Neeley-Bey v. Conley

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-prison officials’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-prisoner’s action seeking damages on allegation that defendants violated his rights under First Amendment Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, where: (1) defendants restricted plaintiff from participating in certain aspects of worship services of Moorish Science Temple of America (MSTA) after MSTA minister who led said services at prison advised prison chaplain that defendant’s status as “sovereign citizen” precluded him from participating in certain aspects of MTSA worship services, although he could be present as “guest;” (2) prison chaplain directed plaintiff to abide by MSTA minister’s conditions for plaintiff’s presence at MTSA worship services; and (3) plaintiff was punished by defendants for not abiding by chaplain’s directive. Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, since: (1) there was no clearly established law that prison officials cannot deny prisoner’s exercise of instant First Amendment rights, where religious entity itself established limitations for plaintiff to follow; and (2) any forced inclusion of unwanted person in group infringes on group’s freedom of expressive association if presence of said person affects in significant way group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoint. However, Dist. Ct. erred in failing to consider plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief under Free Exercise Clause and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act to determine whether there was sufficient penological reasons for instant restrictions, but that Dist. Ct. should consider on remand whether instant claim for injunctive relief is moot due to plaintiff’s relocation to different prison.