Qualified immunity knocks out prisoners' rights case

This prisoners' rights case alleges that jail officials did not allow him to practice his religion. Plaintiff loses the case on qualified immunity grounds, as the existing case law does not establish that jail officials had violated his rights.

The case is Booker v. Graham, issued on August 31. Booker is a member of the Nation of Islam, requiring that he practice certain rituals during Ramadan. He says jail officials did not provide him the proper food or other opportunities to practice his religion, including ritualistic bathing and group prayer meetings. At first, prison officials did allow NOI inmates to practice their religion. But then the jail imposed a lockdown following an uptick in violence in the facility. As a result, the jail limited the religious rituals for plaintiff and other inmates, i.e., providing them with food that did not comply with their religious rituals or hot water for the bathing. When Ramadan ended, the jail sent plaintiff to solitary confinement, claiming he had negatively impacted the facility's operations. Defendants said plaintiff had urged inmates to use violence against the officers. Plaintiff says, however, that prison officials told him that he went to solitary confinement because of all the grievances he had filed against the jail relating to the restrictions on his religious activity.

The Court of Appeals (Park, Leval and Lohier) deals with the free exercise of religion claim by granting the defendants qualified immunity, which protects governmental defendants from lawsuits when the case law is not clear that the plaintiff's rights were violated. Fuzzy case law means the officers were not on constructive notice that they were breaking the law, even if careful attention to the facts suggests they were in fact violating the law. Unfortunately for plaintiff, the case law does not clearly provide for the continuation of religious practices during a prison lockdown. While inmates have a clear right to practice their religion while in jail, "we have never held that a prison has an obligation to provide religiously compliant meals during a facility-wide, safety-motivated lockdown. Nor have we held that a prison must accommodate group prayers or religious bathing rituals under such circumstances."

The same holds true for inmates who sue because they cannot practice certain religious rituals while in solitary confinement. And, the Second Circuit holds, "New York law actually prohibits it." Since there is no binding precedent that supports plaintiff's claims, he cannot pursue this case.