Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Gregory Thomas, Petitioner v. Tom Corbett, et al.

Supreme Court briefOct 1, 2019

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

8E4I

No.

In The

Supreme Court of the Unite States

GREGORY THOMAS,

Petitioner,

TOM CORBETT, ET AL, GOVERNOR OF

PENNSYLVANIA, JOHN E. WETZEL, ET

AL., SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS,

SHIRLEY R. MOORE SMEAL, DEPUTY

SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, HIS

POLICY EXECUTIVE BOARD MAKERS

SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES

AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES,

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner is Gregory Thomas

Respondents are four employees of

The Pennsylvania Department of Correction:

And Governor of the State of Pennsylvania

Tom Corbett

John E. Wetzel

Shirley R. Moore Smeal /and Policy Makers.

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

OCT 01 2013

Respondents

a oMSatfriSiiy AI

y u £j -W: ti a

On Petition For a Writ of Certiorari

To The United States Court of Appeals

For the Commonwealth Court

Of Pennsylvania

RECEIVED

PETITIONER FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

FEB 2 8 2020

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT. U.S.

Gregory Thomas, Pro’se litigate

SCI-Albion

10745 Route 18

Albion, PA 16475-0002

iii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Table of Contents

1. Whether the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Visiting policy violates the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Person Act of 2000, U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.

(2006), when it prohibits a religious conjugal visit request not to

stay overnight. To the extent .the prison policy .allows, the

LGBTQ Prisoners to marry and live in the same prison as

cellmates.

2. Whether the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

cellmate policy Discriminates against heterosexual inmate who

requested a religious Conjugal Visit, Under the Religious Land

Use and Institutionalized Person Act. Not to stay overnight But

authorizes the LGBTQ inmates to live together as cellmates and

spouse -Married to one another .

3. Whether Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Prayer Oil

Policy Prohibiting Petitioner from possessing Prayer Oil in his

cell for Worship Burdens Petitioner’s Religious Exercise and

Violates his RLUIPA right.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED................................. ..........

PARTIES OF THE PROCEEDINGS................................

TABLES OF AUTHORITIES..........................................

OPINIONS BELOW........................................................

JURISDICTION.................................... .......................

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

INVOLVED....................................................................

INTRODUCTION............................................................

STATEMENT.................................................................

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.........................................

ARGUMENT...................................................................

..16

RESPONDENTS HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY BURDEN

PETITIONERS EXERCISE OF RELIGION.....................

CONCLUSION.

.20

.:....23

RECEIVED

APR- 8 2020

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT, U.S.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

PAGES(S)

■

...18

Abbott v. United States, 313 S. Ct. 18. 28-29 (2010)

City of Boenrne v. Flores, 521, U.S. 507, (1997)....

..17

Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 714 (2005)........

Dluhos v. Straberg, 321 F. 3d 365, 369, (3d Cir. 2003)......8

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal,

546, UiS,418, 436 (2006)

Gray v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. Cal., 387 F. 2d 935, 936 (3d

Cir.2003)

Johnson v. Bi- State Justice Center/ Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 12 F. 3d

133, 136, (8th Cir. 1093).......... ................ ............ i....... 11

Kauffman v. Moss, 420, F.2d 1270 1276, (3d Cir. 1970)

O Centro, 546 U.S........................................................

O Centro, 546, U.S. 418.............. .................................

O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S, 343, 349,(1987) (quoting

Turner v. Safley, 482, U.S. 78, 89 (1987)

Turner v. Safley, 482, U.S. 78 (1987).....

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 6 SCt,'1064,118 U.S. 365, U.S. Cal. 1886.

CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a)...........................

RFRA Religious Freedom Restoration Act

General

42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.......................

RLUIPA 42 U.S.C. § 42 2000cc-l............

42 U.S.C. § 42 U.S. C. 2000bb-l.............

Religious Land Use and Institutionalize Person Act,

17,18,19,20

General.............................

42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(4)

42 U.S.C. § 2O0Occ-l(a)

42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-l (b)

42 U:S.C. § 2000cc -5(2)

42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(3)

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(g)

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(a)

CONCLUSION

New York and California, and Washington State all have

Conjugal Visit, the Free Spouse is allowed her Marriage Status

. Visit Overnight.

The Hoffmann, Dickerson and Dunn (2007) point out that

conjugal visitation helps to improve the functioning of a

marriage by maintaining an inmates role as husband or wife,

improve the inmate behavior while incarcerated, counter the

effects of prisonization, and improve post-release success by

enhancing the inmates ability to maintain ties with his or her

family. Additionally because conjugal visitation is reported to

reduce homosexual activity and because AIDS is often spread

by homosexual activity, conjugal visitation may help to

attenuate the spread of AIDS in prison.

Viii

We’re entering in interregnum where the institutions of

incarceration don’t work for all because of new constitutional

laws and both society members — we need to build new ones

compatible to new laws, statutes, with constitutional protections

for all citizens- The free family members.

The Courts are somewhat left behind, where conjugal Visits are

concern, because the Institutions that have them no longer refer

the them as Conjugal Visits, the now called Family Visits

because any direct family member can visit overnight.

PETITIONER FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI_

The March 22,2019 opinion of the Commonwealth

Court of Pennsylvania set forth, the accompany

order. Granted in favor of Respondents on the

claims presented to the Court, the religious conjugal

visit, and the worship prayer oil. At No. 458 M, D,

2013.

These RLUIPA Questions will not be addressed by

the lower Courts federal and State of Pennsylvania

because they feel the courts have already answered

the questions.

Petitioner, Gregory Thomas, respectfully asks

This Court to issue a writ of certiorari to review

Decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Entered in this case on July 17, 2019

OPINIONS BELOW

The July 17, 2019 opinion of the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court is ordered with the Appellee’s

Motion to Quash Appeal is granted, without

Prejudice to Appellant’s ability to raise the claims

Therein on appeal form a final order of the

Commonwealth Court See United States Orgs. For

Bankr. Alts. Inc. v. Dep’t of Banking, 26 A. 3D 474

(PA.2011).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Person Act. Of 2000. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.

(2006).

.abridging the

Congress shall make no law

right of the people ...to petition the Government

for a redress of grievances.

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pro

vides, in pertinent part:

(d) Pleading to Be Concise and Direct;

Alternative; Inconsistency...

JURISDICTION

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court of Appeals

entered its final judgment on July, 2019. Petitioner

is requesting this Court to finalize the questions

under RLUIPA and Discrimination, and Equal

Protection Clause.

(2) Alternative Statements of Claim or Defense.

A party may set out 2 or more statements of a claim

Or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in

a single count or defense or in separate ones,...

. (3) Inconsistent Claims or Defenses. A party' may

State as many separate claims or defense as it has,

Regardless of consistency.

(e) Construing Pleadings. Please must be construed

So as to do justice.

Rule 56 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure provides,

In pertinent part:

(3)... The court need consider... the cited materials.-

INTRODUCTION

In the past, all Federal Courts have ruled Conjugal visits are not protected by any

laws or Constitutional protections. This rational was rooted in history of laws

before samesex marriage laws. States with authorized samesex marriage laws

where prisoners can marry another prisoner in the same prison and prison policy

authorizes inmates to become cellmates by compatibility presents two

constitutional questions unanswered by this court that effects Societal Marriage

institutions which efTects today's society as a whole. The Discrimination question

for a heterosexual inside the prison walls, who request a conjugal visit and the

RLUIPA Question of burdening the religious right to a conjugal visit for the free .

spouse. Petitioner's religion states he is ordered by his LORD to provide his wife

her sexual intimacy rights as a form of worship, when she makes that requests for

it. ‘Or she has a right to Divorce him.

In this case, the Petitioner is being threaten by divorce because of the religious

burdening from Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Visiting Policy. THE

PRAYER OIL all Federal Prison allow prisoners to possess prayer oil in their cells

for worship prayers, and 40 state prisons sale prayer oil in the prison commissary

and allow P.Oil, in their cells for worship. Pennsylvania allowed prisoners to

possess prayer oil in cells for 40 years and now it's prohibited because of a new

administration.

Each American Prison has its own theory of why conjugal visits are not protected

by state and federal laws and constitutional protection. The difference is that this

case presents first impressions and seeks relief under a federal Civil Rights statutes

specifically designed to protect the religious exercise of prisoners. 42 U.S.C.tj

2000cc et seq. (2006) And Bill of Rights protects the Petitioner and the (RLU1PA),

and under a precedent that requires robust and individualized application of strict

scrutiny, Gonzales v. 0 Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Vegeta. 546 U.S 418

(2006).

The state- imposed burden on petitioner’s religious practices Prayer oil for all 5

prayers in his cell, and His religious obligation to provide sexual intimacy to his

wife on a visit not to stay overnight. Respondents say they can allow no exceptions

to the religious request for a conjugal visit and prayer oil to possess in his cell

because of security concerns. But the defense is not tenable when forty state prisons

allow prayer oil in commissary and all federal prisons allow prayer oil in cells. And

4 American State prisons allow conjugal visits to stay over night. And Respondents

prisons allow prisoners to marry other prisoners in the same prison and live in the

same cell together.

The defense is also untenable because the evidence offered to support it is too weak

to satisfy RLUIPA’s compelling interest test or to merit any deference from

samesex spouse within the prisons living together as cellmates. The prejudice is

rooted in draconian old prison history of thinking; before the samsex laws from this

court. The defendants issues raised are post-hoc rationalizations for bureaucratic

stubbornness, or worse.

2. Petitioner stated the religious obligations presented is “sound hadith, a subject

of much study in Islam, refers to the reliability with which a teaching is attributed

to the Prophet. Petitioner cited the Sahih Al-bukhari, which is widely accepted as

the soundest, or most authoritative, collection of hadith. Multiple reports of the

same teaching are further evidence of soundness. This court must understand Prison

life is not the same Now because of samesex marriage laws. The rights of the

LGBTQ community of inmates are upheld to the highest degree, but the

heterosexual inmate's religious rights are being denied. The Free Spouse is not in

prison. If a spouse is sent to prison and the FREE spouse decides to support and

save her family and marriage, today's prison visiting rules should not be a burden

to the free persons religious rights and obligations that is due from the imprison

spouse. Constitutional sexual intimacy protections IS NOT AN OPEN AND SHUT

QUESTION ANY longer.

STATEMENT

1. Petitioner Gregory Thomas, also know and Jamal Mandela, is an inmate of the

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Petitioner is a devoted Muslim who seeks

to place prayer oil on his body for 5 obligated prayers of worship in his prison cell.

In accordance with the religious obligations of his faith and the OBLIGATION

worship of sexual intimacy to his wife. In according with the teaching of Prophet

Muhammad’s Hadith. And the Noble Quran of Islamic law. Petitioner believes that

faithful Muslims should obey the saying and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad’s

hadith AND the Noble Quran by his Lord Allah. Surah.4:80.

The LGBTQ inmates are living together in the same cells as married spouses. This

meth. that prisoners lose their sexual intimacy right by coming to prison is just that

a meth. Prisoners can have sex with samesex prisoners at any time and its legal and

prison policy from the Respondents authorizes it. The policy is clear, it states

unconsensual sex is prohibited. And the opposite is also true, consensual is legal

for same sex spouse.

3. Petitioner sought permission to possess prayer oil in his cell for all 5 worship

prayers through the prison grievance process and exhausted that potential remedy.

And to have a religious conjugal visit with his wife, night to stay overnight.

Throughout the grievance process and ensuing litigation petitioner took a

conservative approach to relief, although he understands hadith to require him to

provide sexual intimacy rights to his wife for 72 hours. Petitioner viewed the night

to stay overnight as a '•compromise.” Respondents rejected petitioner’s offer.

Because of the non-sexual rooted theory and prejudice for inmates in prison life.

4. Having exhausted his administrative remedies, petitioner filed a complaint, and

a motion for a preliminary injunction relief.

.r *

The States that have Conjugal visits have recorded the prisons are safer when

conjugal visits are implemented.

Prisoner's Rights Project

199 Water Street NY 100 NY10038

See Policies and Procedure

for the Family Reunion

Program. The data is clear

what benefits the Conjugal

visits plays for prison

security and family and

Prison Reforms that aid

Society Family Units.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recommended that Summary Judgement be

granted to the respondents. The issues at bar is first impression questions. Rooted

in history.

Courts

Pennsylvania

The

the

questions

answers

presented here were technical

rationals a Practice and Custom

rooted in judicial history when

answering

questions

about

conjugal visits. Not addressing

the RLUIPA claim according to

protected

rights. In

those

examining a pro'se Complaint,

liberally

court

must

the

plaintiff's

the

construe

the

apply

pleadings,

and

applicable law regardless of

whether to pro'se litigant has

mention

name. Dluhos

v. Straberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369,

(3d Cir. 2003). All "doubtful

questions" are to be resolved

the Plaintiff.

favor

Life

Gray

v. Occidental

Ins. Co. of Cal., 387 F.2d 935,

936 (3d Cir. 2003).

■ The court below treated this Pro'se inmate as if he was a train attorney, in violation

of the rulings by this court. Why? It was easy and the question is one for this court.

No court will answer this question after the samesex laws ruled on by this court

The Court is remined that

the considerations underly

ing the factual specificity

requirement "must be balance

against the equally important

policies that pro'se litigant

not be denied the opportunity

to state a civil rights claim

because of technicalities,

and that litigation, when

possible,should be decided

on the merits." Kauffman v.

Moss, 420 F.2d 1270 1276,

(3rd Cir. 1970)

In the Eighth Circuit, these statutory grounds have been expanded

to include cases in which the evidence is one- side that no further

proceedings are necessary. J.A. 170 Johnson v. Bi- State Justice

Center/ Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 12 F. 3d 133, 136, (8th Cir. 1993).

The States and Society, the Courts, has open the door to LGBTQ

civil rights, then they must all tolerate what walks through those

civil right doors, prison doors, Religious rights. The free spouse

is not in prison, their tax paying citizen requesting their religious

rights protected by Equal Protection, RLUIPA, AND the First

Amendment.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court refuse to adopt the RLUIPA

standards and answer the questions under the RLUIPA Statute.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 6 SCt, 1064,118 U.S. 365, U.S. Cal. 1886.

. Sovereignty itself belongs to the people. The people spokesamsex marriages is the law. Inside prison and out. The free

spouse.

I. RLUIPA’s text say that a substantial burden on a prisoner’s

exercise of religion can be justified only if imposition of that

burden on the prisoner is the least restrictive mean of furthering

a compelling government interest. This is the samestrictscrutiny standard that applies under the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act. (RFRA). Which this Court enforced according

to its terms in O Centro, 546, U.S. 418. The two statutes are in

pari material and substantially identical in their key provisions.

RLUIPA also places the burden of proving compelling interest

and least restrictive means on the government, but the Supreme

Court of Pennsylvania explicitly shifted that burden to the

petitioner.

II. Respondents bear the burden of proving their affirmative

defense under strict scrutiny because they have plainly imposed

a substantial burden on petitioner’s exercise of religion. They

prohibit him from complying with a compulsory obligations of

his faith and backed that prohibition with serious and cumulative

penalties.

III. A, Respondents have not come close to demonstrating either

compelling interest or least restrictive means. At least forty

states and all federal prison systems allow inmates to possess

prayer worship oil in their cells. At least four of the most

dangerous and larger prison allow conjugal visits. Respondents

cannot demonstrate a compelling interest without explaining

why the rule that works in these prison systems would not work

in Pennsylvania. Far from doing so, respondents freely admitted

they rely on the old laws and ruling before samesex marriage

laws allowed samesex prisoners to marry one another, live

together in the same prison cell.

B. They gave no example of any harm to security just

exaggerated rational because they dislike the conjugal visit

request. Respondents claim inmates can start a fire with the

prayer oil, but gave no example of it every happening, and did

not mention they no longer cell lighters.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case presents a basic question of statutory interpretation:

Dose the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

mean what it says or should the legislative history interpreted to

trump the statutory text and require extreme deference to

defendant’s prison officials? The petitioner believes it is his

Religious Obligation to provide sexual Religious intimacy to his

wife ordered by the Quran and hadith’s of the Prophet. The

petitioner’s wife is threaten to Divorce him. The respondents has

placed a burden on petitioner’s religious rights because he is a

heterosexual. Respondents visiting policy violates Equal

Protection for petitioner. Discriminates against petitioner,

. violates his RLUIPA request for his wife religious right.

Finally, respondents have personals prejudices against the

samesex laws, so they refuse to make the exemptions required

by RLUIPA, instead they refer to other states rulings before the

samesex laws. This simply shows their refusal to take RLUIPA

seriously; the statute works by requiring religious exemptions.

In the Men’s Prison Commissary list; Under Category

Cosmetics; The respondents sale women, Mascara Black, eye

pencil, Black, Lipstick, red/blue/shade. Oz/ Lipstick, Pink shade.

Oz/ Lipstick, brown.l3oz/ eye pencil Black brown 0.0005oz.

Under-Undergarments in this men prison Commissary list,

women’s briefs White, female Sports bra Quantity 3. This equal

protection is not available for the petitioner, or petitioner’s free

wife, and she is aware of it and threaten divorce.

C. The Lower Court accepted this rational from respondents not

because it demonstrated a compelling interest and least restrictive

means, but because they had to defer to prison officials. To be

sure, the legislative history mentions “ due deference to the

experience and expertise of prison and jail administrations;” but

the legislative history cannot shore up defective rational

arguments just to deny RLUIPA rights, much less override the

statutory text. If any deference is due, it is due to the cumulative

experience of the forty prison systems that would allow petitioner

to possess prayer worship oil in his cell for all his prayers each

day, and the four large dangerous prison system that would allow

him a conjugal visit according to their policy- not to the

conclusory and implausible old arguments made in this case

which does not answer the questions according to RLUIPA.

Some way affected by the prisoner’s religious claim. That is not

what RLUIPA says.

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

provides: “No government shall impose a substantial burden on

the religious exercise of a [prisoner]” unless “the government

demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person- (1) is

in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is

the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling

governmental interest. “42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a).

This statutory standard was enacted to supplement the much

weaker standard for prisoner claims under the Free Exercise

Clause, which requires only that the burden be “reasonable related

to legitimate penological interests.” O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz,

482 U.S. 343, 349 (1987) (quoting Turner .v Safley. 482, U.S 78,

89 (1987)). It is that weaker constitutional standard that the lower

court’s analysis parallels. But RLUIPA’s statutory rule is

different.

RLUIPA creates a distinct statutory standard providing

“heightened protection” for religious exercise. Cutter v.

Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 714 (2005). RLUIPA allows “prisoners

to seek religious accommodations under the same standard as set

forth in RFRA [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000bb et seq.]

D. The courts below according to orders are technical and based

on a mindset before samesex marriage laws, and abject deference

that cannot be squared with the statutory text. Instead of applying

RLUIPA, they applied the usual rational-basis standard

applicable to certain categories of prisoners’ constitutional claims

under Tuner v. Safley, 482, U.S.78 (1987). And wrongly shifted

the burden of proof from the respondents to petitioner. But

RLUIPA was enacted to provide a statutory alternative to the

Turner standard, and it explicitly places the burden of proving

compelling interest and least restrictive means on respondents.

When prison officials refuse to adhere to laws and constitutional

protected rights they don’t approve of the run to other states, who

think like them. In this case no state has answered the question of

Religious Conjugal visit; Not to Stay Over Night. And prayer

worship oil to possess in inmates cell is accepted in all federal

prisons, and 90% of states. Respondents feel RLUIPA law goes

too far. According to the conversation I had with them.

ARGUMENT

I. RLUIPA Enacts a Statutory Standard of Compelling Interest

and Least Restrictive Means.

A. The courts below required near-total deference to prison

officials under RLUIPA — so much deference that in order to

prevail, an official need simply name a penological interest in

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal,

546 U.S 418, 436 (2006). This standard is “the strict scrutiny

test.” Id. at 430.

The core provisions of RLUIPA were copied nearly

verbatim from RFRA; these provisions are in pari material and

substantively identical. Compare 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l (a)

(RLUIPA) with 42 U.S.C. § 42 U.S.C § 2000bb-l (RFRA). But

Congress’s carful coordination of the two statutes did not stop

there. Section 7 of RLUIPA amended RFRA to eliminate all

references to state law (thus conforming RFRA to the Court’s

decision in City of Boeme v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)), and to

incorporate into RFRA the definition of “ religious exercise”

enacted in RLUIPA. See 114 Stat. 803, 806 (2000) (RLUIPA); 42

U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(4) (RFRA). When one statute amends an

earlier, related statute, this further reason to construe the two

statutes together. See, e.g., Abbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18,

28-29(2010).

Both statutes provide that government may substantially

burden the exercise of religion only if it “demonstrates” that it has

used the least restrictive means to further a compelling interest.

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc—1(a) (RLUIPA); 42 U.S.C. § 2000bbl (b)

(RFRA).'

Both statutes define “demonstrates” as “meets the burdens of

going forward with the evidence and persuasion. ’42 U.S.C

2000cc-5(2)(RLUIPA) 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-2(3)(RFRA); O

Centro, 546 U.S. at 428 (interpreting this provision of RFRA).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court refuse to address or

answer the questions present in this appeal. It is therefore

insufficient to permit prison officials to defeat a RLUIPA

claim merely by asserting a general interest in prison

security. Which is what all lower courts do when confronted

with a Conjugal Visit request, whether it be a religious

request or other conjugal visit request.

RLUIPA is also broader than RFRA one respect. RLUIPA

provides that "[t}his chapter 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. "42 U.S.C. 42 2000cc-3(g).

IL Respondents Have Substantially Burden Petitioner's

Exercise of Religion.

Respondents have not seriously disputed that they substantially

burden petitioner’s religious exercise. RLUIPA defines” religious

exercise’ to include “ any exercise of religion, whether or not

compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief. “ 42

U.S.C. 2000cc-5(7)(a). Here, petitioner’s obligation to provide a

religious conjugal visit not to stay overnight to provide the

religious intimacy according to the hadith of . the prophet

Muhammad and the Noble Quran. And to possess Prayer worship

Oil in his cell for all his obligatory prayers is being denied. When

respondents have never contested petitioner’s sincerity.

Respondents have explicitly burden this religious exercises: If the

petitioner violates the rule against visiting policy’s he must suffer

the consequence include progressively escalating disciplinary

action. And label a bad person. ■

B. The legislative history of RLUIPA indicates that the

statutory standard of compelling interest and least

restrictive means is to be administered "with due deference

to the experience and expertise of prison and jail

administrators." But at the outset, it is important to note

that legislative history cannot override statutory text

A. If a American citizen go’s to prison and the spouse decides to

indoor the pain and separation for the years away; her religious

right to keep her family together should not be burden by prison

official visiting rules, she should be allowed to retain her religious

rights, just as other free persons visiting their spouse in American

prison. New York, California, etc.

III. Discrimination becomes a question for a Heterosexual who

request a religious conjugal visit not to stay overnight.

This old meth that prisoners lose their sexual rights to have sex

because of their imprisonment. Is an old meth and lie, petitioner

can have sex whenever he wants to, he just cannot have sex with

a women, or his wife. But he can have sex with a man. And its

legal. AND okay with prison staff. Is normal.

The prisoners do not need the prison or the state officials to marry

them, those days have changed. Prisoner now hold Minister

degrees and many inmate to inmates all the time. It’s cheaper and

more private. The courts must take their old ancient thinking of

prisons out of the stone ages.

RLUIPA religious conjugal visit request becomes a question.

Petitioner is not a lawyer and doing the best he can. Marriage is

older than the constitution. Marriage is a major part of society.

We are going full blast on LGBTQ rights in all our institutions

and neglecting Heterosexual religious rights.

I do not know what else to stay. Equal Protection should be

■ afforded to everyone. The free person is not in prison and should

not be force to give up her religious rights. The petitioner is being

harm of losing his wife and family. She is threatening divorce.

Request to be heard on CERTIORARI.

* •*

. 4*

Petitioner Arguments for all 2 Religious Questions and RLUIPA

Protections.

The First Amendment provides, in part, that “Congress shall

make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof. “ Familiar with life under the

established Church of England, the founding generation sought to

foreclose the possibility of a national church. By forbidding the

establishment of religion “and guaranteeing the free exercise

thereof’ the Religion Clause ensured that the new Federal

Govemment-unlike the English Crown-would have no role in

inference of religious tenets and others. Petitioner is protected in

part that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment

of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This Court

have said that these two Clause “often exert conflicting pressures,

“Cutter v. Wilkinson 544, U.S. 709 919(2005) and that there can

be “internal tension...between the Establishment Clause and the

Free Exercise Clause,

“Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S.672, 677 (1971) (plurality

opinion). Not so here. Both RLUIPA AND Religion Clause bar

the government from interfering with the decision of religious

practice as understood by petitioner and his wife. Controversy

between church and state over religious tenets is hardly new. In

1215, the issue was addressed in the first clause of Magna Carta.

There the King John agreed that” the English church shall be free,

and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties

unimpaired.”

Prisons have changed since samsex marriage laws. Male

prisoners are marrying male prisoners and it’s legal, living

together in the same prison cell and spouse. Prisoners no longer

have to depend on the state to many them.

This leaves the questions presented here.

PRAYER OIL: Every Federal Prison allow prisoners to possess

prayer oil in their cells for worship. Forty American State Prisons

do the same. Pennsylvania prisons allowed the same but every

new administration choses to violate RLUIPA at will.

The Honorable Justices in this Court has explain in new cases the

RLUIPA creates a distinct statutory standard providing

“heightened protection” for religious exercise. Cutter v.

Wilkinson, 544, U.S. 709, 714 (2005).

However, these questions have not yet been addressed since

samesex laws that has open the door even wider for Free Exercise

Protections within prison walls and its doors to the free person.

Marriage between a man and a woman seems to be unprotected

these days. Marriage between a man and a woman is not treated

equal in prisons these days. Marriage between the imprison

person and the free spouse is not protected as the LGBTQ

community inside prison walls. Example; In Pennsylvania

Prisons ,when the heterosexual inmates receive a visit from a

spouse, they cannot touch them doing the visit, kiss, hung,

embrace show affection, but the LGBTQ inmates are never

question when they show affection to their spouse, on visits , the

prison officials and staff are afraid to get political harassment.

Petitioner has no legal remedy at law: But to ask this Honorable

Court to address the Constitutional Questions. Doses RLUIPA

protect petitioner and his wife religious rights at issue under the

circumstance presented. And is it Discrimination to allow

samesex inmates to marry and live together as cellmates but deny

a RLUIPA request. Is petitioner protected by Free Exercise

Clause and RLUIPA to possess prayer oil in his cell for worship?

Petitioner did the best he could without legal assistance. And

petitioner has a learning disability, and is hearing impaired.

Addition on visits, if petitioner shows affection to his wife on a

visit, he will be punish with loss of visits, no more visits for a

year or more and sent to the segregated unit the (hole). But if a

member of the LGBTQ inmate shows affection nothing will

happen to them. Prisons are not the same as courts new them

before. Samesex Marriage laws changed everything.

toAdl us i on

for AW.

reasons,.AW\s

SV\du\A issut. ex uk°A C.tcVxoroLC'v Vo

ftA/itui 'H\t_ AuA^pntoV AaA 'D^{q!gc\5

\q\J^ 04ftW C.QLlAs V} aiaos^ -

WcADSt. ^f\e_. \ buttC C/oorVs AiVwxAoA

FeAeccA CoueV ?u\f ^

AoA

VAWuih Vi AUL Clb^ AflSUjLf'e.A AVil. ^)udA

5faoe_ JsJe.ua S\AVlk\l t^cV \ auAS

swu«f ^ ~

V AiOSc

tows

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.