Thomas v. Corbett
90 A.3d 789
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Petitioner Gregory Thomas, a DOC inmate, sued Governor Corbett and DOC officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief challenging several DOC policies as violating the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and RLUIPA.
- Challenged policies: absolute ban on conjugal visits; prohibition/limitation on inmate use/possession of prayer oil; rule forbidding two inmates from listing the same outside phone contact; commissary/outside-purchase rules (approved master list and direct-shipment requirement).
- Thomas alleges religious burdens (required polygamous conjugal access; prayer oil needed for religious practice), communication interference with family, and financial discrimination by commissary rules.
- DOC filed preliminary objections (demurrer-style) arguing legal insufficiency of claims and moved to quash exhibits attached to Thomas’s brief.
- Court treated factual allegations as true for pleading-stage review, sustained DOC’s motion to quash the extra exhibits, and evaluated which claims survive preliminary objections under applicable legal standards (First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Turner, and RLUIPA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conjugal visits — constitutional free exercise / First Amendment | Conjugal ban substantially burdens Thomas’s sincere religious practice (polygamous marriage); harms marital status | Policy justified by prison security, safety, and penological interests | Constitutional challenges dismissed; RLUIPA claim survives preliminary objections (DOC must prove compelling interest and least restrictive means) |
| Conjugal visits — RLUIPA | RLUIPA protects religious exercise in prison; burden requires strict scrutiny | DOC asserts prison security is compelling and demands deference | RLUIPA objection overruled at pleading stage — DOC hasn’t met its burden and cannot rely on bare assertions now |
| Prayer oil — First Amendment / RLUIPA / Eighth Amendment | Prayer oil is required by religious practice; prohibition substantially burdens free exercise | DOC cites safety, contraband masking, flammability, and limited allowance during Jumu’ah | First Amendment and RLUIPA claims survive preliminary objections; Eighth Amendment claim dismissed for failure to plead objectively serious deprivation or deliberate indifference |
| Phone policy — First Amendment (access to family) | Prohibition on duplicate contact numbers cuts off communications with shared family/friends | DOC cites prison security, limited phone rights, and existing exception process; argues no unlimited right to phones | Preliminary objection overruled; First Amendment claim proceeds under Turner scrutiny (cannot resolve on demurrer) |
| Commissary / outside-purchase rule — due process / equal protection / Eighth | Rule prevents family from buying cheaper items or using direct shipment; discriminates against indigent inmates | DOC points to regulation limiting purchases to approved vendors/items and direct-shipment requirement | Preliminary objections sustained: pleadings too vague to state due process/equal protection claims; alleged Eighth Amendment claim dismissed for failure to plead conditions rising to constitutional deprivation |
Key Cases Cited
- McCray v. Sullivan, 509 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir.) (denial of conjugal visits does not violate constitutional rights)
- Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 451 F. Supp. 893 (E.D. Pa.) (upholding restrictions on conjugal privileges)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (U.S. 2005) (RLUIPA affords heightened protection to institutionalized persons; courts may not inquire into centrality but may test sincerity)
- Mobley v. Coleman, 65 A.3d 1048 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (at pleading stage, plaintiff must allege substantial burden; government cannot prevail on bare assertions)
- Lewis v. Ollison, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1162 (C.D. Cal.) (government must consider and reject less restrictive means to meet RLUIPA least-restrictive requirement)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (four-factor test for assessing prison regulations that impinge constitutional rights)
- O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1987) (discussing Jumu’ah as central Muslim congregational service)