622 F. App'x 805
11th Cir.2015Background
- Reginald Wilkinson, a Florida prisoner practicing Santeria, sued SBCF officials, the Florida DOC Secretary, and GEO under RLUIPA and the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments for denial of religious observances, retaliation, and medical indifference arising from events in 2009–2010.
- Magistrate judge screened the IFP complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, recommending dismissal of many defendants for improper venue or untenable theories, and allowing a religious-freedom claim to proceed against SBCF Chaplain Ojukwu; the district court adopted the report in full.
- Wilkinson did not provide current addresses for Warden Hobart and Assistant Warden Ibezim; the district court treated those claims as dismissed for failure to effect service and entered final judgment closing the case.
- After discovery, Chaplain Ojukwu moved for summary judgment; the magistrate and district court granted it on the free-exercise claim (finding no substantial burden). The record lacks clear disposition reasoning for Wilkinson’s equal protection and retaliation claims against Ojukwu.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed some venue dismissals, vacated dismissals for failure-to-serve and for claims against GEO and the FDOC Secretary, affirmed dismissal of the medical (Eighth Amendment) claim, and vacated summary judgment on the RLUIPA claim against Ojukwu, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal for improper venue of multiple defendants | Venue dismissal was made without adequate notice | Court relied on magistrate report giving notice and opportunity to object | Affirmed: magistrate report + objections satisfied notice requirement (Algodonera applies) |
| Dismissal for failure to serve Warden Hobart and A.W. Ibezim | Wilkinson lacked current addresses; provided identifying info; dismissal was improper | Court required plaintiff to provide addresses or be dismissed | Vacated: under Richardson, prisoner need only provide enough info for court agent to locate defendants; remand to attempt service |
| Dismissal of GEO under § 1915(e)(2) for failure to allege a policy/custom | Wilkinson alleged repeated denials, calendar with GEO logo, grievances — sufficient to plead GEO policy/custom | GEO argued dismissal correct because no factual municipal‑policy allegations | Vacated: complaint, liberally construed, plausibly alleges GEO policy/custom; remand for further proceedings |
| Dismissal of claims against FDOC Secretary as respondeat superior | Claims alleged FDOC policy/custom burdening religion and were brought under RLUIPA, not § 1983 | Magistrate/district court treated claims as respondeat superior § 1983 claims (not cognizable) | Vacated: claims construed as direct RLUIPA claims against FDOC policy; remand |
| Dismissal of deliberate indifference (medical) claims vs. Dr. Dauphine and Nurse Rudolph | Wilkinson alleged inability to obtain an erection for ~1 year and denial of treatment | Defendants argued allegation fails to show objectively serious need or more-than-gross-negligence conduct | Affirmed: even assuming seriousness, complaint fails to plead deliberate indifference (more than gross negligence) |
| Summary judgment for Chaplain Ojukwu on free-exercise claim (RLUIPA) | Denial of community celebration of holy days, fasting/feasting and religious effects substantially burdened practice; no evidence of least-restrictive means justification | Ojukwu contended he merely implemented facility policy and security concerns justified denial | Vacated: denial was an absolute denial constituting a substantial burden; Ojukwu did not carry burden to show compelling interest and least-restrictive means; remand for further proceedings (also vacated disposition of equal protection & retaliation claims) |
Key Cases Cited
- Algodonera De Las Cabezas, S.A. v. Am. Suisse Capital, Inc., 432 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 2005) (court must give parties opportunity to present views before sua sponte venue dismissal)
- Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734 (11th Cir. 2010) (prisoner need not supply current addresses for former guard defendants if identifying information allows location by court agent)
- Wideman v. Shallowford Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 826 F.2d 1030 (11th Cir. 1987) (elements required to state a § 1983 claim against a municipality/equivalent)
- Rich v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 716 F.3d 525 (11th Cir. 2013) (RLUIPA claim cognizable against Florida DOC for policy substantially burdening religious exercise)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Goebert v. Lee Cnty., 510 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2007) (deliberate indifference standard: objective seriousness and subjective, more‑than‑gross‑negligence conduct)
- Davila v. Gladden, 777 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2015) (absolute denial of communal religious practice can constitute a substantial burden under RLUIPA)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (RLUIPA least‑restrictive‑means requirement is demanding; government bears burden to show no alternatives)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) (least‑restrictive‑means standard in free‑exercise/strict‑scrutiny context)
- Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) (courts must accept claimant’s sincere religious beliefs and cannot declare them unreasonable)