Tyrone Peele v. Ulli Klemm
663 F. App'x 127
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Peele, pro se, sued in Western District of Pennsylvania against Ulli Klemm, DOC administrator; claims First Amendment free exercise, Establishment Clause, and RLUIPA due to DC-819 restricting Ramadan feasts.
- Peele filed an amended complaint in November 2013 substantially identical to the original.
- District Court granted dismissal of Peele’s First Amendment and RLUIPA monetary claims; allowed injunctive relief RLUIPA claim to proceed but required a more definite statement.
- Peele did not file a proper second amended complaint as ordered; after show cause, a supplemental complaint was construed as a second amended complaint.
- District Court dismissed the second amended complaint in March 2016 for failure to provide a more definitive statement; Peele appealed.
- Court affirms, applying Rule 12(b)(6) standards and Poulis factors for RLUIPA-related dismissal.]
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DC-819 violates the First Amendment. | Peele alleges DC-819 restricts Muslim inmates’ Ramadan practices. | DC-819 imposes reasonable, penologically justified restrictions. | Turner factors satisfied; no plausible First Amendment claim. |
| Whether DC-819 violates the Establishment Clause under Lemon. | DC-819 primarily burdens Islam. | DC-819 imposes neutral restrictions on feasts; no excessive entanglement. | No Lemon PRONG two inhibition; pragmatically neutral. |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed Peele's RLUIPA claim after Poulis factors. | District court failed to consider Poulis factors; noncompliance should be excused. | Peele failed to provide a definitive statement; prejudice and noncompliance justified dismissal. | District court properly dismissed under Poulis; uphold dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (First Amendment rights in prison are subject to penological priorities)
- O’Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1987) (Restrictions hinge on valid penological objectives)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (Four-factor test for reasonableness of prison regulations)
- Hobbs v. Holt, 135 S. Ct. 853 (U.S. 2015) (RLUIPA provides greater protection for religious liberty; substantial burden standard)
- Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2013) (Pro se pleading require enough factual support to state a claim)
- Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) (Poulis factors for dismissal sanctions; non-dispositive factors)
- In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 718 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2013) (Poulis framework guidance; non-dispositive factor balancing)
- Allen ex rel. Martin v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., 629 F.3d 364 (3d Cir. 2011) (Review standard for Rule 12(b)(6) on appeal)
- Pinker v. Roche Holdings, Ltd., 292 F.3d 361 (3d Cir. 2002) (Pleading standards for pro se plaintiffs)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (Plausibility pleading standard)