NEGRETE v. STATE OF NJ

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOSENEGRETE, — :

Plaintiff, Civ, No. 19-18480 (GC) (DEA)

v :

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., OPINION

Defendants. :

CASTNER, District Judge

I, INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Jose Negrete (“Plaintiff or “Negrete”), is a state prisoner at the New Jersey State

Prison (“NJSP) in Trenton New Jersey. He is proceeding pro se with an Amended Complaint.

(See Am, Compl., ECF 1 at 7-21). Presently pending before the Court is Defendants’ the State of

New Jersey, the New Jersey Department of Corrections (hereinafter the “NJDOC”), Bruce Davis,

Craig Sears, Victor M, Lee and Jamal El-Chebli (collectively the “Defendants”) Motion for

Summary Judgment. (See ECF 26), For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on

Plaintiff's First Amendment free exercise claim related to the classes and programs offered at

NISP. Plaintiff’s Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000ce-1 ef seg., however, shall be permitted to proceed against all Defendants as will his First

Amendment retaliation claim and free exercise claim as to his inability to access a copy of the

Quran against Defendants Davis, Sears, Lee and El-Chebli (hereinafter the “Individual

Defendants”). Plaintiff's other First Amendment claims against the State of New Jersey and the

NJDOC are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

il. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was (and remains) incarcerated at NJSP during the period giving rise to the action

in this case. (See Defs,’ Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute, ECF 26-2 { 2), In addition

to suing the State of New Jersey and the NJDOC, as indicated above, Plaintiff also names the

following individuals as Defendants:

1. Victor Lee — State Coordinator for the Office of Chaplaincy Services (see id. { 2);

2. Jamal Ei-Chebli—- Iman and Chaplain Supervisor at NJSP (see id. ¥ 3);

3. Bruce Davis — Administrator of NJSP (see id. | 4); and

4, Craig Sears — Major at NJSP (see id. ¥ 5)

Plaintiff. sues the Defendants for purportedly violating his religious rights and freedoms under

RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ce-1 ef seg. Plaintiff also sues the Defendants under 42 U.S.C, § 1983

for violating his free exercise rights and right to be free from retaliation under the First

Amendment.

The case mainly arises from Plaintiff’s ongoing dispute with the types of Islamic religious

classes and programs that are offered at NJSP and the subsequent actions by the Defendants in

response to his complaints. Plaintiff is a practicing Muslim (see ECF 1 at 8) and seeks to have

his sect, As-Salafiyah, recognized as its own Islamic denomination within NJSP. (See ECF 26-2

{{ 12-13). While NJSP offers inmates classes with respect to Islam, Plaintiff states that the classes

offered are insufficient with respect to how he wishes to practice his faith. (See id 4] 17-20).

According to Plaintiff, the non-denominational Islamic classes offered at NJSP, led by Defendant

El-Chebli, are offensive based on his Islamic orthodoxy because “it’s considered a sin. We’re not

allowed to sit with bida [sic]. We’re not allowed to sit with people of innovation, That’s one of

the fundamentals in our religion.” (See ECF 26-2 | 20). Plaintiff seeks to have practicing members

of his orthodox faith separated and be permitted to have their own community within NJSP,

including a separate Jumua’ah (Friday Islamic prayer service). (See id. J 21).

Defendant El-Chebli and Plaintiff have clashed during the Islamic classes taught by El-

Chebli. (See id. 4 22). More specifically, Plaintiff “does not want Iman El-Chebli to lead the

classes or give any input while overseeing the class as [Plaintiff] does not consider him [ Jpart of

his affiliated denomination.” (See id. 4 23). Plaintiff claims based on his own religious creed and

principles, he is not allowed to sit and learn by El-Chebli. (See id. 24).

As an inmate at NJSP, Plaintiff is permitted to read/and or have access to the Quran (with

one period disputed by the parties discussed infra), attend Jumua’ah prayer services, fast during

the Islamic holy month of Ramadan and pray five times daily. (See id { 8). In Islamic classes

that are offered at NJSP, Plaintiff can also access books and CDs from relevant Islamic scholars

in Plaintiff's Islamic orthodox sect. (See id, 10).

On or about June 11, 2019, Plaintiff spoke with Defendant El-Chebli whereby Plaintiff

requested to lead classes and have Defendant El-Chebli sit quietly and not interrupt Plaintiff's

teachings. (See id. | 25-26). Plaintiff called Defendant El-Chebli a “deviant” at this meeting and

that he knew Defendant El-Chebli’s family well. (See id. 4 35).

Defendants maintain NJSP has a policy of prohibiting inmates from leading organized

activities due to safety concerns, (See Decl. Lee, ECF 26-3 at 35-36). More specifically,

Defendant Lee ~- State Coordinator for Chaplaincy Services - states as follows:

{t]he safety of the staff and inmates hinges on the ability of

correctional staff to maintain control over the institution. If inmates

are permitted by the [Department of Corrections] to assume a

leadership role, they are tacitly placed in a position of control over

other inmates, Abdicating this role to the inmates places the security

of the prison in jeopardy as inmates can be persuaded to follow the

inmate leader, rather than correctional staff and institutional rule

regulations. [{]] The prohibition of inmates assuming control over

other inmates in formalized gatherings through leadership positions

is also consistent with the legitimate penological objective to

prevent inmates from becoming catalysts to violence, disorder and

escape.

(ECF 26-3 at 35-36). Defendants include in the record the Internal Management Procedure for

Islamic inmates which states as follows: “{a]n Imam must be permitted to conduct the prayers and

worship service and to attend to the religious needs of the Muslim inmates. In the absence of an

Islamic chaplain an approved volunteer or staff member will supervise the service.” (See ECF 26-

3 at 26). The policy also states that Muslim inmates must be permitted to have or be given access

to the Quran, (See ECF 26-3 at 24).

Plaintiff challenges the application of NJSP’s policy by arguing that inmates are permitted

to represent other inmates at NJSP different from his religious sect. He alludes to unit

representatives and paralegals who represent inmates at disciplinary proceedings as well as at

NAACP, Native American and Odinist membership meetings. According to Plaintiff, only

members of his religious sect are not permitted to have a “study group.” (See ECF 36 at 7), Indeed,

Plaintiff testified as follows at his deposition:

You got Native American go out there and smoke cigars with a

lighter and a match. And that’s not a security threat. [{] But me,

studying my religion is a security threat? You got them guys, they

don’t have nobody out there. They go out there, They pray. You

got them other guys, them — the Odinists, right, them Odinist people,

they worship things. Right. They don’t have nobody up there

dictating what they believe in. The Jews, they don’t have nobody

dictating to them....

We have — again, we have tier reps, right, inmates represent over a

hundred people. We have teachers. We have — every religion got

their guys that teach religion, ...

Inmates ~ like I said, you have Native ~ you think Native American

got somebody that come in here and run their service? They don’t,

The Odinists, them —- them guys, they don’t have nobody. There’s

no Odinist chaplain, Them guys go up there and they reach their

own thing.

So again, what they telling you is absolutely not true. Other

religions don’t have their volunteers. Some don’t have nobody but

themselves, And they run their own services. . ..

Odinists, inmates doing it. The Native America inmates doing it...

So, you know, you can’t tell me that we’re not being treated

differently.

(P1.’s Dep., ECF 38-1 at 74-75, 77-78). Defendants claim though that an approved volunteer can

supervise religious services or classes, but that Plaintiff has failed to even seek out such

possibilities with respect to his Islamic sect.

On or about June 13, 2019, officers came to Plaintiff's cell, subjected Plaintiff to a strip

search and took his religious materials, books and literature. (See ECF 1 at 14; ECF 26-2 { 36).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sears told him at the time that the search occurred because he

threatened Defendant El-Chebli (at their June 11, 2019 meeting). (See ECF 26-2 § 37).

For a period thereafter, Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregated housing and his

personal belongings were locked in his regular cell, (See ECF 26-2 § 41). Plaintiff asserts that

Defendants denied many requests by him to have a copy of the Quran while he was in

administrative segregated housing. (See ECF | at 16). Plaintiff states that he was without a copy

of the Quran for over three months. (See ECF 36 at 4).

On July 2, 2019, Plaintiff received a disciplinary charge for threatening another with bodily

harm or with any offense against him and his person related to what he told Defendant El-Chebli

at their June 11, 2019 meeting. (See Decl. El-Chebli, ECF 26-3 at 40). The disciplinary hearing

officer ultimately found Plaintiff guilty of threatening Defendant El-Chebli. (See ECF 26-2 4 47).

However, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, reversed this finding on appeal.

(See id. | 47). In reversing the disciplinary hearing officer’s guilty finding, the Appellate Division

held as follows:

[t]he hearing officer identified two remarks by Negrete as the basis

for the threat charge: (1) Negrete calling the Imam a deviant; and (2)

Negrete informing the Imam that he was aware of the Imam's

outside activities. The record at the disciplinary hearing does not

support a finding that either of those remarks objectively conveyed

a threat against the Imam, his family, or his property.

Negrete's remarks must be considered in context. See Figueroa [v.

NJ. Dep’t of Corr., 997 A.2d 1088, 1090-91,] 414 N,J. Super. [186,]

[] 191 [EN.J. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 2010)]. For several years, Negrete

had expressed both to the Imam and to other DOC officials that he

had religious views that differed from the Imam’s. In that regard,

Negrete retained First Amendment rights that could be limited only

by “legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.”

Jones v. N.C. Prisoners Lab. Union, 433 U.S. 119, 129 (1977); In

re Inmate Mail to Att'ys, 120 N.J. 137, 147 (1990). Accordingly,

Negrete's use of the term “deviant” — by itself — did not establish a

threat because it was made in the context of an ongoing dispute over

different views of Islam.

The record also lacks sufficient support to infer a physical threat

from Negrete’s reference to the Imam's outside activities. Negrete

referred to those activities in response to the Imam’s question of why

he was being called a deviant. Negrete responded by stating that he

had a brochure in his cell discussing an Islamic conference and that

Negrete did not share the same beliefs as the religious figures who

had spoken at that conference,

In summary, there is not sufficient evidence in the record to support

a finding that the remarks made by Negrete to the Imam objectively

conveyed a threat of harm. Moreover, the DOC failed to consider

Negrete’s legitimate First Amendment rights.

Negrete v. New Jersey Dep't of Corr., No. A-0089-19, 2021 WL 1997930, at *3 (N.J. Super. Ct.

App. Div. May 19, 2021)

Plaintiff initiated this action in state court. Plaintiff states he gave a copy of his original

complaint to a housing unit officer the same day Defendants purportedly conspired to place him

in administrative segregation.! (See ECF 26-3 at 14), It remains unclear when this purportedly

transpired. Nevertheless, the record includes a document dated June 28, 2019, whereby Plaintiff

sought the waiver of filing fees from the New Jersey state courts, (See ECF | at 23), This occurred

only a few days before Plaintiff received his disciplinary charge.

At some point thereafter, Plaintiff submitted the operative pleading in this case, Plaintiff's

Amended Complaint, to the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division. The Amended Complaint

is dated August 8, 2019. (See id. at 18), Plaintiff secks monetary damages against the Defendants

as well as injunctive relief ordering Defendants to offer classes relevant to his Islamic orthodoxy.

Plaintiff seeks relief from the Defendants under RLUIPA and the First Amendment.

Plaintiff's First Amendment claims can be separated into two separate categories: (1) free exercise;

and (2) retaliation, With respect to Plaintiff's free exercise claim, this Court construes this claim

as raising two sub-issues; more specifically: (1) Plaintiff complains about an infringement of his

free exercise rights as to NJSP’s actions related to the limits it has placed on the classes Plaintiff

seeks with respect to his orthodox Islamic faith; and (2) Plaintiff's inability to access a Quran while

in administrative segregated housing.

In September 2019, Defendants removed Plaintiff's state court Amended Complaint to

federal court. (See ECF 1). In October 2019, Defendants filed an Answer to the Amended

Complaint. (See ECF 4). After discovery ended (which included Defendants taking Plaintiff's

deposition), Defendants filed their pending Motion for Summary Judgment. (See ECF 26).

Plaintiff's “original” complaint (to the extent one may exist) referenced in his Amended

Complaint was not included in the Notice of Removal nor in the exhibits attached to both parties’

briefs.

Defendants make several arguments in their Motion; more specifically, Defendants argue as

follows:

1. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's RLUIPA claims because: (1)

Plaintiff's religious beliefs are not substantially burdened because he is not barred from

exercising his religion as Plaintiff has several avenues available to practice his religious

beliefs; and (2) even if Plaintiff has shown a substantial burden under RLUIPA, there is no

less restrictive means of furthering the interest;

2. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs First Amendment free exercise

claim because the Islamic class restrictions were sufficiently reasonable;

3. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation

claim because Plaintiff fails to establish a causal link between protected constitutional

activity and an adverse action;

4, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims based on qualified

immunity; and

5. Plaintiff not entitled to punitive or compensatory damages.

Plaintiff subsequently responded in opposition to Defendants’ Motion. (See ECF 32 & 36).

Defendants filed a Reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. (See ECF 33).

Ill. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.

Civ, P. 56(a). A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing

law” and a dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury

could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S, 242,

248 (1986). Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude the Court from granting

a motion for summary judgment. See id.

A party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing the basis for its

motion and must demonstrate that there is an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See

Celotex Corp. vy. Catrett, 477 U.S, 317, 323 (1986). “A party asserting that a fact [is not] genuinely

disputed must support the assertion by ... citing to particular parts of materials in the record,

including depositions, documents .. ., affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made

for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R,

Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). After the moving party adequately supports its motion, the burden shifts to

the nonmoving party to “go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a

genuine issue for trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (internal quotation marks omitted). To withstand

a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must identify specific

facts and affirmative evidence that contradict the moving party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.

the non-movant's evidence is merely ‘colorable’ or is ‘not significantly probative,’ the court

may grant summary judgment.” Messa v. Omaha Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 122 F. Supp. 2d 523, 528

(D.N.J. 2000) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50). “If reasonable minds could differ as to the

import of the evidence,” however, summary judgment is not appropriate. See Anderson, 477 U.S.

at 250-51. “In considering a motion for summary judgment, a district court may net make

credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence; instead, the nonmoving

party's evidence ‘is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.”

Marino v, Indus. Crating Co,, 358 F.3d 241, 247 (Gd Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson, 477 US. at

255),

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Islamic Classes/Programs

i. RLUIPA

Plaintiff argues Defendants violated RLUIPA by not permitting him to conduct classes in

support of his orthodox Islamic faith as opposed to the non-denominational Islamic class that is

offered at NJSP led by Defendant El-Chebli. RLUIPA “provide[s] very broad protection for

religious liberty. See Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 356, 135 8. Ct. 853, 859 (2015) (quoting

Burwell vy. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc,, 573 U.S, 682, 693 (2014)). RLUIPA mandates that □□□□□□

government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or

confined to an institution... even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless

the goverriment can satisfy strict scrutiny, See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)}. This requires a showing

that the burden imposed on a person's religious exercise “is in furtherance of a compelling

governmental interest” and Ais the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling

governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2). Under RLUIPA's burden shifting

framework, a plaintiff must first show that the defendant has placed a substantial burden on the

plaintiff's sincerely held religious belief. See Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272, 277-78 Gd Cir,

2007); see also Abdul-Aziz v. Lanigan, No. 17-2806, 2020 WL 3287229, at *11 (D.N.J. June 18,

2020) (setting forth what Plaintiff must initially show under RLUIPA’s burden shifting

framework). In Washington, the Third Circuit noted that:

[flor the purposes of RLUIPA, a substantial burden exists where: 1)

a follower is forced to choose between following the precepts of his

religion and forfeiting benefits otherwise generally available to

other inmates versus abandoning one of the precepts of his religion

in order to receive a benefit; OR 2) the government puts substantial

pressure on an adherent to substantially modify his behavior and to

violate his beliefs.

10

497 F.3d at 280 (footnote omitted); see also Shelley, 832 F. App’x at 105. Nevertheless,

[t]he Supreme Court has explained, however, that the question of

whether an authentic religious belief has been substantially

burdened under RLUIPA does not permit consideration of whether

the plaintiff may still exercise his religious beliefs in other ways.

See Holt, 135 S. Ct. at 862. “RLUIPA's ‘substantial burden’ inquiry

asks whether the government has substantially burdened religious

exercise, not whether the RLUIPA claimant is able to engage in

other forms of religious exercise.” Jd. (parenthetical omitted).

Tormasi v, Lanigan, 363 F. Supp. 3d 525, 542 (D.N.J. 2019).

Where a plaintiff shows that a policy or practice substantially burdens a sincerely held

religious belief, the burden shifts to defendants to show that the policy or practice furthers a

compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so. See Holt, 574 US.

at 362. Religious accommodations though do not override other significant interests in

maintaining order and safety. Indeed, as the Supreme Court has noted in citing to the relevant

legislative history of RLUIPA, lawmakers anticipated that courts would apply the act with

deference to prison administrators “in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to

maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and limited

resources.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 723 (2005) (citing to legislative history of

RLUIPA); see also Watson v. Christo, 837 F, App’x 877, 882-83 (3d Cir. 2020); Cole v. Danberg,

10-88, 2015 WL 5437083, at *5 (D. Del. Sept. 14, 2015) (“The drafters of RLUIPA were

mindful that discipline, order and security are urgent in penal institutions, and they therefore

anticipated that courts would apply the RLUIPA test ‘with due deference to the experience and

expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to

maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and limited

resources.”), Nonetheless:

RLUIPA, however, does not permit unquestioning deference. Holt,

135 8. Ct. at 864. It is the obligation of the courts to consider

whether exceptions are required under the test that requires the

defendants not merely to explain why they took the actions they did,

but to prove that their actions are the least restrictive means of

furthering a compelling governmental interest. See id. As observed

by the Supreme Court in Ho/t, "[p]rison officials are experts in

running prisons and evaluating the likely effects of altering prison

rules, and courts should respect that expertise. But that respect does

not justify the abdication of the responsibility, conferred by

Congress, to apply RLUIPA's rigorous standard." Ja.

Cole, 2015 WL 5437083, at *5.

RLUIPA provides greater protections of a prisoner’s religious liberty than the First

Amendment free exercise clause. See Shelley v. Metzger, 832 F. App’x 102, 105 (3d Cir. 2020).

By way of example only, while alternative means of practicing one’s religion are relevant under

the applicable First Amendment free exercise test described infra, they are not under RLUIPA’s

“substantial burden” analysis. See Walker v. Baldwin, No. 19-50233, 2022 WL 2356430, at *5

n.5 (N.D. Ill. June 30, 2022) (citing Holt, 574 US. at 361-62).

Defendants argue Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under RLUIPA because they have not

substantially burdened his sincerely held religious beliefs. In support, Defendants note that

Plaintiff has access to the Quran, can attend Friday prayer services, can fast during Ramadan, can

pray five times daily and that he thereby has the same rights as other Islamic inmates. (See ECF

26-1 at 12). Furthermore, Plaintiff is offered access to teachings from books and compact dises

from scholars within his orthodox Islamic faith at meetings. Defendants further note that NJSP’s

policy permits Plaintiff to attend classes related to his Islamic orthodox sect if he sought out and

obtained an outside volunteer to come and teach the class, something that Plaintiff has apparently

not even attempted to do based on this record.

While many of Defendants’ arguments cited above are certainly relevant to Plaintiff's free

exercise claim under the First Amendment, such arguments related to the alternative means

12

Plaintiff can practice his religion have little to no force with respect to Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim.

See, e.g., Brown v. Page, No, 20-70, 2021 WL 288754, at *3 (citing Cavin v. Mich, Dep't of Corr.,

927 F.3d 455, 461 (6th Cir, 2019) (citing Holt, 574 U.S. at 361-62))) (noting that the availability

of alternative means of practicing one’s faith “does not play into” RLUIPA analysis). This Court

rejects Defendants’ arguments related to other avenues Plaintiff may have to practice his religious

beliefs as a reason to award them summary judgment on Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim.

Defendants’ strongest argument is that their policies advance the prison’s compelling

interest in order and safety, This Court though finds, for the reasons described below, that there

remain genuine issues of material fact on this issue as it relates to Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim.

Defendant Lee states in his declaration that NJSP’s policy of prohibiting inmates from

leading organized activities is designed to protect the safety and security of the institution. Indeed,

post-Holt “courts have recognized that prison officials have legitimate interests in preventing

unsupervised religious group activities, and in preventing inmates from holding leadership roles

within a religious group, in order to maintain security and discipline within the prison.” Heikkila

v. Kelley, No. 16-299, 2018 WL 4610141, at *13 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 27, 2018) (citing Kemp v. Liebel,

877 F.3d 346, 353-54 (7th Cir. 2017) (other citations omitted), report and recommendation

adopted by, 2018 WL 4610625 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 25, 2018), aff'd as modified, 776 F. App'x 927

(8th Cir. 2019), However, “[dJefendants may not rely upon a prison policy when they fail to apply

it in a uniform and consistent manner.” Ut v. Brown, No. 12-3132, 2015 WL 5714885, at □□□

(E.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2015) (citing Holt, 135 S. Ct. at 864) (other citations omitted), In Uyt, the

Eastern District of North Carolina denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's

RLUIPA claim noting in part that the prison’s policy of requiring outside volunteers was being

applied inequitably because only the Wicca faith was subject to the policy. See id. Similarly, in

13

this case, Plaintiff states in his sworn deposition testimony that other groups, including religious

groups such as Odinists”, have meetings where an outside volunteer is not required, as compared

to what NJSP is requiring of Plaintiffs faith. This factual dispute about how NJSP treats other

religious groups remains outstanding based on this record.

Nevertheless, the fact that NJSP potentially treats a particular group differently than other

groups may not necessarily be dispositive of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on

Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim. For example, in McGee v, O’Brien, 160 F, Supp. 3d 407, 416 (D. Mass.

2016), the plaintiff noted inmates in other religious groups were permitted to meet without the

need for an outside volunteer to be present. See 160 F. Supp. 3d at 416-17. However, the District

of Massachusetts determined that there were additional particular security concerns related to

McGee’s religious group that placed it in a different light because of the group’s materials that

espoused violence and killing. See id. at 417, Ultimately, in McGee, the court held as follows:

Defendants have demonstrated that the DOC [department of

corrections] has a compelling interest, namely, prison security and

the avoidance of violence, in burdening Plaintiff's religious exercise.

Deference is due to the DOC's expertise in the area of prison safety.

Hudson [v. Dennehy}, 538 F.Supp.2d [400,] [] 409. By requiring

the presence of an NGE volunteer when conducting corporate

worship so as to aid adherents in properly interpreting NGE texts

and tenets in order to avoid inciting violence, Defendants have

tailored the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Jd. at

410,

McGee, 160 F. Supp. 3d at 417.

Based on this record, however, this Court finds McGee distinguishable in this case. As

potential evidence for treating Plaintiffs sect differently, Defendants rely on Defendant El-

Chebli’s declaration whereby he states that Plaintiff speaks and curses against all Muslims who do

2 Some of the tenets of the Odinism can be found at Gregory v. Pfister, No. 18-387, 2019 WL

3287873, *1 (E.D. Ill. July 22, 2019)

14

not follow what he believes. (See ECF 26-3 at 39). However, this is different than in MécGee

where the District of Massachusetts noted that the texts and tenets of the religious faith espoused

violence and killing. See McGee, 160 F. Supp. 3d at 419 (internal citation omitted) (noting that

the DOC views the “texts as having the potential to create security threats if not properly

interpreted, and therefore requires that NGE adherents’ practice be under the supervision of an

approved volunteer or done individually. This conclusion was reached after a thorough review of

NGE’s texts and tenets as well as consultation with the nationwide Prison Administrator for NGE

and prison security experts. The potential for violence and security threats certainly would carry

over to NGE adherents proselytizing to non-believers. After consideration, the DOC found no less

restrictive way to address the particular security issues raised by the NGE religious materials.”).

The record in this case remains unclear on material fact issues. Defendants are not entitled

to summary judgment on Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim.

ii. First Amendment — Bree Exercise

Plaintiff next argues that NJSP’s policies related to religious classes infringe on his First

Amendment right to freely exercise his orthodox Islamic faith. The First Amendment provides, in

relevant part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof... .” U.S. Const. Amend. I, This constitutional right though

is lessened in the prison context, where legitimate penological interests must be considered when

assessing the constitutionality of official conduct. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S, 78, 89 (1987).

Consequently, to establish a free exercise of religion claim under the First Amendment, a prisoner

plaintiff “must show that the [defendants] burdened the practice of his religion by preventing him

from engaging in conduct mandated by his faith without any justification reasonably related to

legitimate penological interests.” Heleva v. Kramer, 330 F. App’x 406, 408 (3d Cir, 2009) (citing

15

Turner, 482 U.S. at 89). In general, if a prison regulation impinges on a prisoner's constitutional

right to free exercise of his sincerely-held religious beliefs, the analysis turns to the four-factor test

in Turner, 482 U.S. at 89, under which courts consider: (1) whether a rational connection exists

between the regulation and a neutral, legitimate government interest; (2) whether alternative means

exist for inmates to exercise the constitutional right at issue; (3) what impact the accommodation

of the right would have on inmates, prison personnel, and allocation of prison resources; and (4)

whether obvious, casy alternatives exist. See DeHart v. Horn, 390 F.3d 262, 268 Gd Cir. 2004).

“This is not a ‘least restrictive alternative’ test: prison officials do not have to set up and then shoot

down every conceivable alternative method of accommodating the claimant’s constitutional

complaint.” Alexander v, Michigan, No. 13-1372, 2017 WL 4334341, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Sept.

28, 2017) (citing Turner 482 U.S, at 90-91 (citing Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 587 (1984))).

Furthermore, as previously noted, RLUIPA provides inmates with heightened religious protection

when compared to their rights under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, See, ¢.2.,

Dorman v. Aronofsky, 36 F.4th 1306, 1313 (11th Cir. 2022) (“Ifa claim fails under the RLUIPA—

which embeds a heightened standard for government restrictions of the free exercise of religion—

it necessarily fails under the First Amendment.”); Shelley, 832 F. App’x 105; Smith v. Yuba Cty.

Sheriff Dep't, No. 19-1765, 2020 WL 4339472, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2020) (noting lower

threshold for showing a RLUIPA versus a First Amendment free exercise claim).

Defendants initially argue that Turner’s first factor weighs in their favor. More

specifically, Defendants claim they offer non-denominational Islamic classes to prevent

divisiveness and that because they permit an inmate to obtain an outside volunteer to oversee

classes and worship services, it demonstrates that the policy meets a neutral governmental interest.

(See ECF 26-1 at 18-19). This Court agrees this factor weighs in Defendants’ favor. Indeed,

16

numerous federal courts have upheld restrictions on inmates leading other inmates in group

religious services. See Smith v. Kyler, 295 F, App'x 479, 481-82 (3d Cir. 2008) (inmate's free

exercise rights were not violated by DOC's policy to provide chaplains for only largest major faith

groups and to prohibit group worship in absence of approved, volunteer faith group leader).

Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 121 (Sth Cir. 2007) (stating that prison policy of prohibiting

inmates from leading religious services without the assistance of a rabbi or approved outside

volunteer was logically connected to penological concerns of security, staff, and space limitations),

Anderson y, Angelone, 123 F.3d 1197, 1198-99 (9th Cir, 1997) (“Requiring an outside minister to

lead religious activity among inmates undoubtedly contributes to prison security.”); Johnson-Bey

v. Lane, 863 F.2d 1308, 1310 (7th Cir. 1988) (finding constitutional a regulation prohibiting

inmates from conducting their own religious services).

Turner’s second factor also weighs in favor of the Defendants. Plaintiff's main complaint

is his inability to have separate orthodox Islamic classes/services at NJSP. NJSP has given

Plaintiff an avenue to do so by seeking out an outside volunteer to lead such a class. There is

nothing in the record that Plaintiff has made overtures to outside volunteers, nor has he made any

showing that outside volunteers were unavailable to create a genuine issue of material fact that

alternative means of Plaintiff's free exercise of his religion remained unavailable to him.

Turner’s third factor requires this Court to consider the impact the accommodation of a

tight would have on inmates, prison personnel and the allocation of prison resources. This factor

weighs in favor of the Defendants. Indeed, as one court has noted:

“(T]o change the prison's policy and allow services to continue in

_ the absence of an imam would significantly impact prison resources

and could affect prison security. Presumably, more prison guards

would have to be deployed to oversee an inmate-led service given

the types of conflicts that would likely arise.” A¢cRoy [v. Cook Cty.

Dep’t of Corr. ], 366 F. Supp. 2d [662,] [ ] 679 [(N.D. Ul. 2005)]; see

17

also Hadi [v. Horn], 830 F.2d [779,] [ ] 784-85 [(7th Cir. 1987)]

(noting security risks associated with allowing inmates to hold

positions of religious authority and recognizing potential for conflict

if such an inmate is unable to resolve religious issues).

Williams v. Dart, No. 10-2499, 2011 WL 4808167, at *4 (N.D. IH. Oct, 11, 2011); see also

Williams v. Boughton, No. 18-934, 2020 WL 4464509, at *11 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 4, 2020)

(“Allowing inmates to serve as imams for Jumu'ah services or to facilitate Taleem study groups

would undermine the safety and security needs of the prison.”).

Turner's fourth factor asks a Court to consider whether obvious, easier alternatives exist.

This Court also finds this factor weighs in favor of the Defendants. Indeed, Plaintiff fails to show

an alternative to requiring outside volunteers to lead communal religious services and classes “that

fully accommodates the prisoner's rights at de minijis cost to valid penological interests.”

Williams, 2011 WL 4808167, at *4 (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 91) (citing McRoy, 366 F. Supp.

2d at 677-79),

After analyzing these relevant Turner factors, Defendants are entitled to summary

judgment on Plaintiffs First Amendment free exercise claim related to his complaints about

NJSP’s Islamic religious classes/services.

B. Quran unavailability while in administrative segregated housing

This Court construes Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as also asserting claims with respect

to his free exercise rights under the First Amendment related to the purported denial of a copy of

the Quran while he was in administrative segregated housing for over three months.? This issue

3 RLUIPA only allows for injunctive relief. See Small v. Wetzel, 528 F. App'x 202, 208 (3d Cir,

2013) (citing Sharp v. Johnson, 669 F.3d 144, 154 (Gd Cir. 2012)). Given that Plaintiff does not

assert that he is in administrative segregation or, perhaps more importantly, that he remains without

access to a copy of the Quran in his present state of incarceration, any RLUIPA claim (as well as

any claim for injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) related to the purported three-month period

that Plaintiff was without a copy of a Quran while in administrative segregation is now moot. See,

Selby v, Caruso, 734 F.3d 554, 561 (6th Cir. 2013) ( “[Plaintiff's] requests for declaratory and

18

was clearly expressed in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Furthermore, the topic was raised and

discussed at Plaintiff's deposition. (See ECF 38-1 at 43). Finally, Plaintiff reiterated that he was

also pursing claims related to the denial of access to the Quran in his response to Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment. (See ECF 36-1 at 4 (“Plaintiff has submitted ample competent

evidential material in this case to defeat summary judgment. For instance the denial of the Qu[

while in isolation[.]”)). Defendants’ Motion and Reply briefs in support of summary

judgment fail to address this claim. Normally, that would end this Court’s inquiry given the burden

on Defendants at summary judgment. However, courts must screen complaints in civil actions in

which a prisoner seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(a). Indeed, section 1915A(b) directs district courts to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief, See id. § 1915A(b).

A review of the docket indicates this sua sponte screening was not completed, presumably

because Defendants filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint approximately three weeks after

removal, The fact that Defendants have now filed an answer as well as a dispositive motion in

response to the Amended Complaint does not preclude this Court from screening the Amended

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Lair v. Purdy, 84 F, App'x 413, 414 (th Cir. 2003)

(per curiam) (rejecting federal prisoner's argument that district court erred in using § 1915A to

dismiss some of his claims after the defendants had already answered); Rivera v. Zwiegle, No, 13-

3024, 2014 WL 6991954, at *1 n.1 (D.N.J. Dec, 9, 2014) (noting that the fact that defendants have

injunctive relief under RLUIPA became moot when he was released into the general prison

population[.]”); Reese v. Bouffard, No. 14-244, 2015 WL 1947192, at *7 (D. Me. Apr, 29, 2015)

(“Plaintiff cannot obtain injunctive relief because he has not alleged that he is presently subjected

to disciplinary confinement that deprives him of access to his rosary beads or prayer oils).

19

filed an answer or dispositive motions does not prevent a court from screening under § 1915A);

Loving v. Lea, No. 13-158, 2013 WL 3293655, at *1 (M.D. La. June 28, 2013) (citations omitted)

(“A § 1915A dismissal may be made at any time, before or after service of process and before or

after an answer is filed.”)

“(T]he legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to §

1915A is identical to the legal standard employed in ruling on 12(b)(6) motions.” See Courteau

v. United States, 287 F. App'x 159, 162 (d Cir, 2008) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220,

223 (3d Cir. 2000)). Under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, “a pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions’ or ‘a

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The Amended Complaint

must allege “sufficient factual matter” to show that the claim is facialiy plausible. See Fowler v.

UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (Gd Cir. 2009) (citation omitted), “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Belmont v. MB Inv. Partners,

708 F.3d 470, 483 n. 17 Gd Cir.2012) (quoting Igbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

Plaintiff brings his First Amendment claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983

provides in relevant part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,

custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of

Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the

United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action

at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except

that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or

omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief

shali not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or

declaratory relief was unavailable.

20

Thus, to state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege first, the violation of a right

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and second, that the alleged deprivation

was cominitted or caused by a person acting under color of state law. See Harvey v, Plains Twp.

Police Dep't, 635 F.3d 606, 609 (3d Cir. 2011) (citations omitted); see also West v. Atkins, 487

42, 48 (1988).

States and State entities are not “persons” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C, § 1983. See Will

v. Mich, Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66—71 (1989); see also Howlett By & Through Howlett

v, Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990) (explaining that Wil? established that “an entity with Eleventh

Amendment immunity is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983.”). As such, Defendants the

State of New Jersey and the NJDOC are not “persons” amenable to suit under § 1983, See

Pagliaroli v. New Jersey Dep't of Corr., No, 19-21505, 2020 WL 5077471, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 27,

2020). Thus, Plaintiffs remaining First Amendment claims against the State of New Jersey and

the NJDOC are dismissed with prejudice.

This Court finds though that the Individual Defendants are not entitled to dismissal of this

free exercise claim. Indeed, as one court recently noted:

“denying prisoners access to their holy text . . . is a substantial

burden on free-exercise rights.” Garner v. Muenchow, 715 F. App'x

533, 536 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236,

253-57 3d Cir. 2003) (“[While we believe that a Christian inmate

could practice his religion generally even if prevented from

attending Christmas or Easter services, we do not believe he could

practice his religion if deprived of access to the Bible.”) and Kay v.

Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1229 (10th Cir. 2007)); see also Blankenship

y. Setzer, 681 F. App'x 274, 277 (4th Cir. 2017) (holding 10-day

deprivation of Bible during transport from state prison to county jail

substantially burdened inmate's religion); Tarpley [v. Allen Cty.,

Ind., 312 F.3d [895,] [ ] 899 [(7th Cir. 2002)] (observing that

providing inmate a copy of the jaii's Bible “offered him the essential

material for his religious studies”),

21

Wells v. Hendrix, No. 20-1065, 2022 WL 19415, at *9 (S.D. Ind, Jan. 3, 2022). Additionally,

given the lack of any argument for summary judgment by the Individual Defendants on this claim,

it shall proceed.

C. Retaliation

Plaintiff's final claim is that the Individual Defendants retaliated against him for exercising

his constitutionally protected First Amendment rights. The Individual Defendants argue they are

entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim.’ Plaintiff asserts

Defendants conspired to retaliate against him the same day Plaintiff gave his original complaint to

the housing officer for mailing to the court. (See ECF 1 at 15-16),

“A prisoner alleging retaliation must show (1) constitutionally protected conduct, (2) an

adverse action by prison officials sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising

his constitutional rights, and (3) a causal connection between the exercise of his constitutional

rights and the adverse action taken against him.” Mack v. Yost, 427 F, App'x 70, 72 (3d Cir. 2011)

(quoting Mitchell vy. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 530 (3d Cir. 2003)).

The Individual Defendants do not challenge the first two elements necessary for

establishing a First Amendment retaliation claim. Indeed, filing suit constitutes constitutionally

protected conduct. See DeFranco v. Wolfe, 387 F. App'x 147, 157 (3d Cir. 2010). Furthermore,

placement in administrative segregated housing can constitute an adverse action. See Turzanski v.

Cty. of Burlington, No. 15-8866, 2018 WL 5874073, at *8 (D.N.J. Nov. 9, 2018) (citing Szemple

v. Talbot, 141 F. App'x 52, 54 Gd Cir. 2005)) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 225-26

(3d Cir, 2000)) (“Because confinement to administrative segregation can constitute an adverse

‘ Plaintiff cannot proceed with any claims against the State of New Jersey or the NJDOC under §

1983 for First Amendment retaliation for similar reasons discussed in the previous section.

"22

action, the Court finds that Plaintiff could plausibly satisfy the second element of a First

Amendment retaliation claim”).

Instead, the Individual Defendants argue there are no genuine issues of material facts

outstanding with respect to whether Plaintiff has shown a “causal connection” to support his

retaliation claim, To show a causal connection, a plaintiff must show that the constitutionally

protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor for the adverse action. See Velasquez v.

Diguglielmo, 516 F. App'x 91, 95 Gd Cir, 2013) (citations omitted), Such causal connection facts

usually fall into one of two categories; indeed:

[t]o establish the requisite causal connection for a retaliation claim

predicated on the First Amendment, the plaintiff (here, a prisoner)

usually has to prove one of two things: (1) an unusually suggestive

time proximity between the protected activity and the allegedly

retaliatory action; or (2) a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing

to establish a causal link. Lauren W. ex rel. Jean W. v. DeFlaminis,

480 F.3d 259, 267 Gd Cir, 2007). If neither of these showings is

made, then the plaintiff must show that, from the evidence in the

record as a whole, the trier of fact should infer causation,” Jd.

DeFranco, 387 F. App'x at 154. While temporal proximity is relevant to retaliation, see Ambrose

v, Twp. of Robinson, Pa., 303 F.3d 488, 494 (3d Cir. 2002), “‘{t]he mere passage of time is not

legally conclusive proof against retaliation.’” Marra v. Phila. Housing Auth,, 497 F.3d 286, 302

(3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Robinson v. Se, Pa. Transp. Auth., 982 F.2d 892, 894 (3d Cir. 1993)) (other

citation omitted).

The Individual Defendants argue as follows:

[t]he Court should find that the third factor [causal connection — of

bringing a retaliation claim] weighs in favor of the Defendants as

Plaintiff has failed to show a pattern of antagonism coupled with

timing to establish a causal link. Here, Plaintiff identifies one

meeting occurred with the Imam that resulted in allegedly adverse

action, Even with identifying multiple instances in which he had

disagreements with the Imam, Plaintiff presents no evidence that

every time there was a disagreement or complaint filed, he

23

subsequently received a disciplinary charge or had his cell searched.

As such, |Pjlaintiff cannot prove retaliation.

Further, Negrete had the opportunity to challenge the disciplinary

charge. During the hearing, he confronted the Imam regarding the

allegations. He even appealed the guilty finding and had it reversed

on appeal.

(ECF 26-1 at 22-23 (internal citation omitted)), In their Reply, the Individual Defendants also

assert that Plaintiff failed to show an unusual suggestive proximity between the protected activity

and the alleged retaliatory action. (See ECF 33 at 8).

This Court finds that the Individual Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on

Plaintiff's retaliation claim, Plaintiff asserts that the adverse actions by the Individual Defendants

began to occur at or around the time he submitted his original complaint for filing when he handed

it to an officer for mailing. (See ECF 26-3 at 14), The Individual Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment completely ignores the first avenue that Plaintiff can establish a causal link,

namely, through an unusually suggestive time proximity between the protected activity and the

allegedly retaliatory action, What Plaintiff has set forth clearly falls within this first avenue to

establish a causal link,

The Individual Defendants in their Reply argue that Plaintiff failed to show in his

opposition an unusually suggestive proximity between the protected activity and the alleged

retaliatory actions. However, this argument by the Individual Defendants turns the summary

judgment standard on its head. It is up to the Individual Defendants who have the initial burden

to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact. The record the Individual Defendants

supplied this Court contains nothing to indicate when (and/or if) Plaintiff submitted an “original”

complaint for filing in state court. The Individual Defendants in their notice of removal indicate

that this action was initiated through Plaintiff filing his complaint in August 2019 — thereby

24

presuming that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was the first filing. (See ECF 1 at 2-3). However,

other documents filed by Plaintiff in state court are dated as early as June 2019, (See ECF | at

23). Furthermore, this Court has reviewed Plaintiff's entire deposition transcript and there is no

testimony to resolve these remaining issues of fact as to when Plaintiff brought his initial state

court complaint to a housing unit officer for filing. Thus, the record remains unclear as to when

Plaintiff's purported constitutionally protected conduct occurred, such as attempting to file suit.

The Individual Defendants purportedly adverse actions in or around when Plaintiff

attempted to file suit when he was placed in administrative segregated housing/filing of a

disciplinary charge, may give rise to an “unusually suggestive time proximity.” See Rink v. Ne.

Educ. Intermediate Unit 19, 717 F. App’x 126, 134 (3d Cir. 2017) (noting that temporarily

proximity inference is usually in the order of days or weeks), Given the lack of clarity in the record

as to the precise timeline of events, and the fact that the Individual Defendants carry the burden at

summary judgment to show a lack of genuine issues of material fact, this Court finds that summary

judgment is not appropriate in the Individual Defendants favor at this time on Plaintiff's claim for

retaliation against them.

D. Qualified Immunity

Based on the foregoing, the remaining claims are Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim and his claims

against the Individual Defendants that they retaliated against him and that they violated his free

exercise rights related to their denial of his requests for a copy of the Quran while in administrative

> The Court rejects the Individual Defendants argument that Plaintiff cannot show a “causal

connection” because he had the chance to challenge the disciplinary charge. (See ECF 26-1 at 23).

The Individual Defendants provide no legal support for this theory. Furthermore, it fails to

consider that the actual adverse actions at issue relate not only to the filing of the disciplinary

charge, which, as indicated above, can constitute an adverse action, but also his placement in

administrative segregated housing for at least a period while administrative disciplinary

proceedings were ongoing.

25

segregated housing. The Individual Defendants though next assert they are entitled to qualified

immunity, (See ECF 26-1 at 23-27).

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the

official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the

challenged conduct.” Taylor v. Barkes, 575 U.S. 822, 825 (2015) (internal citation and quotation

omitted). The first prong of the analysis “asks whether the facts, [t]aken in the light most

favorable to the party asserting the injury, ... show the officer's conduct violated a [federal] right/.]”

Tolan v. Cotton, 572. U.S. 650, 655-56 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)

(alterations and omissions in original), “The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks

whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Jd at 656

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

At the outset, this Court notes that Defendants qualified immunity defense does not affect

Plaintiff's remaining RLUIPA claim as Plaintiff can only seek injunctive relief under RLUIPA.

See Love v. Does, No. 17-1036, 2021 WL 2680183, at *10 n.11 (D.N.J. June 29, 2021), With

respect to Plaintiff's remaining § 1983 claims against the Individual Defendants under qualified

immunity analysis’ first prong, the Individual Defendants’ argument is solely related to Plaintiff's

claims related to the religious classes/programs offered at NISP. The Individual Defendants make

no argument whatsoever regarding qualified immunity’s first prong on Plaintiffs remaining

retaliation and free exercise claim. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed above, viewing the

facts remaining at issue in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, he has adequately shown that the

Individual Defendants’ conduct may have violated his free exercise and constitutional right to be

free from retaliation under the First Amendment.

26

As to qualified immunity’s second prong, the Individual Defendants assert that they are

entitled to qualified immunity because “there was no clearly established precedent establishing

that their conduct violated the Plaintiff's rights.” (See ECF 26-1 at 27). Based on this record, this

Court disagrees, Retaliating against a plaintiff for filing suit was clearly established. See Atkinson

v, Taylor, 316 F.3d 269-70 (3d Cir. 2003) (noting that a reasonable prison official would know he

violated a prisoner’s access to courts right if he retaliates against him for filing a lawsuit).

Additionally, the Individual Defendants make no specific argument related to qualified immunity’s

second prong related to Plaintiff's free exercise claim as to the purported denial of his access to a

Quran for at least three months while in administrative segregated housing. Thus, based on this

record, the Individual Defendants fail to show that they are entitled to qualified immunity on

Plaintiff's remaining retaliation and free exercise claims against them.

E. Compensatory and Punitive Damages

Finally, Defendants assert they are entitled to summary judgment to the extent that Plaintiff

seeks compensatory damages for emotional distress as well as punitive damages on his remaining

First Amendment claims.® (See ECF 26-1 at 27-29). Plaintiff's responsive brief in opposition

does not raise any argument with respect to this issue. (See ECF 36-1 at 1-8),

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that “[nJo Federal civil action may

be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or

emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(e); see also Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 533 (3d Cir. 2003) (“Section 1997e(e)'s

requirement that a prisoner demonstrate physical injury before he can recover for mental or

emotional injury applies only to claims for compensatory damages.”); Allah v. Al-Hafeez, 226 F.3d

As noted in supra note 3, RLUIPA only allows for injunctive relief. Thus, this argument shall

only be analyzed with respect to Plaintiff’s remaining First Amendment claims,

27

247, 250-51 (3d Cir. 2000) (affirming dismissal of prisoner plaintiff's claims for compensatory

damages for alleged infringements of First Amendment right to free exercise of religion in

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the basis that said claims were barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)).

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages on his remaining retaliation and free

exercise Claims, and because he has not asserted any physical injury related to these claims,

Plaintiff shall not be entitled to pursue compensatory damages on these claims,

Defendants also assert Plaintiff should not be permitted to receive any possible punitive

damages since Plaintiff has not adduced any evidence that the Defendants acted with evil motive

or intent. (See ECF 26-1 at 28). “The purpose of punitive damages is to punish [a] defendant for

his willful or malicious conduct and to deter others from similar behavior.” Memphis Cmty. School

Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S, 299, 306 n.9 (1986). “[A] jury may be permitted to assess punitive

damages in an action under [section] 1983 when the defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated

by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally

protected rights of others.” Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983).

This Court cannot determine as a matter of law at this stage whether the Defendants acted

with the intent or reckless disregard of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights to be free from

retaliation and Plaintiff's remaining free exercise claim. This remains a proper question for the

jury.’

Vv. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part.

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's First Amendment free exercise claims

related to his requests for orthodox religious classes based on his Islamic creed but are not entitled

Plaintiff may also seek nominal damages on his remaining First Amendment claims.

28

to summary judgment on Plaintiffs RLUIPA claim involving this issue. Defendants are entitled

to summary judgment on Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim related to his claim that he was denied a copy

of the Quran for over three months while in administrative segregated housing. Plaintiff's First

Amendment free exercise claim for being denied a copy of the Quran while in administrative

segregated housing as well as his First Amendment retaliation claim against the State of New

Jersey and the NJDOC is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Individual

Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim

as well as Plaintiffs claims for being denied access to a Quran while in administrative segregated

housing. However, Plaintiff shall not be permitted seek compensatory damages on these claims.

An appropriate order shall be entered.

DATED: November OY , 2022

GEORGETTE CA

United States District Judge

® This Court can also not yet decide whether Plaintiff is entitled to the appointment of pro bono

counsel as he has not yet made a showing of indigency. Thus, the Clerk will be ordered to send

Plaintiff an application to proceed in forma pauperis as well as a blank copy of an application for

the appointment of pro bono counsel.

29