United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
1915A
Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge
Plaintiff
Kenya Brown is a prisoner in the custody of the Connecticut
Department of Correction (“DOC”) at Cheshire
Correctional Institution. He has filed a complaint pro
se and in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against Commissioner Scott Semple and Director of
Security Antonio Santiago arising from DOC's rejection of
Brown's request for a Wicca bible. For the following
reasons, I will dismiss Brown's complaint in part, but
will allow Brown's First Amendment Free Exercise claim
for injunctive relief to proceed against Semple and Santiago
at this time.
Background
The
following facts are alleged in the complaint and are accepted
as true only for purposes of this initial ruling. On April
19, 2018, Brown received a “Publication Rejection
Notice” for a “bible” that was received at
Cheshire Correctional Institution. Id. at 3
(¶¶ 1-2). The “bible” was a book
entitled Witches' Craft: A Multidenominational Wicca
Bible by Bruce Wilborn. Id. at 3 (¶ 2), 8,
12. According to the rejection notice, the book was rejected
because it was “written in code” and therefore
“jeopardizes a legitimate penological interest.”
Id. at 3 (¶ 4), 8. Brown grieved the denial of
the book, arguing that Wicca is an established religion,
which is protected under the First Amendment, and that the
“entire book” is not “written in code,
” as the rejection notice states. Id. at 3
(¶¶ 6-7), 10.
On May
11, 2018, he received a written letter response from Director
Santiago upholding the rejection of the book. Id. at
3 (¶ 8), 12. Santiago explained that DOC's Media
Review Board had previously rejected the book in July 2014
because it was written in code. Id. at 12. Santiago
noted that one chapter of the book entitled, “Runes,
Symbols, and Rituals, ” contains “six different
Rune Alphabets and their translations, ” and he
explained that such codes and symbols could easily be used by
inmates to circumvent security. Ibid. Santiago
quoted one passage of the book in which “the author
writes, ‘During early times, it was commonplace for
witches to use secret magickal alphabets to write down
prayers, invocation [sic], and other religious beliefs,
thereby ensuring privacy from nonwitches.'”
Ibid.
According
to Santiago, “[t]his type of information presents a
security concern in any correction setting and therefore this
publication will continue to be rejected.”
Ibid. Santiago suggested that “[if] you wish
to pursue the study of Wicca, the following publications have
been approved by the Media Review Board: ‘Wicca, A
Guide for the Solitary Practitioner' by Cunningham, and
‘Complete Idiot's Guide to Wicca and
Witchcraft,' by Zimmerman.” Ibid.
Brown
disagrees with Santiago's decision, arguing that
“there is no penological reason for not allowing the
bible into a correctional facility other than inadequate
religious equality, religious discrimination and [denial of]
equal protection.” Id. at 3 (¶ 10). He
contends that Santiago's authority to reject the book
stems from “unconstitutional customs and
practices” established by Commissioner Semple.
Id. at 4 (¶ 15). He sues Semple in his official
capacity only and Santiago in his individual capacity only,
and he alleges two counts for violation of the First
Amendment. Id. at 5.
Discussion
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a
prisoner's civil complaint against a governmental entity
or governmental actors and “identify cognizable claims
or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint-(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” If the prisoner is proceeding pro se,
the allegations of the complaint must be read liberally to
raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. See
Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010).
In
recent years, the Supreme Court has set forth a threshold
“plausibility” pleading standard for courts to
evaluate the adequacy of allegations in federal court
complaints. A complaint must allege enough facts-as distinct
from legal conclusions-that give rise to plausible grounds
for relief. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Notwithstanding the
rule of liberal interpretation of a pro se
complaint, a pro se complaint may not survive
dismissal if its factual allegations do not meet the basic
plausibility standard. See, e.g., Fowlkes v.
Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir. 2015).
Plaintiff
contends that defendants violated his First Amendment freedom
of religion because the rejection of Witches'
Craft interfered with his “choice to worship in
the arts of Wicca.” Doc. #1 at 5 (¶ 2). He also
argues that, by rejecting the book, defendants
“dictat[ed] to [him] which religion he has to worship,
” which constitutes discrimination. Id.
(¶ 3). I construe these arguments as attempts to state
claims under the First Amendment's Free Exercise and
Establishment Clauses. To the extent he claims defendants
discriminated against him on the basis of his Wiccan faith, I
will construe Brown's complaint as attempting to claim a
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection
Clause. I conclude that while Brown's Free Exercise claim
may proceed, he has not alleged enough facts to state a
plausible claim for relief under either the Establishment
Clause or the Equal Protection Clause.
Sovereign
Immunity
Brown
has sued Semple in his official capacity only. Doc. #1 at 1.
Because Semple is an employee of the State of Connecticut, to
the extent Brown has sued him for money damages, his claim is
plainly barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g.,
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985). As
such, I will dismiss any claim against Semple for damages,
although Brown may maintain his suit against Semple for
injunctive relief to the extent he validly alleges an ongoing
constitutional violation. See Va. Office for Prot. &
Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 254-55 (2011) (citing
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)).
Supervisory
...