Lumumba Incumaa v. Bryan Stirling
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11321
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Lumumba Kenyatta Incumaa, a validated member of the Nation of Gods and Earths (Five Percenters), has served life without parole in South Carolina and was placed in security detention after a violent 1995 prison riot.
- Since 1995 (and in the Special Management Unit since 2005) Incumaa has been held in restrictive solitary conditions with extensive searches, severe limits on out-of-cell time, limited property/privileges, and reduced access to programs and mental-health treatment.
- Department policy classifies validated Security Threat Group (STG) members as Validated-SD (security detention) or Validated-GP (general population); ICC reviews SMU status every 30 days but provides minimal explanations for continued detention.
- The Department permits release consideration based on (1) renunciation of STG affiliation, (2) behavior-level improvement, or (3) removal of the group from the STG list; renunciation is not guaranteed to produce release.
- Incumaa sued under RLUIPA (challenging that release is conditioned on renouncing his religion) and under §1983 for violation of procedural due process (challenging adequacy of periodic review). The district court granted summary judgment to defendant; the Fourth Circuit affirmed RLUIPA dismissal but reversed as to due process and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department's renunciation policy imposes a "substantial burden" on religious exercise under RLUIPA | Incumaa: conditioning release on renouncing NOGE coerces abandonment of religious belief to obtain better conditions | Dept.: renunciation is only one of multiple paths; other Five Percenters live in general population; policy furthers security | RLUIPA claim dismissed — no reasonable factfinder could find renunciation a prerequisite to release, so no substantial burden as a matter of law |
| Whether Incumaa has a protected liberty interest in avoiding continued security detention (atypical and significant hardship under Sandin) | Incumaa: 20 years in highly restrictive, indefinite solitary confinement is atypical and significant compared to general population | Dept.: SMU conditions are typical for administrative segregation and less severe than Wilkinson supermax; renunciation renders confinement not truly indefinite | Court: Incumaa demonstrated a liberty interest — conditions are severe, lengthy, socially isolating, and indefinite enough to be atypical and significant |
| Whether the Department's 30‑day ICC review process satisfied procedural due process (Mathews balancing) | Incumaa: reviews are perfunctory, single‑layered, provide no factual basis or meaningful opportunity to rebut, creating high risk of erroneous deprivation | Dept.: frequent 30‑day reviews are more frequent than Wilkinson and satisfy flexible due process needs | Court: Triable dispute exists — record shows inadequate process (single layer, rote reasons, no required factual basis or guaranteed opportunity to contest), so summary judgment improper for defendant |
| Remedy/proceedings on remand | Incumaa: merits and process require further factfinding and possible relief | Dept.: process is constitutionally sufficient as applied | Court: Affirmed dismissal of RLUIPA; reversed summary judgment on due process and remanded for further proceedings to resolve factual disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (placing an inmate to the choice between religious practice and punishment can constitute a substantial burden)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (RLUIPA protects institutionalized persons and courts should give due deference to prison administrators)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest arises only when confinement conditions impose atypical and significant hardship)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005) (supermax confinement implicated liberty interests; meaningful periodic review required; Mathews balancing applied)
- Beverati v. Smith, 120 F.3d 500 (4th Cir. 1997) (comparative baseline analysis for atypicality; where segregation conditions mirror general population, no liberty interest)
- Prieto v. Clarke, 780 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 2015) (baseline for atypicality depends on prisoner’s sentence and expectations)