BICKERTON, LEE, DANG & SULLIVAN, LLLP A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP JAMES BICKERTON 3085 Topa Financial Center, Fort Street Tower 745 Fort Street, Suite 801 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Telephone: (808) 599-3811 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae HUY
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I RICHARD KAPELA DAVIS , MICHAEL HUGHES, DAMIEN KAAHU, ROBERT A. HOLBRON, JAMES KANE, III, ELLINGTON KEAWE, KALAI POAHA and TYRONE KAWAELANILUA‘OLE NA‘OKI GALDONES,
Plaintiffs,
v. NEIL ABERCROMBIE, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Hawai‘i; TED SAKAI, in his official capcity as Director of the Hawaii Department of Public Safety; CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
CIVIL NO.11-00144 LEK BMK (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and other Civil Action) AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE HEARING DATE: January 13, 2014 TIME: 9:45 a.m. JUDGE: Hon. Leslie E. Kobayashi Dkt. 361
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 9910
TABLE OF CONTENTS FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 1 IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3
I. BY ENACTING RLUIPA, CONGRESS MANDATED THAT
COURTS APPLY THE MOST DEMANDING TEST IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TO THE RELIGIOUS EXERCISE CLAIMS OF PRISONERS ................................................................... 3
II. THE FACT THAT MANY INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING CCA
FACILITIES, HAVE ACCOMMODATED INDIGENOUS RELIGIOUS SPACES SIMILAR TO THOSE REQUESTED HERE INDICATES CCA HAS NOT UTILIZED THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS AND THE REHABILITATIVE ASPECTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE PRACTICING THEIR RELIGION CALLS INTO QUESTION CCA’S COMPELLING INTEREST CLAIMS ................................................................................................ 7
A. ACCOMMODATION OF SWEAT LODGES IN MANY
PRISONS RAISES A FACTUAL QUESTION AS TO WHETHER CCA HAS UTILIZED THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS ............................................................ 8
B. THE ESTABLISHED REHABILITATIVE BENEFITS OF
NATIVE PEOPLE PRACTICING THEIR TRADITIONAL RELIGIONS IN PRISON UNDERMINE CCA’S COMPELLING INTEREST CLAIM ....................................... 13
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 17
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 9911
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................ 4
Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 4, 6
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) .............................................................................................. 5
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) .............................................................................................. 4
Fowler v. Crawford, 534 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 11
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 4 (2006) ...................................................................... 4
Greene v. Solano Cnty. Jail, 513 F.3d 982 (9th Cir.2008) ................................................................................. 6
Lindh v. Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., Terre Haute, Ind., No. 2:09-CV-00215-JMS, 2012 WL 379737 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 3, 2012) ............................................................................................................. 13, 16
Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 13
Moussazadeh v. Tex. Dept. of Crim. Justice, 703 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 5
Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t. of Corr. 372, F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................. 13
O'Bryan v. Bureau of Prisons, 349 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................ 6
Rich v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 716 F.3d 525 (11th Cir. 2013) .................................................................. 5, 13, 16
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 9912
iii
Roybal v. Deland, Nos. C-87-0208A & C-87-8208G (D. Utah 1989) ................................... 9, 10, 11
Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 6
Shimer v. Washington, 100 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 13
Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 4
Spratt v. R.I. Dep’t of Corr., 482 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2007) ........................................................... 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13
Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005) .............................................................. 4, 5, 6, 8, 12
Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272 (3rd Cir. 2007) ................................................................................ 5
Statutes
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc ............................................................................ 1, 3, 4, 5, 12, 16
Other Authorities
146 Cong. Rec. S7774-76 (2000) .......................................................................... 3, 4
Andrew Knochel, Arizona Adding Sweat Lodge for Native American Inmates, Sacramento Bee, Oct. 27, 2013 ...................................................... 15, 16
Byron R. Johnson et al., Religious Programs, Institutional Adjustment, and Recidivism among Former Inmates in Prison Fellowship Programs, 14 Just. Q., 145 (1997) ................................................... 14
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 9913
iv
Col. Dept. Corr., AR 800-01, Administrative Regulation: Religious Programs, Services, Clergy, Faith Group Representatives and Practices ............................................................................................................... 9
Suzanne J. Crawford & Dennis F. Kelley, American Indian Religious Traditions: An Encyclopedia (2005) ............................................................ 14, 15
Elizabeth S. Grobsmith, Indians in Prison: Incarcerated Native Americans in Nebraska (1994) ..................................................................... 10, 11
Laurence Armand French, Native American Justice (2003) ..................................... 9
Fed. Bureau of Prisons, P5360.09, Program Statement: Religious Beliefs and Practices ¶¶ 2, 20(f) (2004) ............................................................... 9
Graduate Research Fellowship – Final Report (2000), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov ......................................................................................... 13
Harvard Pluralism Project, Sweatlodges in American Prisons (2005), http://www.pluralism.org/ reports/view/103 ...................................................... 14
Settlement Agreement Trapp v. DuBois (March 20, 2003), available at: http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/trapp/settlement.html ......................... 9
Carol Sisco, New Mexico Warden Says Prison Sweat Lodge No Problem: Utahns’ Fear Conjuring Ghosts, Salt Lake Trib., Nov. 9, 1986 ..................................................................................................................... 11
Wash. Dept. of Corr., DOC 560-200, Policy: Religious Programs ........................... 9
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 9914
FACTUAL BACKGROUND Amicus Curiae Huy defers to Plaintiffs’ statement of the relevant facts.
IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Amicus Curiae Huy submits this brief to address the central question raised
in this case: whether Defendant Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) has
sufficiently demonstrated that its complete ban on Native Hawaiians access to a
stone altar actually furthers a legitimate penological interest and whether a
complete ban is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest in accordance
with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
(“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. All parties have consented to the filing of this
brief.
Huy is a nationally recognized, 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
headquartered in Washington State, which seeks to enhance religious, cultural, and
other rehabilitative opportunities for imprisoned Indigenous People, including
American Indians and Native Hawaiians. In the traditional Coast Salish language
known as Lushootseed, huy (pronounced “hoyt”), means: “See you again/we never
say goodbye.” Huy’s directors include, among others, the President of the
National Congress of American Indians, elected chairpersons of federally
recognized Washington tribal governments, a former Washington State legislator,
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 9915
2
and the immediate past Secretary of the Washington State Department of
Corrections (DOC).
Since 2010, Huy has participated as amicus before the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals, and in administrative rulemakings in California and Washington State, in
matters involving the religious rights and civil liberties of Indigenous prisoners.
Huy has also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Washington
State DOC, under which it has facilitated the gifting of nearly $100,000.00 to the
DOC for Indigenous prisoner religious activities.
Additional information about Huy can be found at: www.huycares.org.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Defendant CCA has requested summary judgment in a case where the court
must apply the most demanding test in Constitutional law to their complete
prohibition of an aspect of Native Hawaiian prisoners’ religious exercise. The
Native Hawaiian prisoners in this case seek accommodation for a Pohaku O Kane,
a sacred space for prayer, refuge and atonement that utilizes a stone altar. The fact
that federal and state prisons throughout the country, including the two CCA
facilities here, have safely accommodated American Indian sweat lodge - a
ceremonial space that utilizes fire, stones, scalding hot and sharp objects, and metal
tools - raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a complete ban on the
Native Hawaiian stone altar and associated spiritual practices, is the least
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 9916
3
restrictive means of furthering its asserted interest in safety. Because CCA can
accommodate a sweat lodge, it should be able to accommodate a similar outdoor
sacred space for similarly situated Indigenous inmates.
In light of a broader history of the benefits of accommodating the religious
practices of Indigenous People, CCA’s compelling interest claim is weak. Like
American Indian sweat lodges, which were once widely asserted to pose grave
safety concerns in prisons but have proven instead to have positive penological
impacts, it has not been demonstrated that prohibiting the Native Hawaiian stone
altar here will actually further CCA’s compelling interest in safety. Because CCA
has thus far not substantiated its claims sufficiently to meet RLUIPA’s rigorous
standard, genuine issues of material fact exist and summary judgment is not
appropriate.
ARGUMENT
I. BY ENACTING RLUIPA, CONGRESS MANDATED THAT COURTS APPLY THE MOST DEMANDING TEST IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TO THE RELIGIOUS EXERCISE CLAIMS OF PRISONERS. Congress enacted RLUIPA, in part, to curb frivolous and arbitrary rules and
regulations that had plagued prisoners’ religious exercise. See 146 Cong. Rec.
S7774-76 (2000) (joint statement of Sens. Hatch & Kennedy). Prisoners “are
unable freely to attend to their religious needs and are therefore dependent on the
government’s permission and accommodation for exercise of their religion.”
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 9917
4
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 721 (2005). Under RLUIPA, a prison must
demonstrate that a substantial burden on religious exercise: (1) furthers a
compelling governmental interest and (2) does so by the least restrictive means.
Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2008). Congress mandated that
courts construe RLUIPA broadly in favor of protecting an inmate's right to
exercise his religious beliefs. Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 995 (9th Cir.
2005) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(g)).
RLUIPA is an individualized inquiry. Spratt v. R.I. Dep’t of Corr., 482 F.3d
33, 42 (1st Cir. 2007). Blanket regulations “grounded on mere speculation,
exaggerated fears, or post-hoc rationalizations will not suffice to meet the act’s
requirements.” 146 Cong. Rec. at S7775. Rather, prison administrators must
explain how the imposition of an identified substantial burden meets RLUIPA’s
exceptions with reference to the people and circumstances presented by an
individual case. Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 332 (5th Cir.
2009) (citing Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2004)); see also
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430-
31 (2006) (holding RLUIPA’s requirements must be satisfied through application
of the challenged law to the particular claimant whose religious exercise is being
substantially burdened).
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 9918
5
RLUIPA sets a high bar. “Requiring a State to demonstrate a compelling
interest and show that it has adopted the least restrictive means of achieving that
interest is the most demanding test known to constitutional law.” City of Boerne v.
Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 534 (1997). At least one federal circuit has held that
RLUIPA’s strict scrutiny standard requires prison administrators to demonstrate
that the substantial burden imposed actually furthers a compelling government
interest. Rich v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 716 F.3d 525, 533 (11th Cir. 2013).
When there is evidence that other institutions have accommodated a religious
exercise or otherwise utilized less restrictive means of furthering their interests,
prison administrators must explain why they cannot make similar accommodations
or adopt the less restrictive means. E.g., Warsoldier, 418 F2d at 999;
Moussazadeh v. Tex. Dept. of Crim. Justice, 703 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2012) (finding
requirement for a Jewish prisoner to purchase Kosher food not the least restrictive
means because state corrections department offered free Kosher food to Jewish
inmates at another facility); Spratt, 482 F.3d at 41; Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d
272, 284 (3rd Cir. 2007). Absent significant differences between the facilities, an
accommodation at one facility creates a genuine dispute of material fact over
whether the challenged policy is least restrictive. Spratt, 482 F.3d at 42; see also
Moussazadeh, 703 F.3d 781.
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 9919
6
Prison officials are not automatically entitled to deference in their judgments
regarding safety and security. Spratt, 482 F.3d at 42. First, prison administrators
must explain and justify their judgments in some detail before a court can evaluate
whether deference is due. Id. Moreover, prison officials must actually consider and
evaluate less restrictive measures before interfering with a prisoner’s religious
exercise. “[N]o longer can prison officials justify restrictions on religious exercise
by simply citing to the need to maintain order and security in a prison. They now
must demonstrate that they actually considered and rejected the efficacy of less
restrictive measures before adopting the challenged practice.” Alvarez, 518 F.3d at
1156-57 (quoting Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 999, and Greene v. Solano Cnty. Jail,
513 F.3d 982, 989 (9th Cir.2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). A prison
defendant’s proffer of conclusory, unsubstantiated statements that it is employing
the least restrictive means will not suffice. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 890
(9th Cir. 2008); see also O'Bryan v. Bureau of Prisons, 349 F.3d 399, 401 (7th Cir.
2003) (“A governmental body ... must demonstrate, not just assert, that the rule at
issue is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental
interest.”).
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 9920
7
II. THE FACT THAT MANY INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING CCA FACILITIES, HAVE ACCOMMODATED INDIGENOUS RELIGIOUS SPACES SIMILAR TO THOSE REQUESTED HERE INDICATES CCA HAS NOT UTILIZED THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS AND THE REHABILITATIVE ASPECTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE PRACTICING THEIR RELIGION CALLS INTO QUESTION CCA’S COMPELLING INTEREST CLAIMS.
Although culturally distinct, American Indian and Native Hawaiian religious
practices bear qualitative similarities: both need communal spaces of worship for
Indigenous People that require access to the outdoors and thus involve unique
accommodations. In the prison setting, prison officials have raised the same
security concerns with regard to American Indian sweat lodges that CCA raises
here regarding Plaintiffs’ Pohaku O Kane (stone altar). Therefore, Huy believes it
would be particularly helpful to the Court to discuss concerns prisons have
historically raised regarding sweat lodges, how courts have disposed of those
concerns, and how sweat lodges are now accommodated in many prisons -
including the two facilities at issue in this case. Additionally, accommodating the
religious needs of Indigenous People has benefits in the prison setting that are
worthy of consideration when a court is faced with whether a prison policy actually
furthers compelling penological interests.
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 9921
8
A. Accommodation of Sweat Lodges in Many Prisons Raises a Factual Question as to Whether CCA has Utilized the Least Restrictive Means.
Absent significant differences between the facilities, an accommodation at
one facility creates a genuine dispute of material fact over whether the challenged
policy is least restrictive. Spratt, 482 F.3d at 42; see also Warsoldier, 418 F2d at
999. In this case, it is not the similarity of the facilities that is significant, but the
similarities in Indigenous sacred space that creates a genuine factual issue over
whether CCA is employing the least restrictive means. The similarities in sweat
lodge and Pohaku O Kane as well as CCA’s ability to accommodate sweat lodge,
while refusing to consider accommodating Pohaku O Kane, calls into question
both CCA’s objection to accommodation and whether CCA has employed the least
restrictive means in this case. Therefore, there are genuine issues of material fact.
A sweat lodge is a sacred space for purification of the spirit and the offering
of prayers. During a sweat lodge ceremony, which can last up to eight hours,
inmates enter a covered dome-shaped structure (generally 7-12 feet in diameter and
4-5 feet high). Rocks are heated in a fire, to “red hot” temperature, and then taken
into the lodge (most frequently using deer antlers). Behind the closed door of the
heated lodge, the ceremony occurs and water is sprinkled on the rocks, creating
hot, steamy conditions. Sweat lodges require a concealed space (the lodge), along
with the use of fire, blunt instruments such as split wood and scalding hot rocks,
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 9922
9
and sharp objects such as shovels and deer antlers as well as access to burning
embers and hot coals.
Nevertheless, many institutions within at least twenty correctional systems,
including the two prisons in this case, have found ways to accommodate its use
without incident. See Roybal v. Deland, Nos. C-87-0208A & C-87-8208G (D. Utah
1989); see also, e.g., Fed. Bureau of Prisons, P5360.09, Program Statement:
Religious Beliefs and Practices ¶¶ 2, 20(f) (2004) (Federal BOP allowing sweat
lodges); Ariz. Dept. of Corr., DO 904, Department Order Manual: Inmate
Religious Activities / Marriage Requests § 904.04 – 1.4.1.3 (2011) (Arizona); N.M.
Corr. Dept., CD-101101, -101301, Policy: Religious Programs CD-101301(D) &
att. at 1 (1994) (New Mexico); Col. Dept. of Corr., AR 800-01, Administrative
Regulation: Religious Programs, Services, Clergy, Faith Group Representatives
and Practices at E, J (2001) (Colorado); Wash. Dept. of Corr., DOC 560-200,
Policy: Religious Programs Directive IV.C at 8-9 (1991) (Washington). Several
prison systems were compelled to accommodate sweat lodges by courts or
settlement agreements. Laurence Armand French, Native American Justice 114
(2003); see e.g., Settlement Agreement, Trapp v. DuBois, (March 20, 2003),
available at: http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/trapp/settlement.html. In those
cases, prison authorities invariably asserted that sweat lodges posed safety and
security threats in prison. However, these claims starkly contrast with the fact that
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 9923
10
in the twenty prison systems allowing sweat lodges, they have been manageable
and have presented no significant infringement on penological interests. Roybal,
Nos. C-87-0208A & C-87-8208G (pursuant to LR 7.6, the opinion is attached
hereto as “Appendix 1”).
The exaggerated fears of prison administrators was best highlighted in a
1985 case brought by American Indian inmates in Utah. Roybal, Nos. C-87-0208A
& C-87-8208G. The federal magistrate in that case urged Utah prison officials to
confer with Nebraska prison officials, who were party to a consent decree
establishing the first prison sweat lodge in 1975. In the Utah case, Joseph Vitek,
former director of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, and
defendant in the Nebraska case, described the remarkable results of court ordered
sweat lodges this way:
[W]hat I did see specifically . . . [was] that a lot of Indians, not all of them, developed a great deal of self-esteem and pride in themselves. There was an apparent increase in what I call good grooming, the clothing, . . . there seemed to be a prideful thing that was kind of fun to watch. Sense of identity if you will.
Elizabeth S. Grobsmith, Indians in Prison: Incarcerated Native Americans in Nebraska (1994).
Vitek went on to describe how none of Nebraska’s safety concerns actually
manifested after sweat lodge ceremonies began in its prisons. Id.
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 9924
11
In addition to Vitek, the Roybal court heard from Arizona and New Mexico
prison officials who testified that permitting sweat lodge practices did not impose
additional costs or concerns beyond those normally associated with prison
activities. Id. The official from New Mexico, George Sullivan, who was also a
thirty-year veteran of the Oregon prison system, was asked whether sweat lodges
posed a security risk or threatened other penological objectives and responded:
I can’t believe you’re asking this question. Fifteen years ago in Oregon we allowed our first [sweat lodge] and it was the most valuable, least offensive problem for administrators of anything we do . . . [Utah’s] imagined torment is simply that.
Carol Sisco, New Mexico Warden Says Prison Sweat Lodge No Problem: Utahns’
Fear Conjuring Ghosts, Salt Lake Trib., Nov. 9, 1986.
In the instances where courts have not compelled prisons to accommodate
sweat lodges, the rationale tracked its individualized inquiry into the plaintiff-
inmates and the concerns posed by the sweat lodge. For example, one case cited in
CCA’s brief supporting summary judgment was Fowler v. Crawford, 534 F.3d
931, 939 (8th Cir. 2008), a case denying maximum security prisoners access to
sweat lodge. In that instance, the court found it appropriate for the prison to deny
access to the fire, rocks, as well as sharp and blunt instruments given the plaintiff-
prisoners’ maximum-security designation. Id. at 939.
By contrast, in cases like the one sub judice, where the plaintiffs do not pose
such a security threat, courts have been less deferential to the fearful assertions of
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 16 of 26 PageID #: 9925
12
prison administrators. See e.g. Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 998 (distinguishing security
interests at minimum security facilities from maximum security facilities).
Moreover, it can be fairly argued that sweat lodges accommodated by these two
CCA facilities pose a more complex challenge than merely allowing the Native
Hawaiians here access to a stone altar, which does not involve any fire, any sharp
metal tools, or any seclusion. Given that RLUIPA requires an individualized
inquiry, the operative inquiry in this case is whether these plaintiffs pose a security
risk when granted access to their sacred space and ceremony: Pohaku O Kane.
For CCA to merely assert that access to the rocks comprising a sacred altar
poses a general security concern is insufficient. CCA’s assertions express the same
speculative fears raised in other cases involving sweat lodges – security fears that
simply have not borne out as more prisons have accommodated them. The fact that
many institutions, including the two CCA prisons here, accommodate other
Indigenous outdoor sacred space and ceremonies that are equally, if not more,
difficult, raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether CCA is utilizing the
least restrictive means. Absent explanation by CCA of why it cannot make similar
accommodations or use similar less restrictive means, there is a genuine dispute of
material fact over whether its policies and practices satisfy RLUIPA’s mandate.
See Spratt, 482 F.3d at 42; Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 1000. Therefore, summary
judgment is not appropriate.
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 17 of 26 PageID #: 9926
13
B. The Established Rehabilitative Benefits of Native People Practicing Their Traditional Religions In Prison Undermine CCA’s Compelling Interest Claim.
A Court must not blindly defer to a prison administrator’s position on
matters that implicate prison security and to prevail on summary judgment,
administrators must do more than merely assert a security concern. Spratt, 482
F.3d at 39 (quoting Murphy v. Mo. Dep't. of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 988 (8th Cir.
2004)); see also Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 190 (4th Cir. 2006) (“[A] court
should not rubber stamp or mechanically accept the judgments of prison
administrators ....”); Shimer v. Washington, 100 F.3d 506, 510 (7th Cir. 1996).
Moreover, prison administrators must demonstrate a nexus between their
prohibition on religious exercise and an actual furtherance of the claimed
compelling interest. Rich, 716 F.3d at 533; Lindh v. Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst.,
Terre Haute, Ind., No. 2:09-CV-00215-JMS, 2012 WL 379737 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 3,
2012).
Far from posing threats to prison security or administrative needs, religious
practice in prisons furthers rehabilitation and reduces recidivism. See e.g., Melvina
T. Sumter, Religiousness and Post-Release Community Adjustment: Graduate
Research Fellowship – Final Report (2000), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 18 of 26 PageID #: 9927
14
/pdffiles1/nij/grants/184508.pdf; Byron R. Johnson et al., Religious Programs,
Institutional Adjustment, and Recidivism among Former Inmates in Prison
Fellowship Programs, 14 Just. Q., 145 (1997).
Indigenous Peoples’ access to religious items and ceremonies have been
accommodated without undermining prison security needs, instead greatly
contributing to indigenous prisoners’ rehabilitation. See, e.g., Harvard Pluralism
Project, Sweatlodges in American Prisons (2005), http://www.pluralism.org/
reports/view/103. Indeed, “for some Native American prison inmates, walking the
red road in the white man’s iron house” through traditional spiritual practices like
sweat lodge “is the path to salvation, the way of beauty, and the only road to
rehabilitation and survival.” Suzanne J. Crawford & Dennis F. Kelley, American
Indian Religious Traditions: An Encyclopedia (2005). The same holds true for
Pohaku O Kane.
Corrections officials from around the country have recognized that
accommodating the religious practices of Native People is beneficial in the prison
setting. In one survey, Oregon stated that Native activities provide a sense of
stability to Native inmates and motivation to return to a more productive lifestyle
upon release. Grobsmith, supra, at 164. For Oregon prison officials, sweat lodge
and other religious programs are ways to reduce the high rates at which released
inmates commit crimes. French, supra, at 117. During one period studied, Oregon
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 19 of 26 PageID #: 9928
15
had a 5 percent recidivism rate, compared to a national rate of almost 75 percent.
Id.
The Coconino County Jail in Arizona is one of the most recent facilities to
accommodate sweat lodge. Jim Bret, program coordinator of detention services at
the jail commented that it gives inmates there hope and motivation. He added,
“They're at a place where they want to reconcile with themselves. . . I think that's
the first step to reconciling with their families, with friends or with society at
large.” Andrew Knochel, Arizona Adding Sweat Lodge for Native American
Inmates, Sacramento Bee, Oct. 27, 2013,
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/10/27/5856232/arizona-adding-sweat-lodge-for.html.
California corrections officials have acknowledged that appreciation of
American Indian heritage reduced violence and afforded inmates a sense of pride
and brotherhood and that this cooperative attitude carried over into their social
reintegration into society. Grobsmith, supra, at 164. In the same survey, Idaho
prison officials reported that Native practices in prison enabled inmates to come
together in mutual self-help, stating, “It is definitely rehabilitative for those
individuals that have no direction in life or no concern or understanding for self or
others.” Id. Oklahoma officials stated that Native people’s participation in cultural
affairs has a positive effect on discipline. Id. There seems to be no question that for
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 20 of 26 PageID #: 9929
16
Native people participation in such activities has a positive impact on
characteristics essential to rehabilitation. Id. at 165.
The widespread acknowledgement that religious activity aids rehabilitation
has given some courts pause when scrutinizing prison officials’ claims that a
specific religious practice poses a safety concern. See Lindh, 2012 WL 379737
(noting that inmate religious activity can promote positive behavior and aid in the
rehabilitation process). Given that participation in traditional activities and
ceremonies have indeed proven to have a positive, rehabilitative affect, one
questions whether CCD’s fears are justified and well-informed, or whether they are
simply speculative and exaggerated fears of worst-case scenarios. This is
especially important where, as here, the Court is compelled to apply the most
stringent judicial scrutiny to CCD’s assertions.
While it is true that Plaintiffs’ religious needs pose challenges, Defendants
have not demonstrated how completely prohibiting them actually furthers state
penological interests, as required by RLUIPA. Rich, 716 F.3d 399. To the contrary,
because the experience of numerous other prison systems demonstrates that
accommodating Native People’s access to their unique religious needs reduces
violence, positively affects discipline, reduces recidivism, and aids rehabilitation –
all important penological interests – there is a genuine issue of material fact as to
CCA’s compelling interest claims in this case.
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 21 of 26 PageID #: 9930
17
CONCLUSION
Because genuine issues of material fact exist both as to CCA’s compelling
interests and whether it has employed the least restrictive means by refusing to in
any way accommodate Plaintiffs’ access to Pohaku O Kane, CCA’s Motion for
Summary Judgment should be DENIED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, December 20, 2013.
/s/ James Bickerton JAMES BICKERTON Attorney for Amicus Curiae HUY
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 22 of 26 PageID #: 9931
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I RICHARD KAPELA DAVIS , MICHAEL HUGHES, DAMIEN KAAHU, ROBERT A. HOLBRON, JAMES KANE, III, ELLINGTON KEAWE, KALAI POAHA and TYRONE KAWAELANILUA‘OLE NA‘OKI GALDONES,
Plaintiffs,
v. NEIL ABERCROMBIE, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Hawai‘i; TED SAKAI, in his official capcity as Director of the Hawaii Department of Public Safety; CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
CIVIL NO.11-00144 LEK BMK (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and other Civil Action) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served
upon the parties listed below on December 20, 2013 by the method indicated.
\\
\\
\\
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 23 of 26 PageID #: 9932
2
Served electronically through CM/ECF LEINAALA L. LEY, ESQ. [email protected] ANDREW B. SPRENGER, ESQ. [email protected] MOSES K.N. HAI, III, ESQ. [email protected] SHARLA ANN MALEY, ESQ. [email protected] Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation 1165 Bishop Street, Suite 1205 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
Attorneys for Plaintiffs RICHARD KAPELA DAVIS , MICHAEL HUGHES, DAMIEN KAAHU, ROBERT A. HOLBRON, JAMES KANE, III, ELLINGTON KEAWE, KALAI POAHA and TYRONE KAWAELANILUA‘OLE NA‘OKI GALDONES
DAVID LEWIS, ESQ. [email protected] RACHEL LOVE, ESQ. [email protected] JAMIE GUZMAN, ESQ. [email protected] Struck Wieneke & Love, P.L.C. 3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300 Chandler, Arizona
Attorneys for Defendants TED SAKAI, in his official capacity as Director of the Hawaii Department of Public Safety and CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 24 of 26 PageID #: 9933
3
APRIL LURIA, ESQ. [email protected] Roca Luria Hiraoka LLP Davies Pacific Center 841 Bishop Street, Ste. 900 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
Attorney for Defendants TED SAKAI, in his official capacity as Director of the Hawaii Department of Public Safety and CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
DANIEL M. GLUCK, ESQ. American Civil Liberties Union Hawai‘i P.O. Box 3410 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96801
Attorney for Amicus AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF HAWAI‘I FOUNDATION
Served via U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
SHAWN WESTRICK Kawahito, Shraga & Westrick LLP 1190 South Budy Drive, Ste. 280 Los Angeles, California 90025
Attorney for Plaintiffs RICHARD KAPELA DAVIS , MICHAEL HUGHES, DAMIEN KAAHU, ROBERT A. HOLBRON, JAMES KANE, III, ELLINGTON KEAWE, KALAI POAHA and TYRONE KAWAELANILUA‘OLE NA‘OKI GALDONES
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 25 of 26 PageID #: 9934
4
DANIEL P. STRUCK, ESQ. Struck Wieneke & Love, P.L.C. 3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300 Chandler, Arizona
Attorneys for Defendants TED SAKAI, in his official capacity as Director of the Hawaii Department of Public Safety and CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, December 20, 2013. /s/ James Bickerton JAMES BICKERTON Attorney for Amicus Curiae HUY
Case 1:11-cv-00144-LEK-BMK Document 439-1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 26 of 26 PageID #: 9935