The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:19-cv-00224-MR
COREY DELON GREENE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
)
KENNETH LASSITER, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Hold in
Abeyance. [Doc. 100].
Pro se Plaintiff Corey Delon Greene (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the
State of North Carolina, currently incarcerated at Alexander Correctional
Institution (“Alexander”) in Taylorsville, North Carolina. On July 18, 2019,
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants
Kenneth Lassiter, Tim Moose, Todd Ishee, Sarah Cobb, Betty Brown, and
Chris Rich claiming his rights under the First Amendment and the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-
1, were violated while he was incarcerated at Avery/Mitchell Correctional
Institution in Spruce Pine, North Carolina, because Defendants refused to
recognize the Nation of Gods and Earth (“NGE”) as a religion and classified
NGE as a Security Risk Group (SRG) for over 20 years. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff
seeks an injunction allowing him to practice NGE “as any other religion” and
monetary damages for liberties lost due to his SRG status. [Id. at 17-18].
On January 5, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment for
Defendants based primarily on Plaintiff’s sworn allegation that NGE is a
culture, not a religion. [See Doc. 83 at 3-4, 14-16]. Shortly thereafter, the
Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. 89] and Plaintiff
appealed [Doc. 90]. Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
vacated the Court’s entry of summary judgment and remanded for further
proceedings. Greene v. Lassiter, No. 22-6273, 2023 WL 8618519 (4th Cir.
Dec. 13, 2023). The Fourth Circuit held that this Court erred in concluding
that Plaintiff’s sworn allegation “that NGE ‘is a God centered culture’ that
must not be ‘misconstrued as religion’” was a “relief-foreclosing judicial
admission” under RLUIPA and the First Amendment. Id. at *1. The Fourth
Circuit concluded, therefore, that “there may be at least an open factual
question about whether NGE qualifies as a religion for RLUIPA and First
Amendment purposes.” Id. at
Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay this matter pending
the decision of the Fourth Circuit in Rogers v. Rich, No. 22-7167 (USCA Oct.
7, 2022). Rogers involves a prisoner plaintiff claiming RLUIPA and First and
Fourteenth Amendment violations based on the alleged denial of his right to
practice Nation of Islam and his categorization as SRG based on his
adherence to the NGE. Betty Brown and Chris Rich are the only remaining
Defendants in Rogers. Id., Doc. 9 at 2. Defendants argue that two actions
filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina, Fuller v. Hooks, 5:19-CT-3317-
BO (E.D.N.C.), and Harris v. Bullard, 5:19-CT-3397-BO (E.D.N.C.), factually
similar to the instant case have been stayed and administratively closed
pending the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Rogers. [Id. at 2]. Defendants argue
that a stay is necessary because the instant case “presents the same
situation, with the additional factors that the defendants in this case overlap
with the defendants” in Rogers. [Doc. 101 at 4]. Finally, Defendants argue
that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the stay because “Defendants now
recognize NGE as a religion.” [Id. at 5 (emphasis in original)]. Plaintiff has
not responded to Defendants’ motion.
A court has the inherent authority to stay proceedings of a case, which
is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of
causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel,
and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The
decision to grant a stay is “generally left to the sound discretion of district
courts,” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 473 (2007), and involves a balancing
“of various factors relevant to the expeditious and comprehensive disposition
of the causes of action on the court’s docket,” United States v. Georgia Pac.
Corp, 562 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir. 1977). The Court should consider (1)
whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that it is likely to
succeed on the merits or a substantial case on the merits; (2) whether the
applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of
the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the
proceedings; and (4) where the public interest lies. Wolfe v. Clarke, 819
F.Supp.2d 574, 578 (E.D. Va. Nov. 22, 2011) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481
U.S. 770, 776, 778 (1987)).
The Court will grant the Defendants’ motion to stay this matter pending
the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Rogers. Plaintiff has not shown that he would
be prejudiced by any delay and, to avoid inconsistent rulings, this matter
should proceed on remand only after Rogers.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Hold in
Abeyance [Doc. 100] is GRANTED and this matter is hereby STAYED
pending further order of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall NOTIFY the Court
within ten (10) days of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Rogers v. Rich, No.
22-7167.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: January 16, 2024
Martifi Reidinger ey,
Chief United States District Judge ‘ells