Waseem Daker v. Sheriff, Cobb County
660 F. App'x 737
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Waseem Daker, a Muslim pretrial detainee at Cobb County Adult Detention Center (CCADC) from Jan 2010–Oct 2012, sued Cobb County and Sheriff Neil Warren under § 1983 and RLUIPA challenging multiple CCADC policies.
- Core complaints: inadequate law library / restricted legal research (access-to-courts); CCADC mail/package screening and return policy (procedural due process); a total ban on hardcover books (First Amendment and RLUIPA as-applied); and a policy requiring all religious services to occur on Wednesdays, precluding Friday Jumu’ah (free exercise and RLUIPA).
- District court granted summary judgment for Sheriff Warren on most claims, dismissed the RLUIPA Wednesday-only services claim as moot, and allowed only the RLUIPA hardcover-book claim to proceed; Daker appealed.
- Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment on access-to-courts and the RLUIPA hardcover-book claim, reversed and remanded the due-process (mail) claim and the First Amendment hardcover-book claim, and vacated dismissal of the RLUIPA Wednesday-only-services claim for further factual development.
- Key factual disputes: whether Daker was actually injured by library restrictions; whether CCADC provided constitutionally adequate notice and review before returning mail/packages; whether the blanket hardcover-book ban (including books sent from publishers/booksellers) is reasonably related to security interests; and whether Daker’s intermittent returns to CCADC render injunctive relief moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access to courts — law library restrictions (§ 1983) | Daker: library and research restrictions denied meaningful access and caused missed filings/deadlines. | Warren: Daker had alternatives (counsel offered, librarian pulls materials, copies provided); no actual injury shown. | Affirmed for defendant — Daker failed to show actual injury required by Lewis v. Casey. |
| Mail/package screening — procedural due process (§ 1983) | Daker: CCADC returned mail/packages before he (or senders) could object; no meaningful notice or impartial review. | Warren: CCADC policy provides notice, grievance process, and supervisory review; some claims unexhausted. | Reversed — material factual disputes exist about notice, timing, and whether independent review occurred; remand. |
| Hardcover-book ban — First Amendment as-applied | Daker: total ban (including publisher/bookseller shipments) restricts speech and religious materials; less restrictive measures available (inspection, restrict to publishers, remove covers). | Warren: ban is justified by security (weapons, contraband) and reasonably related to penological interests. | Reversed in part — summary judgment improper; factual record insufficient to show logical connection under Turner; remand for further factfinding. |
| Hardcover-book ban — RLUIPA (substantial burden / least restrictive means) | Daker: inability to obtain certain religious books in hardcover substantially burdens religious exercise. | Warren: ban necessary for security; plaintiff must show substantial burden before burden shifts. | Affirmed for defendant — Daker failed to show a substantial burden, so RLUIPA burden-shift never triggered. |
| Wednesday-only religious services — RLUIPA mootness and Free Exercise | Daker: policy prevents Jumu’ah on Friday; RLUIPA permits prospective relief; returning to CCADC for court appearances makes injury ongoing. | Warren: Daker’s transfer to state prison made prospective relief moot. | Mixed: dismissal of RLUIPA claim vacated and remanded for mootness factfinding (returns to CCADC show possible repetition); First Amendment free-exercise challenge upheld (Wednesday rule reasonably related to staffing/penological interests under Turner). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (right of access to courts)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (actual injury requirement for access claim)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (prison regulation validity test)
- O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (prisoner free-exercise context)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (jail regulations and security concerns)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (RLUIPA burden-shifting standard)
- Perry v. Sec’y, Fla. Dept. of Corr., 664 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir.) (procedural safeguards for rejected inmate mail)
- Cruz v. Hauck, 475 F.2d 475 (5th Cir.) (hardcover-book ban discussion)
- Cruz v. Hauck, 627 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.) (later Cruz decision cited)
- Jackson v. Elrod, 881 F.2d 441 (7th Cir.) (denying blanket hardcover ban; alternatives available)
- Alvarez v. Attorney General, 679 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir.) (actual injury / colorable claim requirement)
- Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir.) (access-to-courts colorable-claim requirement)