Zimmerman v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections
1:23-cv-00004
E.D. Wis.Apr 18, 2023Background:
- Plaintiff Mitchell G. Zimmerman, a state inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution, practices the Hermetic Philosophy/Golden Dawn tradition and alleges he needs specific items and services (weekly Pagan/Eastern services, ritual rugs, wall art, oils, a black-and-gold altar cloth, Tarot cards) to practice his religion.
- Between March and December 2022 Zimmerman submitted numerous DOC religious requests and inmate complaints after chaplains and staff refused or delayed processing; some complaints were affirmed but requested items/services remained unprovided.
- Zimmerman sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; he named multiple DOC officials including CPS Michael Hofmann (who reportedly makes final decisions on spiritual matters).
- The Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and Rule 8 standards.
- The Court concluded Zimmerman plausibly alleged a sincere religious belief and a substantial burden and allowed a RLUIPA claim to proceed only against CPS Michael Hofmann in his official capacity for denials between March–December 2022; all other defendants were dismissed as redundant.
- The Court ordered service on Hofmann via the Wisconsin DOJ, directed Hofmann to respond within 60 days, and set procedures for payment of the remaining filing fee from Zimmerman’s trust account.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RLUIPA—threshold: sincerity and substantial burden | Zimmerman: denial/delay of services/items prevents proper religious exercise | DOC: (implicitly) policy compliance and no substantial burden | Court: allegations are sufficient at pleading stage; proceed on RLUIPA against Hofmann (official capacity) |
| Proper defendants—who is liable | Zimmerman named multiple officials responsible for requests and complaints | Defendants: many are unnecessary/redundant for injunctive relief | Court: only CPS Hofmann retained; others dismissed as redundant |
| Relief available under RLUIPA | Zimmerman seeks declaratory and injunctive relief | DOC: monetary relief not available under RLUIPA/official-capacity limits | Court: RLUIPA permits only declaratory/injunctive relief; official-capacity claim against Hofmann encompasses requested relief |
| Procedural—IFP and service | Zimmerman requested IFP | N/A | Court granted IFP, assessed initial fee, ordered collection of balance from trust account, and directed DOJ to serve Hofmann (responsive pleading due in 60 days) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: courts need not accept mere legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim, not mere speculation)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (RLUIPA requires initial showing of sincere belief and substantial burden)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (RLUIPA requires government to show compelling interest and least restrictive means)
- Jones v. Carter, 915 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. RLUIPA substantial-burden framework)
- Schlemm v. Wall, 784 F.3d 362 (definition of substantial burden in prison religious cases)
- D.S. v. E. Porter Cty. Sch. Corp., 799 F.3d 793 (elements for § 1983 claim)