burden under RLUIPA); Richardson appealed.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the ADA (accommodations were reasonable and no genuine factual dispute) but vacated and remanded the RLUIPA ruling, concluding the prior policy imposed a substantial burden and directing the district court to address the RLUIPA safe‑harbor/PLRA issues on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA reasonable‑accommodation (Title II) | VDOC failed to provide reasonable modifications so Richardson lacked meaningful access | VDOC provided extensive accommodations and no genuine factual dispute exists | Affirmed for VDOC — accommodations reasonable; no triable issue |
| ADA damages / sovereign immunity | Richardson sought damages under ADA despite absence of separate constitutional claim | VDOC contended Eleventh Amendment bars ADA damages by state defendants | Court declined to decide sovereign immunity because injunctive ADA claim failed on the merits |
| RLUIPA substantial burden (head coverings) | Prior policy forcing removal in some areas compelled Richardson to choose between faith compliance and discipline | VDOC argued claim moot after policy change and did not contest substantial burden at summary judgment | Vacated summary judgment; appellate court finds prior policy imposed a substantial burden and remands |
| RLUIPA remedies: safe‑harbor / PLRA limits on injunctive relief | Richardson seeks prospective relief to prevent reinstatement of restrictive policy | VDOC invoked RLUIPA safe‑harbor and PLRA constraints on prospective relief | Remanded for district court to consider safe‑harbor and PLRA; appellate court did not resolve these defenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden‑shifting principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (non‑movant must produce more than a scintilla of evidence)
- Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Lamone, 813 F.3d 494 (4th Cir. 2016) (reasonable‑modification requirement under ADA)
- Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454 (4th Cir. 2012) (governs ADA/§504 analysis)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015) (RLUIPA framework and burdens)
- Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006) (definition of substantial burden in RLUIPA context)
- Incumaa v. Stirling, 791 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2015) (substantial burden: placing inmate between rock and hard place)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (record may refute non‑movant’s factual narrative such that no reasonable jury could believe it)