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 Plaintiff’s filing [Doc. 105], which
the Court construes as a motion to reconsider its Order to stay these
proceedings [Doc. 103].
Pro se Plaintiff Corey Delon Greene (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the
State of North Carolina, currently incarcerated at New Hanover
Correctional Center (“New Hanover”) in Wilmington, 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,
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. Defendants moved 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 argued 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 further
argued 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 argued
that Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the stay because “Defendants now
recognize NGE as a religion.” [Id. at 5 (emphasis in original)].
Five days after the response deadline, without having received a
response by Plaintiff, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to stay. [Doc.
103]. Three days later, the Court received Plaintiff’s “Motion to Oppose
Abeyance” [Doc. 104] (hereinafter “Response”) in which Plaintiff argues only
that “[The Fourth Circuit] gave it’s [sic] ruling and this ruling should stand.”
[Id]. After receiving the Court’s Order staying this case pending Rogers,
Plaintiff filed the pending document captioned “Mailbox Rule” in which he
argues that his Response was mailed the day it was placed in the prison
system mail, which was January 14, 2024, and “[t]hus the court should not
hold this case in abeyance.” [Doc. 104]. To the extent Plaintiff's response
was technically timely, it would not have changed the Court’s decision to stay
these proceedings. Plaintiff made no meaningful argument in opposition to
the stay, including no showing that he would be prejudiced thereby. The
Court therefore will deny Plaintiffs motion to reconsider the Court’s Order
staying these proceedings.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion [Doc. 105] is
DENIED in accordance with the terms of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 29, 2024
Martitf Reidinger ee
Chief United States District Judge AS