# Pleasant-Bey v. United States Congress

> District Court, M.D. Tennessee · November 9, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10438274

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** November 9, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10438274

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding “that under Rule 15(a) a district court can allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint even when the complaint is subject to dismissal under the PLRA”

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

BOAZ PLEASANT-BEY, #473110, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) NO. 1:22-cv-00033
)
UNITED STATES CONGRESS, et al., ) JUDGE CAMPBELL
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Boaz Pleasant-Bey, an inmate of the Turney Center Industrial Complex in Only,
Tennessee, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint against a variety of federal and state government
bodies and officials on September 6, 2022. (Doc. No. 1.) He has now paid the civil filing fee. (See
Doc. No. 9.)
The Complaint is before the Court for initial review pursuant to the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
I. INITIAL REVIEW
A. Legal Standard
Upon initial review, the Court must “identify cognizable claims or dismiss” the Complaint
(or any portion thereof) if it is facially frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The review for whether the Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted asks
whether it contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face,” such that it would survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “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,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, upon “view[ing] the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff[.]” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir.

2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)). This
review only assumes that the facts alleged in the Complaint are true; allegations that consist of
legal conclusions or “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement’” are not
accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557
(2007)).
Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed and “held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, pro se litigants are not exempt from the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir.

1989), nor can the Court “create a claim which [a plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading.”
Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App’x 608, 613 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life
Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975)).
B. Allegations and Claims
The Complaint asserts claims against three groups of Defendants: (1) those associated with
the federal government (hereinafter, “the Federal Defendants”)––i.e., the U.S. Congress, the U.S.
Constitution, the United States of America, Legislative Director Susan Falconer, Legislative
Director Kelsey Wolfgram, Legislative Director Deputy Chief of Staff Daniel Tidwell, Chief of
Staff Richard K. Vaughn, Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Wildasin, and Congressman Jim Cooper;
(2) those associated with the state legislature––i.e., the Tennessee General Assembly,
Representative Sexton, the Tennessee Constitution, and the State of Tennessee; and (3) those
associated with the state prison system––i.e., the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC),
the TDOC Commissioner, and the TDOC Assistant Commissioner of Prisons. The Federal
Defendants are sued under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

The two groups of State Defendants are sued under RLUIPA and the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Tennessee Constitution, Tennessee Religious
Freedom and Restoration Act, and other state statutes.
Plaintiff claims that the Federal Defendants have violated his rights under RLUIPA,1 42
U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, by placing a substantial burden upon his exercise of his Sunni Muslim faith.
Plaintiff alleges that this burden is imposed by the language of the Thirteenth Amendment,2 which
is “racially offensive” and “which imposed upon his race of Indigenous Native African people, a
reenslavement clause if they are convicted of committing a crime.” (Doc. No. 1 at 21.) Plaintiff
alleges that this constitutional language burdens his religious exercise because the Qur’an forbids

him from being “identified and recognized” as anyone’s slave or other “racially offensive terms,”
and requires him to be referred to as “Indigenous Native African, Moor, or Moorish within the
Marked Language of the U.S. Constitution.” (Id. at 20.) He claims that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth,
and Fifteenth Amendments all use racially offensive language (id. at 20–23), and requests “a Court

1 Plaintiff does not specifically assert his RLUIPA claim against any individual Federal Defendants,
but only against “[t]he United States Congress, the United States Constitution and United States of
America.” (Doc. No. 1 at 20, 34.) The Court construes this claim to be asserted broadly against the
individual Federal Defendants as well, inasmuch as those individual federal employees are not associated
with any other claim of the Complaint.

2 The Thirteenth Amendment states, in pertinent part, that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” U.S. Const. amend. XIII, § 1.
Order requiring Congress to . . . [r]econstruct [those] Amendments” so as to omit the offensive
terms. (Id. at 34.)
Plaintiff similarly claims that his rights to religious exercise under RLUIPA, the First
Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, the Tennessee Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause, and the
Tennessee Religious Freedom and Restoration Act are substantially burdened by the use of racially

offensive language in Article I, Section 33 of the Tennessee Constitution.3 (Id. at 24–25.) These
claims are asserted against the State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and the
Tennessee Constitution. As relief, Plaintiff asks this Court to order the “reconstruct[ion]” of the
Tennessee Constitution “to remove the reenslavement clause therein.” (Id. at 35.)
The remainder of the Complaint challenges TDOC policies, both official and unofficial,
which allegedly “substantially limit[] isolated and group prayer” that is required by the Muslim
faith; ban the Sunni Muslim religious text “The Reliance of the Traveler”; discriminate against
“African hair care” that is required by the Qur’an; force inmates to work for wages so low as to
justify regarding them as slaves or “property in man”; and treat female inmates more favorably
than male inmates. (Id. at 26–31.)4 As relief for these claims, Plaintiff seeks money damages and

permanent injunctive relief against TDOC and its Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of
Prisons. (Id. at 35–36.)

3 This provision of the State Constitution states “[t]hat slavery and involuntary servitude, except as
a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, are forever prohibited in this
State.” Tenn. Const. art. I, § 33.

4 One additional count of the Complaint challenging TDOC policies (“COUNT IX,” Doc. No. 1 at
32–33, 36) has been voluntarily dismissed. (See Doc. No. 10.)
C. Analysis
1. Claim based on language of the Federal Constitution
Plaintiff’s claim against the Federal Defendants must be dismissed. RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc-1(a), “applies to prisons that receive federal funds and prohibits state and local
governments from placing a ‘substantial burden’ on the ‘religious exercise’ of any inmate unless

they establish that the burden furthers a ‘compelling governmental interest’ and does so in the
‘least restrictive’ way.” Haight v. Thompson, 763 F.3d 554, 559 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting § 2000cc-
1(a)). These prohibitions only apply to state and local governments and officials, not the federal
government. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(4); Gustafson v. Corecivic, No. 4:19 CV 2039, 2020 WL
364226, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2020) (“By its express terms, the RLUIPA does not apply to
federal government entities or those acting under color of federal law.”) (quoting § 2000cc-5(4));
see also, e.g., Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 217 (4th Cir. 2006) (finding that “RLUIPA deals
exclusively with state, rather than federal, prisons”). Accordingly, the Federal Defendants are not
subject to suit under RLUIPA.

Even if the Federal Defendants could be sued under RLUIPA, Plaintiff’s claim that the
“racially offensive” language of the Constitution violates his rights under RLUIPA––and must
therefore be amended so as not to offend him––is frivolous. RLUIPA protects against the
substantial and unwarranted burdening of an inmate’s right to “religious exercise”; it does not
safeguard a perceived right to avoid having one’s religious sensibilities offended. See Univ. of
Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 988 F. Supp. 2d 912, 920 (N.D. Ind. 2013) (explaining that the “substantial
burden” inquiry under the analogous Religious Freedom Restoration Act is “not [focused] on
whether government action is offending the plaintiff’s religious sensibilities”), aff’d sub nom.
Univ. of Notre Dame v. Burwell, 786 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2015); Ave Maria Found. v. Sebelius, 991
F. Supp. 2d 957, 964 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (finding that “[t]he substantial burden requirement reflects
[older] Free Exercise jurisprudence” and generally is satisfied only “if the government compels an
individual to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits or
place[s] substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs”
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Bullard v. Sundstrom, No. 16-12918, 2017

WL 4080551, at *3, 5 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 14, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 16-
CV-12918, 2017 WL 4073958 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 14, 2017) (finding no merit in prisoner’s claim
that prison guard’s language “desecrating and belittling his religion” could rise to the level of a
First Amendment or RLUIPA violation) (citing cases). Finally, and more fundamentally,
Plaintiff’s claim is misguided because it is statutory language that must be held to the standards of
the Constitution, not the other way around. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 755 (1999)
(discussing States’ obligation to comply with “binding” or “valid” federal statutes, defined as
“federal statutes that comport with the constitutional design”). For these reasons, Plaintiff’s claim
against the Federal Defendants will be dismissed.

2. Claims based on language of the Tennessee Constitution
Likewise, Plaintiff’s claims that his religious rights are substantially burdened by the use
of racially offensive language in Article I, Section 33 of the Tennessee Constitution must be
dismissed. Like verbal harassment from a state official, the State’s promulgation of constitutional
language that some constituents might regard as offensive “does not embody the type of coercive
pressure which amounts to a substantial burden on religious exercise.” Stepter v. Warden, Hocking
Corr. Facility, No. 2:12-CV-01209, 2013 WL 4456043, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2013) (quoting
Copenhaver v. James, No. 06–11111, 2008 WL 162547, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Jan.17, 2008)). As ably
summarized by the Tennessee Court of Appeals two decades ago,
The free exercise protections in the federal and state constitutions are intended to
apply to the widest possible scope of religious conduct. They do not, however,
permit every citizen to become a law unto himself, and they do not require the
government to conduct its affairs in ways that comport with the religious beliefs of
particular citizens. Government simply could not operate if it were required to
satisfy every citizen’s religious needs and desires.

Claims based on religious convictions or rights of conscience do not automatically
entitle persons to establish unilaterally the terms and conditions of their relations
with the government. For the past fifty years, the courts have consistently declined
to mechanically subordinate society’s interests to individual religious conscience.
To do so would be to make individual religious beliefs superior to the law of the
land, and would thereby destroy the rule of law on which our pluralistic society is
based. Neither the federal nor the state constitutions give individuals a veto power
over government actions that do not prohibit the free exercise of religion.

State ex rel. Comm’r of Transp. v. Med. Bird Black Bear White Eagle, 63 S.W.3d 734, 762–63
(Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Notably, the language of
Article I, Section 33 of the Tennessee Constitution that Plaintiff finds offensive is on the ballot––
where it is properly subject to challenge and amendment––this November. See
https://sos.tn.gov/amendments (last visited Nov. 8, 2022). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against
the State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and the Tennessee Constitution will be
dismissed.
3. Claims based on TDOC policies
a. Proper Defendants
Plaintiff sues TDOC and its Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner for monetary and
nonmonetary relief, claiming that certain official policies in effect within the state prison system
violate his rights to religious freedom and equal protection. (Doc. No. 1 at 25–31, 34–35.) The
Court liberally construes the Complaint to assert such constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, which “provides an exclusive remedy for violations against state actors sued in their
official capacities.” Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 577 (6th Cir. 2008). The Complaint does not
specify the capacity in which the TDOC Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner are sued, but
it fails to identify them by name or allege that either were personally involved in any violation of
Plaintiff’s rights. Their personal liability is therefore not supported under Section 1983. See Polk
County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Miller v. Calhoun Cnty., 408 F.3d 803, 817 n.3 (6th
Cir. 2005). Rather, these individuals appear to be sued in their official capacity, as the officers in

charge of implementing the TDOC policies targeted in this action.
“There are two elements to a § 1983 claim. First, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant
acted under color of state law. Second, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant’s conduct deprived
the plaintiff of rights secured under federal law.” Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, Tenn., 695 F.3d
531, 539 (6th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
TDOC, a state agency, does not act under color of state law; rather, it is “considered part
of the State of Tennessee for purposes of federal civil rights claims.” Bostic v. Tennessee Dep’t of
Corr., No. 3:18-CV-00562, 2018 WL 3539466, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. July 23, 2018) (citing Hix v.
Tenn. Dep’t of Corrs., 196 F. App’x 350, 355 (6th Cir. 2006)). As such, it is entitled to Eleventh

Amendment immunity from suit in federal court unless the State consents or Congress abrogates
its immunity. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989); Alabama v.
Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); Wingo v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 499 F. App’x 453, 454 (6th Cir.
2012). Congress did not abrogate states’ immunity in passing Section 1983, and Tennessee has not
consented to being sued under that statute in federal court. Jones v. Dep’t of Corr., No. 3:20-CV-
00340, 2021 WL 2316792, at *6 (M.D. Tenn. June 7, 2021), report and recommendation adopted,
2021 WL 3285472 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 2, 2021) (citing Berndt v. Tennessee, 796 F.2d 879, 881 (6th
Cir. 1986)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against TDOC must be dismissed.
However, TDOC employees are state actors and proper defendants in an action under
Section 1983, even though TDOC itself is not. Brennan v. Mays, No. 3:19-CV-00948, 2020 WL
6900138, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 23, 2020). Because an official-capacity suit against state
employees “is no different from a suit against the State itself,” Will, 491 U.S. at 71, the Eleventh
Amendment bar “remains in effect when State officials are sued for damages in their official

capacity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985); see also Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d
587, 594 (6th Cir. 2003). Although RLUIPA’s prohibitions explicitly apply to both the state and
its officers, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(4), “[t]he Sixth Circuit has also applied Eleventh Amendment
immunity to RLUIPA claims when a prisoner sues officials in their official capacities for monetary
damages.” Pleasant-Bey v. Tennessee Dep’t of Corr., No. 2:15-CV-00174-RLJ-CRW, 2020 WL
5791789, at *6 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 28, 2020) (citing Cardinal v. Metrish, 564 F.3d 794, 799 (6th
Cir. 2009)); see Haight, 763 F.3d at 570 (RLUIPA does not allow money damages against state
prison officials in their official or individual capacities). Thus, Plaintiff cannot recover the
compensatory and punitive damages he seeks in this action.

The Defendant officials may properly be sued in their official capacity for prospective
injunctive relief, however. Puckett v. Lexington-Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 833 F.3d 590, 598 (6th
Cir. 2016). In particular, the Commissioner of TDOC is appropriately sued as the official
responsible for carrying out any injunctive order that may issue. See Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663
F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 2011). It is unclear at this early stage whether the Assistant Commissioner
of Prisons is a necessary party for such purposes, or whether the claims against him are redundant
of the claims against the TDOC Commissioner. For purposes of initial review, the Court assumes
that both officials are properly included in this action.
b. Claims based on religious exercise
Plaintiff claims that the Defendant officials have violated his rights under RLUIPA, the
State and Federal Constitutions, and other state laws in four different ways. First, he claims that
Defendants violated his rights by implementing TDOC Policy 118.01(C)(10), “which bans prayer
during the night-time, and bans Salaht-ul Jama’ah ‘corporate or group prayer’ unless during

‘scheduled religious activities.’” (Doc. No. 1 at 26.) He alleges that these limitations on when and
how he can pray substantially burden the exercise of his Muslim faith, which requires him to pray
both at night and in groups. (Id.) Second, Plaintiff claims that his rights under the aforementioned
authorities have been violated by Defendants’ implementation of the TDOC ban of “the Sunni
Muslim Fiqh Book: The Reliance of the Traveler,” when other religious books used by inmates of
other religious faiths are not banned. (Id. at 27.) Third, he claims a violation based on Defendants’
provision of only “African hair care products that are all designed to straighten inmates with Black
African hair to give the appearance of it becoming White or European-like hair,” rather than
“Natural African Hair Care Products (i.e., Coconut oil, tea tree oil, African Pride hair care

products, and Lock and Shine)” that would “maintain . . . Black African hair in its natural state”
and satisfy the Muslim faith’s injunction to properly care for one’s hair and beard. (Id. at 28.)
Fourth, Plaintiff claims that his religious exercise is substantially burdened by only being paid
$0.34 per hour at his prison job, wages which “are unquestionably slave wages that recognize the
Plaintiff and inmates in TDOC as the ‘property in man’” that is prohibited by the anti-slavery
tenets of his faith and the State and Federal Constitutions, particularly when compared with TDOC
employees and “inmates working for TRICOR PIE Programs” who make no less than minimum
wage. (Id. at 29–30.)
These TDOC policies are subject to scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is applicable to the states via the Fourteenth
Amendment. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531 (1993).
“Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, including its directive that
no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.” O’Lone v. Est. of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348

(1987) (citations omitted). Prisoners have a First Amendment right to practice their religious
beliefs and must be provided “reasonable opportunities” to do so. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,
523 (1984). Nevertheless, an inmate’s First Amendment right to exercise his religious beliefs may
be subjected to reasonable restrictions and limitations attendant to the prison setting. Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 549–51 (1979) (holding that limited restriction against receipt of hardback
books under certain circumstances was a rational response to a security problem and did not violate
First Amendment rights of inmates); Pollock v. Marshall, 845 F.2d 656, 658–60 (6th Cir. 1988)
(holding that plaintiff who challenged regulation limiting the length of prisoners’ hair failed to
establish a constitutional violation, as he did not demonstrate he was prevented from practicing his

religion in ways other than being required to comply with safety- and security-based hair length
regulation). The Supreme Court has held generally that “neutral, generally applicable laws that
incidentally burden the exercise of religion usually do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the
First Amendment.” Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853, 859 (2015) (citing Employment Div., Dept. of
Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 878–882 (1990)). When a prison policy is
alleged to unduly burden an inmate’s religious practice in violation of the First Amendment, the
offending policy will nonetheless prove valid if it is “reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987); Maye v. Klee, 915 F.3d 1076, 1083 (6th Cir.
2019).
RLUIPA was enacted in response to these recognized limitations on First Amendment
religious protections, for the specific purpose of providing “very broad protection for religious
liberty.” Holt, 135 S. Ct. at 859 (quoting Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751,
2760 (2014)). The Supreme Court has commented on the broad shelter RLUIPA provides to
religious practices:

Several provisions of RLUIPA underscore its expansive protection for religious
liberty. Congress defined “religious exercise” capaciously to include “any exercise
of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”
§ 2000cc–5(7)(A). Congress mandated that this concept “shall be construed in favor
of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the
terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” § 2000cc–3(g). And Congress stated
that RLUIPA “may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations
to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.” § 2000cc–3(c).
Holt, 135 S. Ct. at 860. In order to state a claim for a RLUIPA violation, an inmate must allege
that his “request for an accommodation [is] sincerely based on a religious belief” and that the
defendant’s “policy substantially burdened that exercise of religion.” Id. at 862; Cavin v. Mich.
Dep’t of Corrs., 927 F.3d 455, 458 (6th Cir. 2019). In order to establish a “substantial burden” for
the purpose of RLUIPA, an inmate is not required to demonstrate that he has no alternative means
of practicing his religion, that the exercise in question is “compelled” by his religion, or even that
it is “central” to his religion. Holt, 135 S. Ct. at 862. RLUIPA prohibits the “substantial burden”
of religious exercise except when the government can demonstrate that its policy is the least
restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Id. at 861.
Assuming the truth of Plaintiff’s allegations, as the Court must on initial review, he has
arguably stated First Amendment and RLUIPA claims against the Defendant officials with respect
to the first and second claims identified above. Further development is required to determine
whether Defendants can establish a legitimate interest to which their alleged policies of (1) limiting
night- and group-prayer time and (2) banning a book “which teaches on all fundamental aspects”
of the Sunni Muslim faith (Doc. No. 1 at 27) are sufficiently tailored to withstand scrutiny under
either the First Amendment or RLUIPA.
However, Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim to relief with respect to Defendants’
provision of only certain types of African hair products. Under both RLUIPA and the First
Amendment, Plaintiff must allege that his religious exercise is substantially impacted by the policy

in question. He alleges that his religion requires him “to take care of his natural African hair”
without “changing [its] nature,” and that Defendants provide certain “African hair care products”
but not such products as will maintain “Black African hair in its natural state.” (Doc. No. 1 at 28.)
He alleges that the African hair care products provided “are all designed to straighten inmates[’]
. . . hair.” (Id.) But Plaintiff’s allegations of a broad requirement that he care for his hair without
changing its nature do not specify his particular religious restrictions around haircare sufficiently
to support a plausible claim of a substantial burden on religious exercise or a substantial
infringement of First Amendment rights. See Hall v. Conover, No. 3:16-CV-0044-GFVT, 2018
WL 1526018, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 28, 2018) (in the absence of explanation of more “specific

religious hair care requirements,” court could not conclude that plaintiff’s “religious rights have
been substantially burdened or otherwise infringed upon” based on plaintiff’s general assertion
that Rastafarian religion requires different products than those provided).
Furthermore, with respect to Plaintiff’s claim that the low hourly wage he earns at his
prison job results in his “being treated as a slave,” depriving him of his right to be treated the same
as inmate minimum-wage earners in the “TRICOR PIE Programs” and burdening his religious
mandate of being only “[t]he Slave of Allah, not the Slave of anyone or anything other” (Doc. No.
1 at 29), such claims “are frivolous and merit little discussion.” West v. Phelps, No. CV 17-1300-
GMS, 2017 WL 6029586, at *4 (D. Del. Dec. 4, 2017). In the absence of any allegation that he is
paid less per hour than other inmates for discriminatory reasons, rather than due to the fact that his
job is less skilled (as per alleged TDOC Policy 504.04(VI)(B)(1)5) or the fact that he is not enrolled
in the “TRICOR PIE” program (a certification program that “allows state prison industries to sell
manufactured goods in interstate commerce and to bid on Federal contracts”6), Plaintiff cannot
plausibly claim any constitutional violation resulting from being paid sub-minimum wage for his

work while incarcerated. Davis v. Prison Health Servs., 679 F.3d 433, 438 (6th Cir. 2012) (stating,
in prison employment case, that Equal Protection Clause “protects against invidious discrimination
among similarly-situated individuals or implicating fundamental rights.” (quoting Scarbrough v.
Morgan Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 470 F.3d 250, 260 (6th Cir. 2006)). Moreover, as a prisoner, he is not
entitled to the protection of minimum-wage laws, Gustafson, 2020 WL 364226, at *2 (citing
Abdullah v. Myers, 52 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 1995)), nor can he plausibly claim a right to relief based
on his perception of being “treated as” or “recognized as” “a slave[] not being worthy of making
minimum wage.” (Doc. No. 1 at 29); West, 2017 WL 6029586, at *4 (finding that Constitution
“prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude,” and rejecting claim that alleged “slave wages” for

prison job qualify as such).
In sum, Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief based on the alleged policies of (1) limiting
night- and group-prayer time and (2) banning a book “which teaches on all fundamental aspects”
of the Sunni Muslim faith (Doc. No. 1 at 27) will proceed for further development, while his claims
based on hair products and job earnings will be dismissed.

5 (See Doc. No. 1 at 29 n.31.)

6 See Tennessee Rehabilitative Initiative in Correction (TRICOR), https://www.tn.gov/tricor/join-
our-mission.html (last visited Nov. 8, 2022).
c. Claim of sex-based discrimination
Plaintiff claims that the Defendant officials are “deliberately and intentionally denying him
Equal Protection of the laws, treating the female TDOC inmates more favorably than the male
TDOC inmates[,] by”:
(1) Providing the female inmates with Computerized Kiosk Tablet Operated
Systems that provide email, video visitation, gaming and other benefits to female
inmates in TDOC, but . . . refus[ing] to equally provide those same privileges . . .
to the male inmates in TDOC;

(2) Providing female TDOC inmates with the special privilege of being
called and recognized by TDOC Staff members and Officers as “Residents,” but
identifying the TDOC male inmates with the derogatory term “Offenders,” which
is highly offensive [and] . . . also is offensive to [Plaintiff’s] religious beliefs that
require he be identified by all respectful terms of identification . . .; and

(3) Providing the female TDOC inmates . . . the privilege to keep their
children over the weekend in special program units, but have totally denied these
special privileges to all male TDOC inmates.

(Doc. No. 1 at 31 & n.32.) With regard to the third item above, Plaintiff clarifies that “these special
privileges must be limited to certain [female] inmates who qualify for them,” but are not provided
to any male inmates. (Id. at n.33.)
“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that a state may not
‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ which is essentially a
direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” Shabazz v. Schofield, No. 3:13-
cv-00091, 2013 WL 704408, at *19 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 26, 2013) (quoting U.S. Const., amend.
XIV). “The threshold element of an equal protection claim is disparate treatment.” Tellis v. G.
Stoddard, No. 1:22-CV-733, 2022 WL 4180620, at *9 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 13, 2022) (citing
Scarbrough v. Morgan Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 470 F.3d 250, 260 (6th Cir. 2006)). To adequately plead
such a claim, a plaintiff must allege that the government is intentionally treating him differently
“as compared to similarly situated persons and that such disparate treatment either burdens a
fundamental right, targets a suspect class, or has no rational basis." Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform,
Inc. v. Napolitano, 648 F.3d 365, 379 (6th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted); see Ryan v. City of Detroit, 174 F. Supp. 3d 964, 971 (E.D. Mich. 2016), aff’d sub nom.
Ryan v. City of Detroit, MI, 698 F. App’x 272 (6th Cir. 2017) (“The Equal Protection Clause
prohibits only intentional discrimination.”) (citing Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239

(1976)). “‘Similarly situated’ is a term of art” requiring a comparator who is “similar in ‘all
relevant respects.’” Paterek v. Vill. of Armada, 801 F.3d 630, 650 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting United
States v. Green, 654 F.3d 637, 651 (6th Cir. 2011)).
Plaintiff alleges that female inmates receive tablet computer privileges that male inmates
do not, and that a standard is in place through which certain female inmates, but none of their male
counterparts, may “qualify for” weekend visitation with their children. (Doc. No. 1 at 31 n.33.)
However, these allegations are not sufficient to plausibly establish that he is being purposefully
discriminated against. Plaintiff’s allegations regarding tablet computer privileges do not support a
reasonable inference of discrimination in favor of female inmates who are similar to him in all

relevant respects, including their security classification. See Mader v. Sanders, 67 F. App’x 869,
871 (6th Cir. 2003) (rejecting equal protection claim because, e.g., “Mader has not alleged any
facts to support the premise that persons similarly situated to him, who hold the same or similar
security classification as Mader, have been afforded favorable treatment . . . which has been denied
him”). As to the claimed disparity with regard to weekend child visitation, that disparity is between
male and female inmates with (presumably young) children, but Plaintiff does not allege that he
has children and would thus be eligible for this program if it were offered to male inmates. It is
thus not clear that he even has standing to pursue this claim, much less that he is similarly situated
in all relevant respects to the female TDOC inmates allegedly treated more favorably. Accordingly,
these equal protection claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to file an
amended complaint providing the additional factual support necessary to plausibly claim
entitlement to relief. See LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding “that
under Rule 15(a) a district court can allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint even when the
complaint is subject to dismissal under the PLRA”).

However, Plaintiff’s claim that an equal protection violation may be found in female
inmates’ “special privilege” of being referred to as “residents” rather than “offenders” by TDOC
staff, while male inmates are called “offenders” (a practice which is also “offensive to his religious
beliefs” requiring that he be identified using only respectful terms) (Doc. No. 1 at 31), is wholly
without merit and incapable of being rendered viable by an amendment to assert additional factual
allegations. See, e.g., Bullard, 2017 WL 4080551, at *5 (finding no merit in claims based on prison
guard’s use of language offensive to prisoner’s religious beliefs “[r]egardless of the theory, First
Amendment or RLUIPA,” and finding that “Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim likewise fails on
this basis”) (citing cases); Violett v. Reynolds, 76 F. App’x 24, 27 (6th Cir. 2003) (use of offensive

and abusive language toward inmate does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation); Univ.
of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 988 F. Supp. 2d at 920 (rejecting claim that government action which
is merely offensive to plaintiff’s religious sensibilities violates the right to religious freedom). This
claim based on the use of disparate––and, as Plaintiff sees it, offensive––terminology will be
dismissed.
II. CONCLUSION
In sum, the Court will dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief, as well as his
claims for injunctive relief against all Defendants except the TDOC Commissioner and Assistant
Commissioner of Prisons.
The First Amendment and RLUIPA claims for injunctive relief against the TDOC
Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Prisons, as well as any state-law claims that relate
to the same operative facts,’ will proceed for further development as they relate to alleged TDOC
policies of (1) limiting night- and group-prayer time and (2) banning a book which teaches on
fundamental aspects of the Sunni Muslim faith. Otherwise, Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief
to vindicate his religious freedoms will be dismissed.
Plaintiff's claims under the Equal Protection Clause will also be dismissed. With respect
to such claims that challenge the unequal privileges of male TDOC inmates regarding tablet
computer access and weekend child visitation, the dismissal will be without prejudice to Plaintiff’ s
ability to file an amended complaint asserting additional factual allegations as described herein.
An appropriate Order will enter.
Alle
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 See Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 832 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Edwards’s state-law negligence claim
relates to the same set of operative facts as his Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference, and
therefore [may proceed].”).
18

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10438274. Public record. Not legal advice.