Bench Trial,CLOSED
U.S. District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Western Division)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:15-ct-03053-BO

American Humanist Association, et al v. Perry, et al Assigned to: District Judge Terrence W. Boyle Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation

Date Filed: 02/25/2015 Date Terminated: 03/29/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff

American Humanist Association

represented by Monica L. Miller American Humanist Association 1821 Jefferson Place NW Washington, DC 20036 202-238-9088 Fax: 202-238-9003 Email: mmiller@americanhumanist.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David A. Niose American Humanist Association 1777 T Street NW Washington, DC 20009 202-238-9088 ext. 119 Fax: 202-238-9003 Email: dniose@americanhumanist.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Christopher Jackson Morningstar Law Group 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 530 Raleigh, NC 27601 919-829-7394 Fax: 919-829-7396 Email: cjackson@morningstarlawgroup.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kwame Jamal Teague
V. Defendant

John T. Kivus Morningstar Law Group 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 530 Raleigh, NC 27601 919-948-3849 Fax: 919-882-8890 Email: jkivus@morningstarlawgroup.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Swain Wood Morningstar Law Group 421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 530 Raleigh, NC 27601 9198297394 Fax: 919 829 7396 Email: swood@morningstarlawgroup.com TERMINATED: 01/11/2017
represented by Monica L. Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Niose (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Christopher Jackson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John T. Kivus (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Swain Wood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/11/2017

Frank L. Perry in his official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety
Defendant David Guice in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice

represented by Joseph Finarelli N.C. Dept. of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-716-6531 Fax: 919-716-6761 Email: jfinarelli@ncdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kari Johnson Johnson Batten Lee PLLC 4141 ParkLake Avenue, Suite 350 Raleigh, NC 27612 9197166920 Fax: 9197166764 Email: kjohnson@ncdoj.gov TERMINATED: 06/17/2016
Kimberly D. Grande Inmate Grievance Resolution Board 2020 Yonkers Road Raleigh, NC 27604 919-632-1049 Email: kimberly.grande@ncdps.gov TERMINATED: 01/23/2018
Thomas M. Woodward NC Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-716-6529 Fax: 919-716-6761 Email: twoodward@ncdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/29/2018
represented by Joseph Finarelli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kari Johnson Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2016

Defendant George Solomon in his official capacity as Director of Prisons
Defendant Betty Brown in her official capacity as Director of Chaplaincy Services
Defendant

Kimberly D. Grande (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/2018
Thomas M. Woodward (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2018
represented by Joseph Finarelli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kari Johnson Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2016
Kimberly D. Grande (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/2018
Thomas M. Woodward (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2018
represented by Joseph Finarelli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kari Johnson Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2016
Kimberly D. Grande (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/2018
Thomas M. Woodward (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2018

Gwen Norville in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Prisons
Defendant David Mitchell in his official capacity as Superintendent of Lanesboro Correctional Institution
Defendant Sara R. Cobb in her official capacity as Program Services Coordinator of Lanesboro Correctional Institution

represented by Joseph Finarelli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kari Johnson Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2016
Kimberly D. Grande (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/2018
Thomas M. Woodward (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2018
represented by Joseph Finarelli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kari Johnson Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2016
Kimberly D. Grande (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/23/2018
Thomas M. Woodward (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2018
represented by Joseph Finarelli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kari Johnson Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2016
Kimberly D. Grande (See above for address)

Date Filed 02/25/2015
02/25/2015 02/25/2015 02/25/2015 03/02/2015 03/02/2015

TERMINATED: 01/23/2018
Thomas M. Woodward (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/2018
# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION, Kwame Jamal Teague against Party Frank L. Perry, David Guice, George Solomon, Betty Brown, Gwen Norville, David Mitchell and Sara R. Cobb ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0417-3203740.),. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Cover Sheet, # 2 Proposed Summons Sara R Cobb Summons, # 3 Proposed Summons David Mitchell, # 4 Proposed Summons George Solomon, # 5 Proposed Summons Frank L Perry, # 6 Proposed Summons Gwen Norville, # 7 Proposed Summons W. David Guice, # 8 Proposed Summons Betty Brown, # 9 Exhibit 1 - Humanist Manifesto II & III, # 10 Exhibit 2 - Religious Practices Reference Manual, # 11 Exhibit 3 - Policy H0103, # 12 Exhibit 4 - Admin Remedy Procedure, # 13 Exhibit 5 - Teague letter to Brown, # 14 Exhibit 6 - AHA letter to Brown, # 15 Exhibit 7 - Brown letter to AHA, # 16 Exhibit 8 Brown letter to Teague, # 17 Exhibit A - Declaration of Randall Best, # 18 Exhibit 9 - Best letter to Brown, # 19 Exhibit 10 - AHA letter to Solomon & Brown, # 20 Exhibit 11 - Miller email to Brown) (Wood, W.) Modified on 3/2/2015 to change against all plaintiff to include defendants that were not added in the case opening procedure. (McDowell, G.). (Entered: 02/25/2015)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by W. Swain Wood on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Wood, W.) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
3 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION. (Wood, W.) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by John Christopher Jackson on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Jackson, John) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
5 ORDER - redesignating case as a Western Division Prisoner Civil Rights case. All future pleadings should reflect the revised case number of: 5:15-CT-3053-F. Signed by Jolie Skinner for Julie Richards Johnston, Clerk of Court on 3/2/2015. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
Case transferred in from Western Division Civil Case on on 03/02/2015. Case Number 5:15-cv-70. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 03/02/2015)

03/02/2015 03/02/2015
03/02/2015
03/02/2015 03/02/2015
03/03/2015 03/03/2015 03/26/2015 03/26/2015 04/15/2015 04/15/2015 04/15/2015

NOTICE OF CORRECTION regarding: 1 Complaint. The defendants were not added in CM/ECF and have now been added and docket entry corrected. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY regarding: 1 Complaint. Pursuant to Section B(3) of the Policy Manual - PDF Forms. When using fillable forms to file in CM/ECF, the court prefers that these forms be flattened. Please flatten the summonses and re-file. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY regarding: 1 Complaint - Pursuant to Section L(2)(c) of the policy manual - When filing a document with more than five (5) exhibits or attachments, the first attached exhibit or attachment must be an index of all of the subsequently attached documents. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
Case Submitted to Senior US District Judge James C. Fox: for complaint review. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
6 NOTICE by American Humanist Association regarding 1 Complaint, Proposed Summons to Frank L. Perry. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Summons to W. David Guice, # 2 Proposed Summons to George Solomon, # 3 Proposed Summons to Betty Brown, # 4 Proposed Summons to Gwen Norville, # 5 Proposed Summons to David Mitchell, # 6 Proposed Summons Sara R. Cobb) (Wood, W.) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
7 NOTICE of Appearance for non-district by Monica L. Miller on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Miller, Monica) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
8 NOTICE of Appearance for non-district by David A. Niose on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Niose, David) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
9 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CONTINUE MANAGEMENT OF CASE of Plaintiffs' claims. Signed by Senior US District Judge James C. Fox on 3/26/2015. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
10 Summons Issued as to Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, and George Solomon. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
11 ***REFER TO DE# 14 FOR FLATTENED WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Sara R. Cobb. Sara R. Cobb waiver sent on 4/15/2015, answer due 6/14/2015. (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly D. Grande on behalf of Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
13 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer regarding 1 Complaint by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice,

04/15/2015 04/15/2015 04/16/2015
05/28/2015 05/28/2015 05/29/2015 06/18/2015 06/22/2015
06/27/2015 09/15/2015

David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
NOTICE TO COUNSEL regarding: 11 Waiver of Service Executed. The court prefers flattened pdf fillable forms, as stated in Section B(3) of the Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual. Please re-file a flattened version of your waiver. (Fogle, L.) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
14 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Sara R. Cobb. (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
15 ORDER - granting 13 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Betty Brown answer due 5/29/2015; Sara R. Cobb answer due 5/29/2015; David Guice answer due 5/29/2015; David Mitchell answer due 5/29/2015; Gwen Norville answer due 5/29/2015; Frank L. Perry answer due 5/29/2015; George Solomon answer due 5/29/2015. Signed by Julie Richards Johnston, Clerk of Court on 4/16/2015. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Kari R. Johnson on behalf of Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon (Johnson, Kari) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
17 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,,,, by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Johnson, Kari) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
18 ORDER FOR DISCOVERY PLAN sent to all parties. Signed by Julie Richards Johnston, Clerk of Court on 5/29/2015. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
19 Rule 26(f) Report (joint) filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Johnson, Kari) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
20 SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 9/14/2015. Discovery due by 2/26/2016. Motions due by 3/28/2016. The trial of this matter is scheduled for Judge Fox's July 11, 2016 term of court in Wilmington, North Carolina. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 6/22/2015. Counsel is reminded to read the entire order for critical dates and deadlines. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
Set Trial Management Order Deadline: Bench Trial set for the court's 7/11/2016 TERM in Wilmington - Courtroom 1 before Senior Judge James C. Fox. (Edwards, S.) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
21 Joint MOTION Settlement Conference regarding 20 Scheduling Order, filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David

09/16/2015 10/02/2015 10/02/2015 10/02/2015 10/13/2015 10/13/2015 10/14/2015 10/14/2015 10/16/2015
11/09/2015

Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/15/2015)
Motion Submitted to Senior Judge James C. Fox: regarding 21 Joint MOTION Settlement Conference regarding 20 Scheduling Order. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
22 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Johnson, Kari) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
Motion Referred to US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr regarding: 22 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
23 ORDER granting 22 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Defendants have up to and including November 24, 2015 to respond to the discovery served by Plaintiffs on September 25,2015. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 10/2/2015. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
24 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
Motion Submitted to United States Senior Judge James C. Fox regarding 24 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
Motion No Longer Submitted to United States Senior Judge James C. Fox regarding 24 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
Motion Referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. regarding 24 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
25 ORDER - GRANTING 24 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs shall have through and including December 11, 2015 to serve their responses to Defendants' Discovery Requests. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 10/16/2015. Counsel is reminded to read the entire order for critical dates and deadlines. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
26 ORDER granting 21 Motion joint motion for a court hosted settlement conference. The matter is referred to Magistrate Judge

12/14/2015 01/08/2016 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 01/26/2016 01/29/2016
02/01/2016 02/02/2016
02/02/2016

Robert B. Jones, Jr. to conduct a court hosted settlement conference to be scheduled as his calendar permits. Signed by Senior US District Judge James C. Fox on 11/9/2015. (Copy emailed to US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr.) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
27 Order Setting Hearing - Settlement Conference set for 2/26/2016 at 10:30 AM in Wilmington - Courtroom 3 before Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones Jr. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr on 12/14/2015. Counsel is reminded to read the entire order for critical information and deadlines. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 12/14/2015)
28 Notice filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague of Change of Firm. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
29 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
30 Memorandum in Support regarding 29 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
Motion Submitted to Senior Judge James C. Fox: regarding 29 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines. (McLemore, J) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
Motion No Longer Submitted to Senior Judge James C. Fox: regarding 29 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines. Motion Referred to US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. regarding: 29 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines. Motions referred to Robert B. Jones, Jr. (McLemore, J) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
31 ORDER granting 29 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr on 2/1/2016. (McLemore, J). (Entered: 02/01/2016)
32 APPLICATION for Writ of For Inmate to Appear at Settlement Conference by Sara R. Cobb, Betty Brown, George Solomon, David Mitchell, Frank L. Perry, Gwen Norville, David Guice filed by Sara R. Cobb, Betty Brown, George Solomon, David Mitchell, Frank L. Perry, Gwen Norville, David Guice. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Writ) (Johnson, Kari) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
Motion Referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. regarding 32 APPLICATION for Writ of For Inmate to Appear at Settlement Conference by Sara R. Cobb, Betty Brown, George Solomon, David Mitchell, Frank L. Perry, Gwen Norville, David Guice. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 02/02/2016)

02/03/2016 02/15/2016 02/16/2016 02/19/2016 02/26/2016 04/12/2016
04/26/2016

33 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS issued by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. Copies distributed to Director of Prisons; the Attorney General of North Carolina, Department of Justice; the Superintendent/Administrator of Nash Correctional Institution; and the U.S. Marshal, Wilmington, North Carolina. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
34 Joint MOTION Excuse attendance from settlement conference regarding 27 Set Deadlines/Hearings, filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 02/15/2016)
Motion Referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. regarding 34 Joint MOTION Excuse attendance from settlement conference regarding 27 Set Deadlines/Hearings . (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
35 ORDER granting 34 Motion to excuse attendance from settlement conference. Defendants, with the exception of George Solomon, shall be excused from attending the judicial settlement conference on February 26, 2016, and Ms. Miller, on behalf of AHA, shall be permitted to appear and participate by telephone. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 2/19/2016. (McLemore, J) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
36 Minute Entry for proceeding held before Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr.: Settlement Conference held on 2/26/2016 in Wilmington, Courtroom 3. Plaintiff Teague present with counsel. Defendant Solomon present with counsel. Negotiations reach an impasse and the parties are unable to settle the case. (Court Reporter FTR Gold) (Grady, B.) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
37 MOTION to Compel filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit 1 AHA INTS, # 4 Exhibit 2 AHA RFPs, # 5 Exhibit 3 AHA RFAs, # 6 Exhibit 4 D. Respn. INTS, # 7 Exhibit 5 Brown Respn. INTS, # 8 Exhibit 6 D. Respn. RFP, # 9 Exhibit 7 D. Respn. RFA, # 10 Exhibit 8 D. Ex. D, # 11 Exhibit 9 D. Ex. N, # 12 Exhibit 10 AHA Letter 1-29-16, # 13 Exhibit 11 D letter 2-26-16, # 14 Exhibit 12 AHA letter 3-15-16, # 15 Exhibit 13 Bumgarner, # 16 Exhibit 14 Table of Discovery) (Miller, Monica) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
38 RESPONSE in Opposition regarding 37 MOTION to Compel filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit NCDPS Policy, # 2 Exhibit Utt Order) (Johnson, Kari) (Entered: 04/26/2016)

04/26/2016
04/27/2016 04/28/2016 04/29/2016
05/02/2016 06/02/2016 06/02/2016 06/02/2016 06/06/2016 06/06/2016

39 MOTION for Protective Order Joint Consent Motion filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Protective Order, # 2 Exhibit Confidentiality Agreement) (Johnson, Kari) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
Motions Referred to US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. regarding: 37 MOTION to Compel and 39 MOTION for Protective Order Joint Consent Motion. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY regarding: 39 Motion for Protective Order. The proposed consent protective order is not signed by all counsel. The document should be corrected and refiled. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
40 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. Amendment to 39 MOTION for Protective Order Joint Consent Motion (Amended Signed Consent Order) (Johnson, Kari) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
41 CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 5/2/2016. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
42 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
43 Memorandum in Support regarding 42 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
Motion Referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. regarding 42 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
Motion No Longer Referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. regarding 42 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY regarding 42 Motion for Extension of Time. At the direction of the court, counsel shall file a proposed order granting the motion pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1. The order must be filed electronically using the event PROPOSED ORDER located in the RESPONSES AND REPLIES category. Additionally, the judge's practice preferences MAY require counsel to email the proposed order in a word processing format. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 06/06/2016)

06/06/2016 06/07/2016
06/11/2016 06/13/2016 06/15/2016
06/17/2016 07/11/2016 09/14/2016 09/14/2016 09/14/2016 09/14/2016

44 Proposed Order regarding 42 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
45 ORDER - GRANTING 42 Motion for Extension of Time. All discovery will be completed no later than September 23, 2016; all potentially dispositive motions will be filed no later than October 27, 2016; and the trial of this matter is scheduled for Judge Fox's February 13, 2017 term of court in Wilmington, North Carolina. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 6/7/2016. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
46 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Kari R. Johnson) filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Johnson, Kari) (Entered: 06/11/2016)
Motion Submitted to Senior Judge James C. Fox regarding 46 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Kari R. Johnson). (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
Motion No Longer Submitted to Senior Judge James C. Fox regarding 46 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Kari R. Johnson). Motion Referred to US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. regarding 46 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Kari R. Johnson). (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
47 ORDER granting 46 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Kari R. Johnson terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 6/17/2016. (McLemore, J) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
Motion Submitted to Senior Judge James C. Fox: 37 MOTION to Compel. Motion No Longer Referred to Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr.: 37 MOTION to Compel. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 07/11/2016)
48 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
49 Memorandum in Support regarding 48 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
50 Proposed Order regarding 49 Memorandum in Support, 48 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
Motion Referred to US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. regarding: 48 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to

09/15/2016
11/30/2016 11/30/2016 11/30/2016 12/01/2016 12/05/2016
12/30/2016 01/11/2017 03/14/2017

Extend Case Management Deadlines. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
51 ORDER - GRANTING 48 Motion for Extension of Time. Discovery will be completed no later than January 13, 2017; dispositive motions will be filed no later than February 13, 2017 and the trial is scheduled for Judge Fox's June 26, 2017 term of court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 9/15/2016. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
52 MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
53 Memorandum in Support regarding 52 MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
54 Proposed Order regarding 53 Memorandum in Support, 52 MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
Motion Referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. regarding 52 MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
55 ORDER - GRANTING 52 Motion for Extension of Time. All discovery will be completed no later than April 14, 2017; potentially dispositive motions will be filed no later than May 12, 2017 and trial of this matter is scheduled for Judge Fox's September 25, 2017 term of court in Wilmington, North Carolina. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 12/5/2016. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
56 Notice of Change of Address filed by John Christopher Jackson filed by on behalf of American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 12/30/2016)
57 Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed by John T. Kivus on behalf of American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague substituting for W. Swain Wood. (Kivus, John) (Entered: 01/11/2017)
58 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

03/15/2017 03/17/2017
03/30/2017 03/30/2017 03/30/2017 03/31/2017 04/13/2017 04/17/2017 04/17/2017

Motion Submitted to Senior Judge James C. Fox: regarding 58 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery . (Powers, S.) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

ORDER GRANTING 37 Motion to Compel and

59

GRANTING 58 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete

Discovery. Defendant's are ORDERED to supplement their discovery

requests in accordance with this order. All discovery will be

completed by 4/28/17. Dispositive motions will be filed on or before

5/31/17. The trial in this matter will be scheduled before the

undersigned sometime after 1/1/2018. The court declines to award

Plaintiff fees and costs. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on

3/17/2017. (Powers, S.) (Entered: 03/17/2017)

60 Notice of Appearance filed by Thomas M. Woodward on behalf of Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Woodward, Thomas) (Entered: 03/30/2017)

61 Consent MOTION to Take Deposition from Kwame Teague, Plaintiff filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Appendix Deposition Notice) (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/30/2017)

Motion Referred to US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. regarding: 61 Consent MOTION to Take Deposition from Kwame Teague, Plaintiff . Motions referred to Robert B. Jones, Jr. (Powers, S.) (Entered: 03/30/2017)

62 ORDER granting 61 Motion to Take Deposition from Kwami Jamal Teague, # 0401897. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 3/31/2017. (Powers, S.) (Entered: 03/31/2017)

63 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Kivus, John) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

Motion Referred to US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. regarding: 63 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

64 ORDER - GRANTING 63 Motion for Extension of Time. All discovery will be completed by May 30, 2017 and potentially dispositive motions will be filed by June 30, 2017. The trial of this matter will be scheduled by further order of the court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 4/17/2017. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

06/21/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017
06/22/2017 07/28/2017 07/28/2017 07/28/2017
07/28/2017

65 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Case Management Deadlines filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order proposed Order granting Joint Motion) (Kivus, John) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
Motion Referred to US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. regarding: 65 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Case Management Deadlines. (Powers, S.) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
66 TEXT ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. At the direction of the Court, this case is reassigned to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle for all further proceedings. Senior Judge James C. Fox is no longer assigned to case All future filings shall reflect the revised case number of 5:15-ct-3053-BO. Any previously scheduled hearings will be rescheduled.Entered by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 6/21/2017. (Powers, S.) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
67 ORDER - GRANTING 65 Motion for Extension of Time. All potentially dispositive motions shall be filed by July 28, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 6/22/2017. Counsel is reminded to read the entire order for critical dates and deadlines. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/22/2017)
68 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
69 Memorandum in Support regarding 68 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
70 PROPOSED SEALED Exhibit (Selected Participants Only)by American Humanist Association; Kwame Teague (available to: Plaintiffs American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague, Defendants Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon) regarding 68 MOTION for Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Index Index to Notice of Provisional Filing Under Seal, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 12 - Sign-in Sheets, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 19 - BOP Religious manual, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 82 - SHIP - Harwood, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 84 - Publication Disapproval Notice - Harwood, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 85 - Berman letter to Superintendent) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
71 Statement of Material Facts regarding 68 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Attachments: # 1 Index Index of Summary Judgment Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Table 1 Teague Program Schedules, # 3 Exhibit Table 2 Teague Sign-in Sheets) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)

07/28/2017 07/28/2017 07/28/2017 07/28/2017

72 Notice filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague regarding 71 Statement of Material Facts, Exhibits 1 - 15 to Statement of Facts. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1- Ex W (Bates Opus List), # 2 Exhibit 2- Ex DD (Bates 001060), # 3 Exhibit 3-Ex I Bates, # 4 Exhibit 4-Ex X (Bates 001003), # 5 Exhibit 5-May 2012 Mtg Ex Z (Bates 1036-37), # 6 Exhibit 6-Ex B (Complaint Ex 3), # 7 Exhibit 7-Ex E (reduced excerpted highlighted), # 8 Exhibit 8-Brown Betty Exs 5-16-17, # 9 Exhibit 9-Sept 15 2009 Steering Cmt Mtg, # 10 Exhibit 10-DC-572 procedure Aquarian CCU (March 2012 mtg) (Ex Z Bates 1032-33), # 11 Exhibit 11-Religious Program Schedules, # 12 Exhibit 12-Final Sign-in Sheets -EX Slipsheet, # 13 Exhibit 13About the American Humanist Association, # 14 Exhibit 14-Compl. Ex 1, Humanist Manifesto III, # 15 Exhibit 15-Humanist Observances) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
73 Notice filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague regarding 71 Statement of Material Facts, Exhibits 16 - 25 to Statement of Material Facts. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 16-Humanist society, # 2 Exhibit 17-About Us The Humanist Institute, # 3 Exhibit 18-BOP Settlement, # 4 Exhibit 19-BOP Religious Manual - EX Slipsheet, # 5 Exhibit 20-Federal, # 6 Exhibit 21-The Story of Humanists Behind Bars, # 7 Exhibit 22-Ex G and CC Excerpt Feb 11 2013 KTeague's Designated Religions, etc., # 8 Exhibit 23-Letter, Teague to Chaplain Muhammad (Nov 28, 2011), # 9 Exhibit 24Inmate Request Form (Jan 18, 2012), # 10 Exhibit 25-Letter, Teague to Brown (Feb 15, 2012)(Ex C Excerpt)) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
74 Notice filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague regarding 71 Statement of Material Facts, Exhibits 26 - 35 to Statement of Facts. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 26-NCDPS Grievance No.4290-1-12-0081 (DC-410), # 2 Exhibit 27-Chaplaincy Services Correspondence, Ch. Brown to Teague (Mar 8, 2012) (Ex C Excerpt), # 3 Exhibit 28-Ex C (excerpted) June 2012 Chaplaincy Services, # 4 Exhibit 29-June 29, 2012 Chaplaincy Services (Brown), # 5 Exhibit 30-memo, Brown to Kornegay & Mobley (June 29, 2012), # 6 Exhibit 31-July 9, 2012 letter, # 7 Exhibit 32-Email, AHA to Boisvert (July 11, 2012), # 8 Exhibit 33-Email, N. Nelson to Khalil Akbar (July 13-14, 2012), # 9 Exhibit 34-Letter, NCDPS to AHA (July 16, 2012), # 10 Exhibit 35-July 23, 2012 DC-572 Assistance) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
75 Notice filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague regarding 71 Statement of Material Facts, Exhibits 36 - 45 to Statement of Material Facts. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 36-letter, Teague to Ch. Muhammad (Sept 6, 2012), # 2 Exhibit 37-Inmate Request for Religious Asst. Fact Sheet (Sept 18, 2012), # 3 Exhibit 38-Letter, Religious Practices Cmt. to Teague (Oct 15, 2012),

07/28/2017 07/28/2017 07/28/2017 07/28/2017

# 4 Exhibit 39-Religious Practices Cmt. Mtg. (Oct 16, 2012), # 5 Exhibit 40-Dec 6, 2012 Meeting Minutes, # 6 Exhibit 41-Jan 2, 2013 Humanism Sub Report, # 7 Exhibit 42-Religious Practices Cmt. Mtg. Minutes (Jan 10, 2013), # 8 Exhibit 43-letter, AHA to Ch. Simms (Jan 13, 2013), # 9 Exhibit 44-Jan 17 and Feb 2, 2013 Brown emails, # 10 Exhibit 45-James to Cooper Feb 4, 2013) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
76 Notice filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague regarding 71 Statement of Material Facts, Exhibits 46 - 55 to Statement of Material Facts. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 46-Oct 9, 2013 (atheist code), # 2 Exhibit 47-Dec 5, 2013 Atheism, # 3 Exhibit 48- Feb 6, 2013 letter, # 4 Exhibit 49-Feb 14, 2013 (joint response for Humanism), # 5 Exhibit 50-Religious Practices Cmt. Mtg. Minutes (March 5, 2013), # 6 Exhibit 51-Brown to Teague March 15, 2013, # 7 Exhibit 52-April 22, 2013 Nelson Brown Email, # 8 Exhibit 53-April 26 and May 8 or 19 and Feb 2013, # 9 Exhibit 54-Exhibit C May 11, 2013 Teague to Brown, # 10 Exhibit 55Compl. Ex 8 letter, Brown to Teague May 15, 2013) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
77 Notice filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague regarding 71 Statement of Material Facts, Exhibits 56 - 65 to Statement of Material Facts. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 56-Exhibit C James to Bell May 18, 2013, # 2 Exhibit 57-Teague to Brown May 22, 2013, # 3 Exhibit 58-letter, Best to Brown (June 10, 2013), # 4 Exhibit 59-Inmate Information Request Form (June 12, 2013), # 5 Exhibit 60-June 12 and 24, 2013 Gullett and Brown, # 6 Exhibit 61-June 25, 2013 letter, # 7 Exhibit 62-NCDPS Visitation Application Notes - Randall Best 9-17-13, # 8 Exhibit 63-Oct 1, 2013 letter, # 9 Exhibit 64-Oct 15, 2013 DC-572, # 10 Exhibit 65Oct 31, 2013 (Memo Gullett to Brown)) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
78 Notice filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague regarding 71 Statement of Material Facts, Exhibits 66 - 75 to Statement of Material Facts. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 66-Oct 31, 2013 letter, # 2 Exhibit 67-Inmate Information Request Form (Nov 23, 2013), # 3 Exhibit 68-Nov 26, 2013 letter, # 4 Exhibit 69-Dec 4, 2013 Chaplaincy Services, # 5 Exhibit 70-Dec 10, 2013 Memo, # 6 Exhibit 71-Feb 5, 2014 Email, # 7 Exhibit 72-Oct 2014 mtg Ex Z (Questionnaire) Bates 1040-41, # 8 Exhibit 73-CFI letter, # 9 Exhibit 74-Email, AHA to NCDPS (Nov 26, 2014) w/attached letter, # 10 Exhibit 75-Nov 26, 2014 letter) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
79 Notice filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague regarding 71 Statement of Material Facts, Exhibits 76 - 85 to

07/28/2017 07/28/2017
07/28/2017

Statement of Facts. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 76-Religious Practices Cmt. Mtg. Minutes (Dec 4, 2014), # 2 Exhibit 77- Jan 12, 2015 email, # 3 Exhibit 78-Jan 12, 2015 Message from Miller, # 4 Exhibit 79-July 28, 2015 BOP Humanism Recognized Brown, # 5 Exhibit 80-Feb 2016 Meeting Ex Z (Bates 1106-07), # 6 Exhibit 81-March 8, 2016 Satanist Accomodtion, # 7 Exhibit 82-SHIP Harwood (P00622) - EX Slipsheet, # 8 Exhibit 83-Letter, Harwood to AHA (Sept 20, 2013), # 9 Exhibit 84-Publication Disapproval Notice-Harwood - EX Slipsheet, # 10 Exhibit 85-Letter, RBerman to AReed - EX Slipsheet) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
80 Notice filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague regarding 71 Statement of Material Facts, Exhibits 86 - 95 to Statement of Facts. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 86-Aug 19, 2013 Harwood SHIP, # 2 Exhibit 87-Roland 4-1-13 letter, # 3 Exhibit 88Declaration of Zachary Harwood, # 4 Exhibit 89-FINAL Declaration of Christopher Allman, # 5 Exhibit 90-Declaration of Elwyn Jones, # 6 Exhibit 91-Ruben Perez-Cardoza Declaration (6-8-16), # 7 Exhibit 92-Marco Stamey Declaration Final (7-11-16), # 8 Exhibit 93-Jerry Christopher Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 94-Compl. Ex. A, Best Decl., # 10 Exhibit 95-Holden Declaration (final signed)) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
81 Notice filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague regarding 71 Statement of Material Facts, Exhibits 96 - 105 to Statement of Facts. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 96-20160108 Teague Plaintiff AHA's Responses to Defs First Set of Interrogatories excerpted, # 2 Exhibit 97-20160711 AHA 3rd Supp Responses to Interrogatories FINAL, # 3 Exhibit 98-20160108 Teague Plaintiff Teagues's Responses to Defs Firt SEt of Interrogatories (Verified, excerpted), # 4 Exhibit 99-20170530 AHA Teague - AHA's Responses to Defs 3rd Interrogatories, # 5 Exhibit 100-Def's 2nd Supp Responses & Objections to Firt Set of Interrogatories, # 6 Exhibit 101-20151222 Teague - Brown Responses to Plaintiffs' First ROGs, # 7 Exhibit 102-20151222 Teague - Perry Solomon Guice Norville Cob & Mitchell Responses to Plaintiff's First ROGs, # 8 Exhibit 103-20151222 Teague - Defs' Responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions by AHA, # 9 Exhibit 104-20151222 Teague - Defs' Responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions Teague, # 10 Exhibit 105-Defs' Second Supplementation of Discovery Responses in Teague) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
82 Notice filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague regarding 71 Statement of Material Facts, Exhibits 106 - 110 to Statement of Facts. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 106-updated exhibit list, # 2 Exhibit 107-Brown, Betty 5-16-17 (Highlighted, excerpted), # 3 Exhibit 108-Joyner, Carlton 5-17-17 (Highlighted), # 4 Exhibit

07/28/2017 07/28/2017 07/28/2017 07/28/2017
08/07/2017 08/17/2017 08/18/2017

109-Gullett, John 5-18-17 (Highlighted), # 5 Exhibit 110-Teague 417-17 (Highlighted, excerpted)) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
83 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
84 Memorandum in Support regarding 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
85 Statement of Material Facts regarding 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
86 Appendix to the Statement of Facts regarding 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Teague Deposition, # 2 Exhibit B - Muslim service sign in sheets, # 3 Exhibit C Correspondence and documents regarding requests, # 4 Exhibit D Policies, # 5 Exhibit E - Interrogatory responses, # 6 Exhibit F Supplemental interrogatory responses) (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
87 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responses and Replies to Summary Judgment filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
Motion Referred to US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. regarding: 87 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responses and Replies to Summary Judgment. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
88 ORDER - GRANTING 87 Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses and Replies to Motions for Summary Judgment. The deadlines are amended as follows: Thirty (30) days will be added to the deadlines for responses to motions for summary judgment, up to and including September 18, 2017. Eighteen (18) days will be added to the deadlines for replies to responses to motions for summary judgment, up to and including October 13, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 8/18/2017. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

09/18/2017 09/18/2017
09/18/2017 09/19/2017 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 10/20/2017 01/02/2018 01/03/2018

89 Memorandum in Opposition regarding 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
90 RESPONSE regarding 85 Statement of Material Facts filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appendix to Response to Def's Statement of Material Facts, # 2 Exhibit Ex 111 - Property Logs for K. Teague, # 3 Exhibit Ex 112 - Declaration of K. Teague, # 4 Exhibit Ex 113 - Declaration of S. Grover) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
91 RESPONSE in Opposition regarding 68 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
92 Notice filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon Notice of Death of Defendant Gwen Norville. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Press Release) (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
93 REPLY to Response to Motion regarding 68 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 114 - BOP Letter with Humanism Manual) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
94 Appendix to the Statement of Facts regarding 68 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 114 - BOP Letter with Humanism Manual) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
95 REPLY to Response to Motion regarding 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
Motions Submitted to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle regarding: 68 Plaintiffs' MOTION for Summary Judgment and 83 Defendants' MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
96 Notice filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon Notice of Withdrawal of Governmental Counsel. (Grande, Kimberly) (Entered: 01/02/2018)
97 NOTICE of Hearing: Hearing set for 1/24/2018 at 10:00 AM in Raleigh - 7th Floor - Courtroom 2 before District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/09/2018
01/24/2018 01/25/2018 03/26/2018
03/26/2018
03/29/2018 03/29/2018

98 WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS issued as to KWAME JAMAL TEAGUE #0401897 for the purpose of appearing at a hearing scheduled in the above captioned case before the Honorable Terrence W. Boyle, United States District Judge on Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse, 310 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copy sent via US Mail to Warden of Nash Correctional Institution, via facsimile to NC Prison Administration and via email to the US Marshal Service. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 01/09/2018)
99 Minute Entry for proceedings held in Raleigh, NC before District Judge Terrence W. Boyle - held on 1/24/2018 - all parties present and ready to proceed - written order to follow. (Court Reporter Suzanne Patterson) (Downing, L.) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
100 Writ of Habeas Corpus for Kwame Jamal Teague returned executed on 1/24/2018. (Castania, M) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
101 OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/24/2018, before Judge Terrence W. Boyle. Court Reporter: Suzanne Patterson, Telephone number 1-800-333-2082. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Please review Attorney obligations regarding the redaction of electronic transcripts of court proceedings available on the court's website Redaction Request due 4/19/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/29/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/27/2018. (Foell, S.) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript 101 Transcript. The parties have seven calendar days from the filing of the transcript to file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. The parties must also serve a copy on the court reporter or transcriber. After filing the Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, a party must submit to the court reporter or transcriber, within 21 calendar days of the filing of the transcript, a written statement indicating where the personal data identifiers to be redacted appear in the transcript. (Foell, S.) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
102 Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed by Joseph Finarelli on behalf of Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon substituting for Thomas M. Woodward. (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
103 ORDER - GRANTING 68 Motion for Summary Judgment; DENYING 83 Motion for Summary Judgment. The court enters a permanent injunction ordering Defendants, their agents, successors, and any person in active concert with the Defendants: (a) to recognize Humanism as a faith group and as an assignment option for OPUS and all other prison records; and (b) permit Teague and other

03/29/2018 04/12/2018
04/27/2018 04/27/2018 04/27/2018

Humanist inmates to meet in a Humanist study group on the same terms defendants authorize for inmates of recognized faith groups. The court enters a declaratory judgment stating that defendants' have violated the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses by refusing to recognize Humanism as a faith group and by refusing to offer Humanism as an assignment option for OPUS and other prison records. The court awards plaintiffs attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Counsel for plaintiffs is directed to file documentation in support of these damages not later than 30 days after the entry of this order. The court shall retain jurisdiction to make any further orders that may be necessary to carry out these directives, but except to that extent, this proceeding is dismissed, with prejudice. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 3/28/2018. (Love, L.) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
104 CLERK'S JUDGMENT - Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted, defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied, and this action is hereby dismissed. Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 3/29/2018. (Love, L.) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
105 Application for Costs filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Attachments: # 1 Index Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Bill of Costs, # 2 Exhibit Ex 1 - Receipt - Filing Fee for Complaint, # 3 Exhibit Ex 2 - Invoice for Transcript of Teague Deposition, # 4 Exhibit Ex 3 - Invoice for Transcript of Brown Deposition, # 5 Exhibit Ex 4 - Invoice for Transcript of Joyner Deposition, # 6 Exhibit Ex 5 - Invoice for Transcript of Gullett Deposition, # 7 Exhibit Ex 6 - Invoice for Transcript of Summary Judgment Hearing, # 8 Exhibit Ex 7 - Invoice for Copying charges - document production, # 9 Exhibit Ex 8 - Invoice for Courtesy Copies re Summary Judgment, # 10 Affidavit Affidavit of J. Christopher Jackson, # 11 Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support of Application for Costs) (Jackson, John) (Entered: 04/12/2018)
106 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
107 Declaration regarding 106 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses Declaration of D. Niose by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague (Jackson, John) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
108 Declaration regarding 106 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses Declaration of M. Miller by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague (Jackson, John) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018 04/27/2018 04/27/2018 04/27/2018 04/30/2018 05/11/2018
05/11/2018 05/14/2018
06/08/2018

109 Declaration regarding 106 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses Declaration of J. Jackson by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague (Jackson, John) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
110 Declaration regarding 106 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses Declaration of J. Kivus by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague (Jackson, John) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
111 Declaration regarding 106 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses Declaration of C. Graebe by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague (Jackson, John) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
112 Memorandum in Support regarding 106 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses filed by American Humanist Association, Kwame Jamal Teague. (Jackson, John) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
Motion Referred to Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court regarding 105 Application for Costs. (Love, L.) (Entered: 04/30/2018)
113 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 106 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Gwen Norville, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time) (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
Motion Referred to Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court regarding 113 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 106 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses. (Love, L.) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
TEXT ORDER granting Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time 113 . For good cause shown and with the consent of Plaintiffs, it is ORDERED that Defendants shall have up to and including June 11, 2018 to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses 106 . Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 5/14/2018. (Hockaday, A.) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
114 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Litigation Expenses filed by Betty Brown, Sara R. Cobb, David Guice, David Mitchell, Frank L. Perry, George Solomon. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/12/2018 06/13/2018 07/09/2018
07/10/2018

Motion Referred to Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court regarding 114 Second MOTION for Extension of Time. (Love, L.) (Entered: 06/12/2018)

115 ORDER - GRANTING 114 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants are allowed up to and including July 11, 2018, in which to file and serve a response to Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses in this matter. Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 6/13/2018. (Love, L.) (Entered: 06/13/2018)

116 ORDER - GRANTING IN PART 105 Application for Costs. As the prevailing parties, plaintiffs American Humanist Association and Kwame Teague are awarded (1) $400.00 in fees of the clerk pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § L920(1); (2) $2,614.30 in transcript costs pursuant to § 1920(2); and (3) $2,890.95 in copy costs pursuant to § 1920(4). Total costs in the amount of $5,905.25 are taxed against defendants in their official capacities and shall be included in the judgment. Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 7/9/2018. (Love, L.) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

WITHDRAWAL of Motion by American Humanist Association,

117

Kwame Jamal Teague. regarding 106 MOTION for Attorney

Fees and Litigation Expenses filed by American Humanist

Association, Kwame Jamal Teague (Jackson, John) (Entered:

07/10/2018)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

09/13/2020 11:50:24

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages:

18

Cost:

Gillan
5:15-ct03053-BO
1.80

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION Civil Action No.: _______
AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION and KWAME JAMAL TEAGUE
v.
FRANK L. PERRY, in his official capacity as Secretary of the NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, W. DAVID GUICE, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice, GEORGE SOLOMON, in his official capacity as Director of Prisons, BETTY BROWN, in her official capacity as Director of Chaplaincy Services, GWEN NORVILLE, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Prisons, DAVID MITCHELL, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Lanesboro Correctional Institution, and SARA R. COBB, in her official capacity as Program Services Coordinator of Lanesboro Correctional Institution
COMPLAINT
Seeking to protect and vindicate their civil liberties and constitutional rights, including
the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state and equal protection, the above-
captioned Plaintiffs state as their complaint against the above-captioned Defendants the
following:
1 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 1 of 22

NATURE OF THE CLAIMS 1. This action arises out of the Defendants’: (1) refusal to allow a North Carolina inmate with sincerely held Humanist convictions to form a Humanist study group to meet on the same terms that Defendants authorize inmates of theistic religious traditions to meet; (2) refusal to allow inmates to identify as Humanists for assignment purposes. Defendants’ policy and practice of discriminating against Humanist inmates because of their sincerely held convictions violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 2. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Defendants to redress these constitutional violations, together with recovery of attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This case arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and presents a federal question within this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). The Court has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and to provide injunctive relief and damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. 4. Venue is proper within this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims occurred herein, and because the majority of defendants reside herein.
2 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 2 of 22

PARTIES 5. Plaintiff, the American Humanist Association (“AHA”), is a national nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization incorporated in Illinois with a principal place of business at 1777 T Street N.W., Washington, D.C. AHA is a membership organization with over 185 chapters and affiliates nationwide, including in North Carolina, and over 413,000 members and supporters, including members residing in North Carolina. AHA promotes Humanism and is dedicated to advancing and preserving separation of church and state and the constitutional rights of Humanists, atheists and other freethinkers. AHA brings this action to assert the constitutional rights of its members, including Humanist inmates in other institutions. 6. Plaintiff Kwame Jamal Teague (“Teague”), inmate #0401897, is a resident of the State of North Carolina. Teague is an inmate in the custody of North Carolina Department of Public Safety (hereafter the “Department”), currently incarcerated at the Lanesboro Correctional Institution in Anson County, North Carolina (“LCI”). Teague was admitted to the Department’s custody on or about May 31, 1996. 7. Defendant Frank L. Perry is the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety. He is sued in his official capacity. The secretary of the Department of Public Safety serves as the sole representative on the governor's cabinet for the state's law enforcement and emergency response community. The Department is responsible for the care, custody and supervision of all adults and juveniles sentenced after conviction for violations of North Carolina law. North Carolina houses approximately 38,000 inmates in 61 state prison facilities. 8. Defendant Betty Brown is the Director of Chaplaincy Services for the Department. She is sued in her official capacity. North Carolina Prisons employs a Director of Chaplaincy Services to formulate and provide professional supervision of chaplaincy services.
3 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 3 of 22

The Director of Chaplaincy Services provides guidance and assistance for the religious activities to all the facilities within the North Carolina Prisons. According to Policy H.0100: “The Director of Chaplaincy Services is familiar with multiple religions, and coordinates those practices within DOP Policy and Procedures.”
9. Defendant George Solomon is the Director of Prisons for the Department. He is sued in his official capacity.
10. Defendant Gwen Norville is the Deputy Director of Prisons for the Department. She is sued in her official capacity as Deputy Director.
11. Defendant W. David Guice is the Commissioner of the Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice, sued in his official capacity.
12. Defendant David Mitchell is the Superintendent at LCI. He is sued in his official capacity.
13. Defendant Sara R. Cobb is sued in her official capacity at Program Services Coordinator of LCI.
FACTS 14. Teague is a North Carolina state inmate currently housed at LCI who has sincerely held Humanist convictions. He considers Humanism to be his religion, which guides him through whatever life presents. 15. LCI is a prison operated by the Department. It is located at 552 Prison Camp Road, Polkton, Anson County, North Carolina, 28135. (Mailing address is – PO Box 280, Polkton, N.C. 28135). 16. LCI houses approximately 1,400 inmates.
4 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 4 of 22

17. Teague is a member of the AHA and the Ethical Humanist Society of the Triangle in North Carolina.
18. Humanism comforts, guides, and provides meaning to Teague in the way that religions traditionally provide such comfort, guidance, and meaning. By practicing Humanist principles in his relationships, he is confident that he is acting in a positive way.
19. Humanist principles are promoted and defended by formal organizations such as the AHA (which provides a statement of Humanist principles in a document known as “Humanism and Its Aspirations,” signed by 21 Nobel laureates and thousands of others), as well as the International Humanist and Ethical Union (which provides a statement of Humanist principles known as “The Amsterdam Declaration”).
20. Humanists celebrate various holidays including National Day of Reason (May 2), Darwin Day (February 12), HumanLight (in December) and other solstice-related holidays.
21. Whereas Atheism is a religious view that essentially addresses only the specific issue of the existence of a deity, the Humanism affirmed by Teague is a broader worldview that includes, in addition to a non-theistic view on the question of deities, an affirmative naturalistic outlook; an acceptance of reason, rational analysis, logic, and empiricism as the primary means of attaining truth; an affirmative recognition of ethical duties; and a strong commitment to human rights.
22. Humanism also has a formal structure akin to many religions, with clergy (usually known as “celebrants” who perform Humanist weddings, funerals, baby-welcoming ceremonies, counseling, and other functions commonly performed by clergy), chaplains (including a Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University), and with formal entities dedicated to the practice of religious Humanism, such as the American Ethical Union (based on the Ethical Culture
5 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 5 of 22

movement founded by Felix Adler in 1876) and the Society for Humanistic Judaism (founded by Rabbi Sherwin Wine in 1969), among others.
23. AHA’s adjunct organization, the Humanist Society, is a religious 501(c)(3) organization. The Humanist Society prepares Humanist Celebrants to lead ceremonial observances across the nation and worldwide, including weddings, memorial services, and other life cycle events. The Humanist Society started in 1939 by a group of Quakers who decided to form a nontheistic society based on similar goals and beliefs. In Humanism’s tenets they saw the promise of a genuine union between science and ethics. The society was incorporated in December 1939, under the state laws of California as a religious, educational, charitable nonprofit organization authorized to issue charters anywhere in the world and to train and certify people, who upon endorsement would be accorded the same rights and privileges granted by law to priests, ministers, and rabbis of traditional theistic religions.
24. Modern Humanism, also called Naturalistic Humanism, Scientific Humanism, Ethical Humanism, and Democratic Humanism, was defined by one of its leading proponents, Corliss Lamont, as “a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion.”
25. Religious Humanism largely emerged out of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Universalism. Today, many Unitarian Universalist congregations and all Ethical Culture societies describe themselves as Humanist in the modern sense. To serve personal needs, Religious Humanism offers a basis for moral values, an inspiring set of ideals, methods for dealing with life’s harsher realities, a rationale for living life joyously, and an overall sense of purpose. Religious Humanism rejects the existence of a supreme being.
6 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 6 of 22

26. Secular Humanism is an outgrowth of eighteenth century enlightenment rationalism and nineteenth century freethought. Many secular groups, such as the Council for Secular Humanism and the American Rationalist Federation, and many otherwise unaffiliated academic philosophers and scientists, advocate this philosophy.
27. Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview and the same basic principles. This is made evident by the fact that both Secular and Religious Humanists were among the signers of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933, Humanist Manifesto II in 1973, and Humanist Manifesto III in 2003.
28. Humanists are united under the Humanist Manifesto III, also known as “Humanism and Its Aspirations.” (A copy of the Humanist Manifesto III is attached herein as Exhibit 1). This document is a consensus of Humanist convictions. The ultimate concern for Humanists is to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. The manifesto provides in part: “Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.” The Humanist Manifesto III further provides: “We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.”
29. Teague wishes to meet with other Humanists who share his sincerely held Humanist convictions.
7 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 7 of 22

30. When an inmate is admitted to a North Carolina prison, the inmate may designate a religious preference assignment. Staff will enter the religious preference information (RPI) into a system called OPUS (“Offender Population Unified System”).
31. OPUS is a real-time information system consisting of various sub-systems for processing inmate information. Data is owned by the appropriate sub-system, meaning that it is entered and updated by that sub-system. There is a shared access to this data among all the subsystems. OPUS came online in phases, the first phase started in 1994.
32. The facility chaplain or other designated staff is responsible for approving inmate religious requests and assignments.
33. Teague wishes to identify as a Humanist on his official record with the Department.
34. As of January 15, 2015, the Department recognizes the following religious assignments (hereafter referred to as “Recognized Religions”):
i. American Indian ii. Asatru iii. Assemblies of Yahweh iv. Buddhism v. Christian vi. Hindu vii. Islam viii. Judaism ix. Moorish Science Temple x. Rastafarian
8 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 8 of 22

xi. Wiccan 35. The above-listed religions are recognized in the Department’s “RELIGIOUS PRACTICES REFERENCE MANUAL.” A true and accurate copy of said Manual is attached herein as Exhibit 2. 36. The Department also recognizes the following sub-groups within several of the above religious assignments and permits inmates of the following to meet in their respective subgroups:
i. Christian-Protestant ii. Christian-Catholic iii. Christian-Eastern Orthodox 37. Inmates who are members of Recognized Religions receive privileges, including but not limited to the following: (1) ability to meet with community-funded or volunteer chaplains on a regular basis; (2) ability to keep religious items in cells; (3) eligibility for enrollment in a religious correspondence course; (4) have community chaplain perform religious rites/rituals. 38. Inmates who are members of Recognized Religions are allowed to meet with their respective subgroups so that their communities can develop their ethical foundations with some sense of consistency in their teaching. 39. Humanist inmates cannot meet in groups in the same way inmates who are members of Recognized Religions can meet. 40. Humanist inmates in North Carolina prisons have no venue for meetings. 41. Atheist inmates in North Carolina prisons have no venue for meetings. 42. The Department does not recognize Humanist as an assignment option.
9 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 9 of 22

43. It is the Department’s position that Humanism is not a religion. 44. The Department does not recognize Atheism as an assignment option. 45. The Department does not recognize Atheism as a religion or religious-equivalent. 46. At present, there is no Humanist meeting group at any North Carolina state prison. 47. At present, there is no Atheist meeting group at any North Carolina state prison. 48. Neither Humanism nor Atheism is an option for prisoner registration purposes (OPUS). 49. Upon information and belief, there are at least 20 Humanist and Atheist inmates at the Lanesboro Correctional Institution alone. 50. According to Department policy, “Inmates who wish to have incorporated a religious practice that is not recognized by North Carolina Prisons must submit a DC-572 Request for Religious Assistance form to the facility chaplain or other designated staff, who will then consult with the Chaplaincy Services Director regarding the availability of temporary accommodations in conjunction with the facility head or designee.” H.0103. 51. A true and accurate copy of Policy H.0103 is attached herein as Exhibit 3. 52. Defendant Brown received at least two DC-572 forms submitted by Teague. 53. In or around January 2012, Teague requested to have his OPUS commitment changed to “Humanist” pursuant to Chapter H, Section .0104 of the Division of Prison’s Policies and Procedures. H.0104(a). 54. In or around January 2012, Teague also filed a “Request for Religious Assistance” (Form DC-572) to establish Humanist group meetings.
10 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 10 of 22

55. Both requests were denied on the stated grounds that the “Department of Public Safety does not recognize ‘Humanism’ as a religion.” (Exhibit 4, attached herein).
56. The Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n.11 (1961) recognized “Secular Humanism” as a religion for First Amendment purposes.
57. On or about February 29, 2012, Teague filed a formal grievance complaint with the Department of Corrections regarding the prison’s refusal to recognize Humanism as his OPUS designation and its refusal to authorize a Humanist meeting group.
58. The Department dismissed Teague’s grievance complaint. 59. In March 2012, Teague sent a letter to Chaplain Betty Brown, Director of Chaplaincy Services, requesting information regarding the correct procedures to have Humanism recognized by the Department of Corrections. 60. On March 8, 2012, Ms. Brown responded, advising Mr. Teague to prepare and file a “Request for Religious Assistance” (Form DC-572). 61. Teague complied and filed a DC-572. 62. Teague’s DC-572 Form was denied by his case manager, Mr. Richard Boisvert, who told Teague that Humanism was not recognized in North Carolina prisons. 63. In April 2012, Teague filed an administrative remedy appeal with the Department in connection with the prison’s refusal to recognize Humanism and authorize a Humanist group. 64. A true and accurate copy of the Department’s response to Teague’s administrative remedy appeal is attached herein as Exhibit 4. 65. The Department’s response to “step one” of the grievance form states: “Investigation into your complaint revealed that Mr Boisvert, Case Manager has explained to you that the Department of Public Safety does not recognize Humanism. You desire that a special
11 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 11 of 22

time be allowed for you to form a group. You are listed in Opus as Islamic. No one will disturb
you in the orderly conduct of your religion. However, since the Department of Public Safety does
not recognize ‘Humanism’ as a religion, no facilities will be provided same. There is no violation
of the First Amendment Right, respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. No further action is necessary at this time.” (See Exhibit 4).
66. The response to “step two” of the grievance form, signed April 16, 2012, stated:
“Additional investigation reveals that staff has addressed inmate’s complaint appropriately. This
should resolve your grievance.”
67. On April 27, 2012, “step three” of Teague’s administrative remedy form (DC-
410B) was marked “received” by the Department of Correction.
68. The “Finding and Disposition Order,” which was signed on May 7, 2012,
provided:
Kwame Teague filed this grievance on February 29, 2012 at Warren Correctional Institution. He asserts that staff were not providing assistance to him in obtaining recognition of his religion
Staff response indicated that an investigation of the inmate’s complaint was conducted. Staff concluded that the inmate has not been treated unfair or outside the scope of correctional policies and procedures.
This examiner has carefully reviewed the grievance and the response given by staff in the DC- 410A response. From this review, I am convinced that staff has adequately addressed this inmate's grievance concerns. I adopt the facts found by the staff investigator.
On this record, this inmate's allegations are insufficiently supported. Thus, this grievance is dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.
69. On June 21, 2012, Teague sent another letter to Ms. Brown, writing in part:
I am writing in response to your letter of March 8, 2012 relative to my request for information regarding the correct procedures to have my religion of secular humanism recognized by the Department of Correction as well as the State of North Carolina. You advised me to prepare and file a “Request for Religious
12 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 12 of 22

Assistance” (Form DC-572). This I did. However, Mr. Boisvert advised me that secular humanism is not recognized in N.C.
I currently appear in Inmate computer records as a Muslim. This does not reflect my faith. My religion is a form of secular humanism called Ethical Humanism. I am simply seeking information as to the steps I need to take to accomplish my objective of accurate reflection of my religion. I followed your advice, but it has resulted in the same answer (secular humanism is not recognized in N.C.) that caused me to initially write you.
Please help me in this matter. At this point, I am being denied the right of religious expression granted to Muslims, Christians and all other officiallyrecognized religious. I only want the same treatment that is afforded to these other faith groups. Thank You,
70. A true and accurate copy of Teague’s letter to Brown, as quoted above, is attached
herein as Exhibit 5.
71. On July 9, 2012, the AHA sent a letter to Defendant Brown regarding the
unconstitutionality of the Department’s actions in refusing to recognize Teague’s request to
change his OPUS assignment to Humanist and its refusal to accommodate a Humanist meeting
group. A true and accurate copy of this letter is attached herein as Exhibit 6.
72. The 2012 AHA letter stated in part: “Humanism shares characteristics with many
more traditional, widespread religions. It explores fundamental and ultimate questions of life
and existence by appealing to science, reason, and our common humanity. Its beliefs are
comprehensive in nature and encompass morality and meaning and purpose in life. Humanism
even attempts to answer questions about the end of life. A document, the Humanist Manifesto, is
a joint expression of humanist beliefs and goals. Humanist celebrants are trained to officiate
marriages, funerals, and other life-cycle ceremonies. Organizations such as AHA provide
structure and resources to members. Humanists often celebrate holidays such as the winter
solstice and Darwin Day.”
13 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 13 of 22

73. The 2012 AHA letter further stated: “There is no doubt that Mr. Teague sincerely shares in these beliefs. While incarcerated, he has explored humanism and come to embrace it as a means of accepting personal responsibility for his life. He seeks the same rights and privileges other prisoners receive to explore and express his religious views. To deny him this is to discriminate against him in violation of the Constitution. As you know, violations of the civil liberties of inmates may be remedied by bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983. It is my hope that no such suit will be necessary, and that you will do the right thing and change course. We respectfully request that you allow Mr. Teague to change his religious identification to reflect his current beliefs. In addition, we request that you work with Mr. Teague to meet his requests for religious assistance and accommodation, including access to resources, such as books and meeting space. AHA would be more than happy to provide you any particular information and materials to regarding humanism that you may require as part of any such effort.”
74. On July 16, 2012, Ms. Brown responded to the 2012 AHA letter, stating in part that, “[u]pon recipet of the DC-572, members of the NC Religious Practice Committee will then review it and subsequently send it up the chain of command with recommendations.”
75. A true and accurate copy of Defendant Brown’s response to the 2012 AHA letter is attached herein as Exhibit 7.
76. At the time of Ms. Brown’s July 2012 response, Teague’s DC-572 application had already been denied.
77. On May 15, 2013, Ms. Brown sent a letter to Teague, stating in part: I responded to you via letter on March 15, 2013 regarding your DC-572 request to have “Humanism” as an accommodated faith practice by the North Carolina Department of Public Safety. I also stated that our records determine that you changed your faith on February 11, 2013 to Buddhist.
14 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 14 of 22

Now on May 8, 2013 I am in receipt of a second DC-572 requesting “Humanism” again. In reviewing the information you provided, you are referring the “Ethical Humanism Society.” We made several attempts to contact the “Ethical Humanism Society.” Mr. Best from the information you provided on the DC-572 and have not been successful as of this date. I research information you submitted regarding the “Ethical Humanism Society.” I called the number listed on the website for “Ethical Humanism Society”, in Chapel Hill, NC and spoke to someone regarding your membership; he could not confirm you being a member. I continued to read the information and could not find the information needed to move forward with your request.
Mr. Teague the purpose of a DC-572 is to assist the Religious Practices Committee in making necessary determination in order to protect the Constitutional rights of inmates. The Religious Practices Committee process is to obtain authentic information and meet with legitimate representatives of all religious groups who have practitioners incarcerated in North Carolina Prison's to discuss how their religious needs can be met within the constraints of a prison environment. To this date we have not been able to authenticate your information.
Religious Practices Committee did not recommend “Ethical Humanism Society” as an established faith within the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Prisons Section. We are proceeding with good will and asking the facility where you are housed to accommodate you through individual private devotion in your cell, with publications that you may purchase. This is the least restrictive means. However, any books ordered must be within the publication policy guidelines.
It is our desire and policy to offer all inmates their religious rights within the boundaries of legitimate penological custody and security objectives.
78. A true and accurate copy of Defendant Brown’s May 2013 letter is attached
herein as Exhibit 8.
79. Mr. Randall Best, the leader of the Ethical Humanist Society of the Triangle has
an answering machine and no messages were ever left by Defendant Brown as of May 15, 2013.
(See Exhibit A, Declaration of Randall Best).
80. On June 10, 2013, Mr. Randall Best sent a letter to Defendant Brown, which
stated in part:
I have been leaving voice mail messages for you to call me for over a week now. I know that you must be busy but I look forward to hearing from you soon.
15 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 15 of 22

I would like to talk to you about Ethical Humanism, also known as Ethical Culture, and Mr. Kwame Teague's application to have Ethical Humanism recognized as an accommodated faith practice by the North Carolina Department of Public Safety.
Ethical Culture/Ethical Humanism, founded in 1876 in New York City by Felix Adler, is a religion free from supernatural elements that focuses on ethical relationships and practices. We are a recognized religious denomination by the U.S. Government.
Some of the history of Ethical Culture/Ethical Humanism can be found on the Wikipedia website at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_culture. The website for the Ethical Humanist Society of the Triangle, my congregation in Chapel Hill, is: http://www.ncethicalsociety.org.
I would be more than happy to talk to you about Ethical Humanism, Humanism in general, and answer any questions that you may have. The best way to reach me is on my cell phone, [redacted]. I hope to hear from you soon.
81. A true and accurate copy of Mr. Best’s letter quoted above is attached herein as
Exhibit 9.
82. After sending Defendant Brown the above-quoted letter and leaving her multiple
voice messages, Brown eventually returned Mr. Best’s call. However, she did not indicate that
the prison would authorize a Humanist meeting group or allow Teague to identify as a Humanist
for OPUS purposes.
83. On November 26, 2014, the AHA sent a second letter to Defendants, informing
them that their refusal to accommodate Humanist inmates is unconstitutional and warning them
that a lawsuit would follow if they did not change their practices immediately.
84. A true and accurate copy of this 2014 AHA letter is attached herein as Exhibit 10.
85. As of February 19, 2015, Defendants have yet to respond to AHA’s second letter.
86. In addition to sending said letter, Plaintiffs’ attorney, Monica Miller, made several
phone calls to Betty Brown between January 8, 2015 and January 13, 2015, in an attempt to
amicably resolve the issues complained of herein without resort to litigation. Ms. Miller left a
16 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 16 of 22

message with a woman in Ms. Brown’s office yet Ms. Brown did not return her call. Ms. Miller also sent Ms. Brown a follow up email on January 12, 2015, attached herein as Exhibit 11, to which Ms. Brown never replied.
87. As of February 19, 2015, Defendants have yet to accommodate Teague’s request to form a Humanist meeting group and his request to identify as a Humanist in OPUS.
88. Defendants’ refusal to accommodate Humanist inmates with a Humanist group, while authorizing such groups for inmates of a wide array of religious traditions, including nontheistic traditions, is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause.
89. Defendants’ refusal to recognize Humanism for OPUS purposes, while recognizing a wide array of religious traditions, including even non-theistic traditions, for OPUS purposes, is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause.
90. For instance, the Department recognizes Buddhism as a religion, which is a nontheistic tradition.
91. The reason that Humanist inmates were denied the opportunity to meet like Recognized Religious groups was not because the number of Humanist inmates desiring to meet was smaller than the number of inmates wishing to meet in other religious groups.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT 1: VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT (U.S. CONST. AM. I; 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 92. All preceding allegations are incorporated herein by reference. 93. The actions of Defendants and their agents, servants, or employees, as described above, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Said violations include, but are not limited to:
17 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 17 of 22

i. Defendants’ refusal to recognize Humanist as a religious assignment in OPUS. ii. Defendants’ refusal to authorize a Humanist study group. iii. Defendants’ refusal to permit a Humanist inmate to form a Humanist study group to meet with other Humanist inmates to study and discuss their commonly held convictions and principles relating to religion on the same terms the Defendants authorize groups for inmates of other faith traditions. 94. Defendants’ actions described above lack a secular purpose, have the effect of promoting, favoring and endorsing some religions over others and religion over non-religion generally, and result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion. Said actions also fail strict scrutiny because they lack a compelling governmental interest and the means used to achieve any said interest are not narrowly tailored. 95. Defendants intentionally or recklessly violated Plaintiffs’ well-settled constitutional rights under the Establishment Clause. 96. Defendants acted under color of law in violating the First Amendment as described herein in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. COUNT 2: VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (U.S. CONST., AM. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983) 97. All preceding allegations are incorporated herein by reference. 98. Defendants’ refusal to recognize Humanist as a religious assignment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 99. Defendants’ refusal to permit a Humanist inmate to form a group to meet with other Humanist inmates to study and discuss their commonly held convictions regarding religion
18 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 18 of 22

on the same terms Defendants authorize groups for inmates of other faith traditions violates the Equal Protection Clause.
100. Defendants’ refusal to allow non-theistic inmates who identify as Humanist to meet on the same terms the Defendants authorize similarly situated theistic inmates to meet, including but not limited to those who identify as Catholic, Muslim, or Buddhist violates the Equal Protection Clause.
101. Defendants’ actions described above lack a compelling, important or even legitimate governmental interest therefore violating the Equal Protection Clause.
102. Defendants intentionally or recklessly violated Plaintiffs’ well-settled constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause.
103. Defendants acted under color of law in violating the Equal Protection Clause as described herein in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court grant the following relief:
i. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ actions described above violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
ii. A declaratory judgment that the following actions of Defendants violate the Establishment Clause:
a. Defendants’ refusal to authorize a Humanist meeting group. b. Defendants’ refusal to recognize Humanism as an assignment option for OPUS. iii. A declaratory judgment that the above actions of the Defendants’: a. lack a secular purpose;
19 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 19 of 22

b. have the effect of endorsing, favoring, and preferring some religions over others, and in particular, theistic traditions over non-theistic traditions and religion over nonreligion; and
c. result in excessive government entanglement with religion. iv. A declaratory judgment that the Defendants’ actions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. v. A declaratory judgment that the following actions of the Defendants violate the Equal Protection Clause:
a. Defendants’ refusal to authorize a Humanist meeting group. b. Defendants’ refusal to recognize Humanism as an assignment option for OPUS. vi. A declaratory judgment that the above actions of the Defendants lack a compelling, important or legitimate governmental interest in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. vii. A declaratory judgment that the Defendants discriminated against Teague on account of his religious convictions in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. viii. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ discrimination against Humanist inmates lacks a compelling, important or legitimate governmental interest in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. ix. A declaratory judgment that Defendants intentionally or recklessly violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. x. A permanent injunction ordering Defendants, their agents, successors, and any person in active concert with the Defendants to:
20 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 20 of 22

a. Authorize Humanist study groups in all Department prisons and allow such Humanist groups to meet on the same terms the Defendants authorize groups for inmates of other faith traditions;
b. Authorize Teague to meet in a Humanist study group on the same terms Defendants authorize for inmates of recognized faith traditions;
c. Authorize a Humanist study group upon the request of any inmate at any Department facility in which religious groups are permitted, and approve of said Humanist group without requiring inmates to file a formal request such as a DC-572 or administrative remedy appeal. Any such Humanist group must be provided with the same rights, privileges, and benefits of other recognized religious groups. Humanist study groups at BOP facilities must be permitted to have an outside volunteer under the same circumstances that outside volunteers are authorized for other religious study groups;
d. Recognize Humanism as a religious assignment option in OPUS; and e. Recognize Humanism as an equivalent to already accepted religions in all Department facilities, such that no inmate shall be required to fill out a DC-572 or similar proposal to establish Humanist group meetings. xi. A permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants, their agents, successors and any person in active concert with the Defendants, from: a. Refusing to authorize a Humanist study group to meet on the same terms the Department authorizes groups for inmates of other faith traditions; b. Refusing to authorize an Atheist study group to meet on the same terms the Department authorizes groups for inmates of other faith traditions; and c. Otherwise discriminating against Atheist and Humanist inmates.
21 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 21 of 22

xii. An award of nominal damages to the Plaintiffs.
xiii. An award to the Plaintiffs of their reasonable costs, disbursements and attorneys’
fees as allowed by law from the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
xiv. An award of such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 25th day of February, 2015.
/s/ Monica L. Miller MONICA L. MILLER Attorney for Plaintiffs American Humanist Association 1777 T Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 238-9088 Facsimile: (202) 238-9003 Email: mmiller@americanhumanist.org CA Bar: 288343 / DC Bar: 101625
DAVID A. NIOSE Attorney for Plaintiffs Law Offices of David Niose 348 Lunenburg Street, Suite 202 Fitchburg, MA 01420 Telephone: (978) 343-0800 Email: dniose@nioselaw.com MA Bar: 556484/ DC Bar 1024530
/s/ W. Swain Wood W. Swain Wood N.C. State Bar No. 32037 J. Christopher Jackson N.C. State Bar No. 26916 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WOOD JACKSON PLLC 1330 St. Mary’s Street, Suite 460 Raleigh, NC 27605 Telephone: (919) 829-7394 Facsimile: (919) 829-7396 Email: swood@woodjackson.com
cjackson@woodjackson.com Local Civil Rule 83.1 Counsel
22 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 1 Filed 02/25/15 Page 22 of 22

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO .. 5:15-CT-3053-BO

AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION)

and KWAME JAMAL TEAGUE,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

~

)

)

FRANKL. PERRY, eta!.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment [DE68, 83]. The issues raised have been fully briefed and are ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the court grants plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denies defendants' cross- · motion for summary judgment.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE OnFebruary25, 2015, plaintiffs theAmericanHumanistAssociation("AHA")1andKwame Jamal Teague ("Teague") filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Frank L. Perry, David Guice, George Solomon, Betty Brown, Gwen Norville, David Mitchell, and Sara R. Cobb in their official capacities only. Defendants are current and former employees of the North

1 The AHA is a national nonprofit 501 (c)(3) membership organization incorporated in Illinois with a principal place of business in Washington, D.C. Comp!. [DE-1], ~5. It promotes Humanism and is dedicated to advancing and preserving separation of church and state and the constitutional rights of Humanists. Id.
2 Although the parties have not addressed the issue, the court is aware that several ofthe named defendants are no longer employed by DPS. However, under Federal Rule'of Civil Procedure 25(d), "any misnomer not affecting the parties' substantial rights must be disregarded[,]" and "the absence of... an order [directing substitution] does not affect the substitution." See,~. Lankford v. Gelston, 364 F.2d 197, 205 n.9 (4th Cir. 1966). Thus, the reference in the caption to any defendant who has left office since the action commenced does not abate the action, and formal

Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 19

Carolina Department of Public Safety ("DPS"), and involved in policy decisions related to the recognition offaith groups in the state's prisons. Plaintiffs allege that the DPS' s disparate treatment ofHumanists violates the Establishment Clause ofthe First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek the entry of a declaratory judgment, permanent injunctive relief, nominal damages, and attorney's fees. Compl. [DE-1 ], p. 19-22. Specifically, plaintiffs seek the entry of a declaratory judgment finding, inter alia, that defendants' actions violated the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses. Id. at 19-20. Similarly, plaintiffs request that the court enter a permanent injunction ordering, inter alia, DPS to recognize Humanism as a faith group and to authorize Humanists to meet in a study group on the same terms defendants authorize for inmates of recognized faith traditions. Id. at 20-21.
OnJuly28, 2017, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment [DE-68, 83]. Both motions were fully briefed, and the court conducted a hearing on January 24, 2018. These matters are now ripe for adjudication.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Teague was a Humanist3 state inmate incarcerated at Lanesboro Correctional Institution ("Lanesboro") when he filed this action, but subsequently transferred to Nash Correctional Institution ("Nash"). Inmates admitted into DPS custody are asked their religious preference during intake. Pl Ex. 100 [DE-81-5], p. 12. These religious preferences are entered into the Offender Population
substitution of any successor is not required. 3 According to plaintiffs, Humanists strive to bring about a progressive society where being good without a god
is an accepted and respected way to live life. PL Ex. 13 [DE-72-13], p. 3. The ultimate concern for Humanists is to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. Id. at 3-4.
2
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 2 of 19

Unified System ("OPUS"). Id. Inmates may change their OPUS faith group designation, but may only declare a faith group recognized by DPS. Id. at 1558-59.
DPS maintains a list ofapproved faith groups. Pl Ex. 6 [DE-72-6], pp. 24-30. DPS provides approved faith groups the resources necessary for group study and worship. Id. Approved faith groups are provided time and space for group study and worship even when neither is a requirement ofthe religion. Id. DPS policy states that "[i]nmates shall not organize nor conduct group meetings without prior approval of the facility head or designee." PL Ex..6 [DE-72-6], p. 6. There is no minimumnumberofinmatesrequiredforrecognitionas afaithgroup.4 PL Ex. 107 [DE-82-2],p. 39. Moreover, there are no written standards ofany sort outlining the requirements for DPS to recognize a particular faith group. PL Ex. 107 [DE-82-2], p. 163. DPS does not recognize Humanism as a faith group. Def. Ex. C [DE-86-3]. Thus, at present, a Humanist ininate cannot assemble with other Humanist inmates to study and discuss Humanist values. PL Ex. 107 [DE-82-2], p. 58. Likewise, an inmate cannot designate Humanism as his preferred faith group in OPUS.
Teague first sought recognition ofHumanism from DPS officials in 2012.5 Def. Ex. A [DE86-1 ], p. 59. After fully exhausting his administrative remedies, Teague was instructed to complete a "Request for Religious Assistance Form (DC-572)." PL Ex. 27 [DE-74-2], p. 1. Teague submitted a form DC-572 on September 18, 2012. PL Ex. 37 [DE-75-2]. In January 2013, DPS's Religious
4 For example, during the time Teague sought recognition for Humanism, DPS approved Aquarian Christine Church Universal ("CCU") as a faith group despite only two people showing interest in CCU. Pl. Ex. 10 [DE-72-10], p. 2. Plaintiffs have identified several inmates interested in participating in Humanist group meetings. Pl. Ex. 88-95, [DE-80].
5 Throughout Teague's attempts to obtain recognition as a faith group for Humanism from DPS, the AHA contacted DPS on Teague's behalfnumerous times, providing additional information about Humanism and its leadership. Pl. Ex. 31 [DE-74-6]; Pl. Ex. 43 [DE-75-8]; Pl. Ex. 74 [DE-78-9]; Pl. Ex. 76 [DE-79-1], p. 3; Pl. Ex. 107 [DE-82-2], p. 134.
3
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 3 of 19

Practices Committee ("RPC") denied Teague's requests. Def. Ex. C [DE-86-3], p. 6. In support of its decision, the RPC noted: (1) it could not find a contact person for Humanism; (2) Humanism appeared to "be a philosophy oflife" rather than a religion; (3) Humanist websites focused more on advocacy than faith practices; (4) Teague was represented by an attorney who worked for an advocacy group; (5) Teague was still listed in OPUS as a Muslim; and (6) Teague participated in religious services provided by other faiths. Id.
The RPC met again on March 5, 2013, to reconsider recognition of Humanism as a faith group. PL Ex. 50 [DE-76-5]. First, the RPC noted that Teague's request for recognition of Humanism was moot because Teague was now listed in OPUS as a Buddhist. Id. at 2. That notwithstanding, the RPC further concluded that Humanism failed to meet the standards for approval as a faith group "because there are many disciplines of Humanism," and "[t]here is no evidence . . . to conclude that there is a religious structure that includes a hierarchy of religious leaders." Id. at 3. Id. The RPC, however, acknowledged that Humanism promoted "a life ofpersonal fulfillment that aspires to the greater good ofhumanity," and did not pose a security threat. Id. Ultimately, the RPC declined to recognize Humanism as a faith group, but determined that Teague could individually pursue his study ofHumanism through "published literature ofhis preference at his own expense." Id. at 4.
On March 15, 2013, Teague was advised by DPS officials that his DC-572 request for recognition ofHumanism as a faith group was still under review. PL Ex. 51 [DE-76-6]. He also was notified that DPS "records determine that you no longer have an interest for Humanism, because . . . you changed your faith to Buddhist." Id. However, Teague only changed his OPUS status from
4
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 4 of 19

Islamic to Buddhist because Humanism was not a valid selection, and Buddhism was the only nontheistic option other than "none." PL Ex. 110 [DE-82-5], p. 14.
Teague submitted another DC-572 form requesting recognition ofHumanism as a faith group on April 26, 2013. PL Ex. 53 [DE-76-8]. After Teague submitted his request, prison officials sent him a series of additional questions beyond what is normally required. PL Ex. 53 [DE-76-8], pp. 47; PL Ex. 108 [DE-82-3], pp. 68-69. During this time, Teague also met with prison officials and provided them additional information regarding Humanism. Def. Ex. C, [DE-86-3], pp. 13-19. On
May 15, io 13, Teague was informed by letter that his renewed request was denied. PL Ex. 55 [DE-
76-10]. Prison officials, instead, indicated they would accommodate Teague "through individual private devotions in [his] cell, with publications that [he] may purchase." Id.
In September 2013, Randy Best, a Humanist chaplain and a leader in the Ethical Humanist Society ofthe Triangle in North Carolina, sought permission from DPS to visit Teague as his pastor and conduct Humanist services for other inmates. Pl Ex. 62 [DE-77-7]. It appears that the application was never formally approved. PL Ex. 98 [DE-81-3], p. 16.
On October 15, 2013, Teague submitted a third DC-572 form seeking recognition of Humanism as a faith group. Pl. Ex. 64 [DE-77-9]. He also renewed his request for weekly Humanist group meetings. Id. at 1-2. These requests were denied, and prison officials instead decided to accommodate Teague by providing him access to pastoral visits and Humanist publications.6 PL Ex, 76 [DE-79-1], p. 3. Of note, in July 2015, the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") officially recognized Humanism as a faith group and provides the group two time slots per
6 However, plaintiffs contend that prison officials denied Teague access to Humanist materials on at least one occasion. Pl Ex. 98 [DE-81-3], pp. 16-17.
5
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 5 of 19

week for worship and study. Pl. Ex. 18, [DE-73-3]. Likewise, the Department of Defense, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Veterans Affairs also now recognize Humanism as a religion. Pl. Ex. 20 [DE-73-5].
DISCUSSION A. Mootness
Defendants argue that plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief are moot because the actions described in the complaint primarily occurred at Lanesboro, and Teague has since been transferred to Nash. "[A]s a general rule, a prisoner's transfer or release from a particular prison moots his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to his incarceration there." Rendelman v. Rouse, 569F.3d182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (citinglncumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286-87 (4th Cir. 2007)); Taylor v. Rogers, 781F.2d1047, 1048 n. 1 (4th Cir. 1986)). However, an exception to the mootness doctrine exists for cases that are "capable ofrepetition, yet evading review." The "capable of repetition, yet evading review" doctrine "applies only in exceptional situations" where "two circumstances [are] simultaneously present: (1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to a cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subj ectto the same action again." Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1998) (quotation omitted).
Thus, a transfer to a separate prison facility moots an inmate's requests for injunctive relief, . so long as the transfer prevents the inmate from encountering those same allegedly unconstitutional
prison conditions that gave rise to his original grievances. Turner v. Clelland, No. 1:15CV947, 2016 WL 6997500, at *13 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 30, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Turner. Jr. v. Clelland, No. 1:15CV947, 2017 WL 913630 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2017). That '"is not
6
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 6 of 19

the case, however, where the inmate challenges a system-wide policy that applies wherever the inmate is next sent until his release."' Id. (quotation omitted). Here, DPS' s decision to not approve Humanism as a faith group is a system wide policy. Pl Ex. 49 [DE-76-4]. Even at Nash, Teague cannot identify as a Humanist in OPUS, and he is still not permitted to organize Humanist study groups. Moreover, AHA represents inmates located in several different facilities. Accordingly, plaintiffs' claims are not moot. B. Standing
In addition, defendants argue that AHA lacks standing. An association has standing to sue on behalf of its members if they would have standing to sue on their own, the association seeks to protect interests germane to its purpose, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires its individual members to participate in the lawsuit. Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-Nat'! Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 874 F.3d 195, 203-04 (4th Cir. 2017); see also Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977); ACLU of Ohio Found., Inc. v. DeWeese, 633 F.3d 424, 429 (6th Cir. 2011).
Here, Teague is a member of the AHA, and plaintiffs have identified at least eight inmates other than Teague who are Humanists and members of the AHA. PL Ex. 88-95 [DE-80]. DPS has denied requests from. Humanist inmates other than Teague to change their status in OPUS to Humanist. Id. Similarly, other inmates sought to form a Humanist study group and the requests were denied. Id. Accordingly, the court finds that AHA has associational standing based on its representation of Humanist inmates incarcerated by DPS.
7
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 7 of 19

C. Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment7 1. Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate when there exists no genuine issue of material fact, and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed: R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of initially coming forward and demonstrating an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party then must affirmatively demonstrate that there exists a genuine issue of material fact requiring trial. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). There is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. "When cross-motions for summary judgment are before a court, the court examines each motion separately, employing the familiar standard under Rule 56 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure." Desmond v. PNGI Charles Town Gaming, L.L.C., 630 F.3d 351, 354 (4th Cir. 2011).
2. Analysis The parties disagree whether Humanism should be considered a religion. The court assumes, without deciding, that Humanism is a religion for the purposes ofplaintiffs' Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n. 11 (1961) ("Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the
7 The court notes that although defendants asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in their answer, they have not argued thatthey are entitled to qualified immunity in their motion for summaryjudgment. Because defendants failed to raise the affirmative defense beyond a conclusory statement in their answer, the court finds that defendants have waived qualified immunity. See DePaola v. Clarke, No. 16-7360, 2018 WL 1219611, at *5 n. 4 (4th Cir. Mar. 9, 2018); Sales v. Grant, 224 F.3d 293, 296-97 (4th Cir. 2000) (finding that the defendants waived qualified immunity by failing to pursue it prior to remand even though the defendants technically pied "immunity" in their answer).
8
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 8 of 19

existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."); Kaufman v. McCaughtcy, 419 F.3d 678, 683-684 (7th Cir. 2005) (finding that inmate's atheism qualified as a religion for purposes of the First Amendment); see also, American Humanist Ass'n v. United States, 63 F. Supp. 3d 1274, 1283 (D. Or. 2014) (finding Secular Humanism to be a religion for Establishment Clause purposes). The court will now address plaintiffs' Equal Protection and Establishment Clause claims in turn.
a. Establishment Clause "The Establishment Clause provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...." U.S. Const. amend. I. It applies to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment." Nusbaum v. Terrangi, 210 F. Supp. 2d 784, 787 (E.D. Va. 2002) (citing Board of Educ. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 690 (1994)). The parties disagree as to the standard
I
governing plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim.. Plaintiffs argue that the strict scrutiny standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982), applies, whereas defendants assert that the Lemon test is the appropriate standard. Subsequent to the Court's ruling in Larson, the Fourth Circuit held that "a court applies strict scrutiny only to statutes that make explicit and deliberate distinctions between different religious organizations." Liberty University, Inc. v. Lew, 733 F.3d 72, 101 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and alteration omitted); cf. Rouser v. White, 630 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1195 & n.6 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ("the Larson test only applies where plaintiffhas shown that the state law or action manifests a preference to some religions over others"). Plaintiffs have not identified any particular law or policy which explicitly and deliberately differentiates among religions. In fact, the record reflects that there are no written standards used to evaluate whether to recognize a faith group. PL Ex. 107 [DE-82-2] p. 163. Thus, the court
9
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 9 of 19

focuses its inquiry on the Lemon test. See Hernandez v. Comm'r ofInternal Revenue, 490 U.S. 680, 695 ("Larson teaches that, when it is claimed that a denominational preference exists, the initial inquiry is whether the law facially differentiates among religions. Ifno facial preference exists we
proceed to apply the [Lemon test]."); see also, Arri. HumanistAss'n, 874 F.3d at204; Kaufman, 419
F.3d at 684; Cardewv. Bellnier, No. ~:09-CV-775, 2010 WL 7139218, at *13-14 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2010). Regardless of the standard applied, the court concludes that plaintiffs have demonstrated an Establishment Clause violation.
For government conduct to survive review under the three-part test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971), it must first "have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; [and] finally, the statute must not foster, 'an excessive government entanglement with religion."' Lemon, 403 U.S.at 612-13 (internal citations omitted); see also Lambeth v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Davidson Cty., NC, 407 F.3d 266, 268 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that Establishment Clause challenges are "properly analyzed ... under the Lemon test"). Notably, "a violation of even one prong of Lemon results in a violation of the Establishment Clause." Am. Humanist Ass'n, 874 F.3d at 206.
'
The court begins with the first prong ofthe Lemon test-whether the government action has a secular purpose. Here, plaintiffs challenge defendants' alleged refusal to recognize Humanism as a faith group and refusal to ac~ommodate Humanist group meetings. It is undisputed that the RPC recognizes a number of other religious groups and permits inmate members ofthose groups to meet in groups for study and worship in the state's prisons. Defendants provide a variety of reasons why they denied faith group recognition to Humanism, which include: (1) lack of a centralized head, formal structure, or hierarchy of other religions; (2) a multi-discipline nature; and (3) a stronger
10
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 10 of 19

focus on advocacy, rather than faith practices. Pl. Ex. 49 [DE-76-4],p. 3; Pl. Ex. 50 [DE-76-5]; Def. Ex. C [DE-86-3], p. 6. However, DPS has recognized other faith groups, such as American Indian, Wicca, Hinduism, Asatru, Rastafarianism, and Buddhism, which also lack a centralized head or the formal structure or hierarchy ofother religions. See Pl. Ex. 7 [DE-72-7]; see,~' Utt v~ Brown, No. 5:12-CT-3132-FL, 2015 WL 5714885, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2015) ("The North Carolina Department of Public Safety ("DPS") recognizes Wicca as an approved religion in its Religious Practices Reference Manual.") (footnote omitted)). Similarly, many denominations of Christianity with diverse beliefs have been approved as faith groups. Pl. Ex. 2 [DE-72-2]. Furthermore, DPS conceded that, at best, participation in advocacy was a neutral factor. Pl. Ex. 106 [DE-82-2], p. 143.
DPS also denied recognition of Humanism because: (1) it could not find a contact person to discover more information about Humanism; (2) Teague was listed in OPUS initially as Muslim and later as a Buddhist; and (3) Teague participated in religious services provided by other faiths. Pl. Ex. 49 [DE-76-4], p. 3; Pl. Ex. 50 [DE-76-5]; Def. Ex. C [DE-86-3], p. 6. To the extent prison officials lacked information on Humanism, the record indicates that AHA's general counsel corresponded with DPS and offered to answer any questions. Pl. Ex. 31 [DE-74-6]. Additionally, Teague only identified as Buddhist because it was the available option that most closely resembled his Humanist beliefs because his preferred faith group was not available. Pl. Ex. 110 [DE-82-5], p. 14. In any event, DPS permits prisoners to attend religious services even when they do not subscribe to all of that faith group's beliefs. Pl. Ex. 106 [DE-82-2], p. 149; see Ben-Levi v. Brown, No. 5:12-CT-3193-F, 2014 WL 7239858, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 18, 2014)(notingthat"[i]ngeneral, DPS policy permits regular population inmates to attend any corporate worship service held at a facility"), affd, 600 F. App'x 899 (4th Cir. 2015). Attendance.at services for a recognized faith group does
11
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 11 of 19

not preclude an inmate from having another religion recognized. PL Ex. 106 [DE-82-2], p. 149. Based upon the foregoing, defendants have not demonstrated a secular purpose for denying Humanism recognition as a religious group or for the decision to prohibit Humanist inmates from organizing group meetings.
The court next considers both the second and third factors ofthe Lemon test-whether DPS' s policies regarding faith groups either advance or inhibit religion, and whether those policies foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13. The process DPS uses to determine whether to recognize a particular faith group advances more traditional religions, ~ut inhibits non-traditional religious groups such as Humanism. For example, Teague was subjected to additional requirements in his attempt to obtain DPS' s recognition ofHumanism as a faith group, without explanation. PL Ex. 53 [DE-76-8]; PL Ex. 108 [DE-82-3], p. 67-68. Indeed, it appears that Teague was asked to provide this additional information despite the fact that DPS had already decided to not recognize Humanism as a faith group. PL Ex. 42 [DE-75-7]; PL Ex. 50 [DE-76-5]. The record further reflects that DPS prison officials expressed skepticism and bias toward Humanism because it did not have a "religious tone" and its members "did not believe in a deity." PL Ex. 42 [DE-75-7], p. I; PL Ex. 50 [DE-76-3], p. 1 (describing Humanism as a "weird faith" during a committee meeting); PL Ex. 79 [DE-79-4] (DPS e-mail with the subject "I know some chaplains will have real difficulty with this one.").
Defendants, additionally, have not set forth any evidence to support space, resource, or security concerns applicable to Humanist inmates, which do not apply equally to Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Wiccan inmates. See Kaufman, 419 F.3d at 684. Rather, on the record before the court, DPS's arbitrary decision to recognize some faith groups, and not Humanism, fostered an excessive
12
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 12 of 19

government entanglement with religion. For these reasons, the court concludes that DPS violated both the second and third factors of the Lemon test and, therefore, the Establishment Clause. See Ctr. for Inquiry Inc. v. Marion Circuit Court Clerk, 758 F.3d 869, 873-75 (7th Cir. 2014); Kaufman v. Pugh ("Kaufman II"), 733 F.3d 692, 694 (7th Cir. 2013) (holding prison officials "violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment by refusing [a prisoner's] request to create a religious study group dedicated to atheism, while allowing religious study groups dedicated to other religions."); Am. Humanist Ass'n, 63 F. Supp. 3d at 1282; Brown v. Livingston, 17 F. Supp. 3d 616, 631 (S.D. Tex. 2014) ("[Prison officials have] intentionally made it easier for Jewish inmates over Muslim inmates to have volunteer-led religious activities. That circumstance alone, in and of itself, constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause.").
b. Equal Protection 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." U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. To that end, the Equal Protection Clause provides that "all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). To establish an equal protection claim, a plaintiff "must first demonstrate that he has been treated differently from others with whom he is similarly situated and that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination. [] If he makes this showing, the court proceeds to determine whether the disparity in treatment can be justified under the requisite level ofscrutiny." Veneyv. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730-31 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation omitted); Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 2001). In a prison context, this level of scrutiny is "whether the disparate treatment is reasonably related to [any] legitimate penological interests." Veney, 293
13
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 13 of 19

F.3d at 732 (internal quotation omitted). See also, Giarrantano v. Johnson, 521F.3d298 (4th Cir. 08) ("[W]e do not recognize prisoners as a suspect class.") (internal citation and quotation omitted).
Here, the record reflects that DPS authorizes meetings for some non-theistic religions but not Humanism. Therefore, plaintiffs have demonstrated that they have been treated differently from others with whom they are similarly situated. See also, American Humanist Ass'n, 63 F. Supp. 3d at 1284 ("Allowing followers of other faiths to join religious group meetings while denying Holden the same privilege is discrimination on the basis ofreligion."). Additionally, as discussed in more detail above, plaintiffs have provided evidence of discriminatory intent through DPS' s bias against Humanism and the fact that prison officials required him to submit materials beyond what is typically required in support of his request for recognition of Humanism as a faith group. See Personnel Adm'r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979) (stating that discriminatory purpose "implies that the decision maker ... selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group") (internal quotation and citation omitted). Based upon the foregoing, plaintiff have established a prima facie equal protection claim.
Because plaintiffs have established a prima facie equal protection claim, the court proceeds to determine whether the alleged disparate treatment is reasonably related to any legitimate penological interests. In making this determination, the court must consider four factors: (1) whether there is a valid, rational connection between the policy and the penological interest; (2) whether an alternative means of exercising the right remains open to prison inmates; (3) the impact accommodation ofthe asserted right will have on guards, other inmates, and the allocation ofprison resources; and (4) the absence of ready alternatives that fully accommodate the prisoner's rights at
14
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 14 of 19

de minimis cost to valid penological interests. Morrison, 239 F.3d at 655. Importantly, "[a] policy will not be sustained "where the logical connection between the [policy] and the asserted goal is so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational." Id.
Here, defendants argue that no Equal Protection violation exists because DPS's refusal to recognize Humanism was based on an evaluation of available space, resources, and security concerns. These are legitimatepenological interests. Tehuti v. Robinson, No. 7:17CV00126, 2018 WL 502755, at *4 (W.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2018) ("In a First Amendment challenge, the defendants must show that the action or policy is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, such as security, discipline and efficient use of limited resources."). However, defendants are unable to establish the first Morrison factor because there is no rational connection between DPS's cited interests and its refusal to recognize Humanism as a faith group. As stated, it does not appear from the summary judgment record that size or demand played a role in DPS's refusal to recognize Humanism. Indeed, other faith groups have been recognized with as few as two interested inmates. Pl. Ex. 10 [DE-72-10], p. 2., The record further does not establish that Humanism was denied recognition as a faith group based on space or resource concerns. Rather, when DPS rejected Teague's requests, they focused on the merits of Humanism as a religion rather than any space, resource, or security concerns. See,~ Def. Ex. C [DE-86-3], p. 6; Pl. Ex. 50 [DE-76-5], pp. 2-4. There, also, is no evidence in the record to support DPS' s cited security concerns. See Morrison, 239 F.3d at 656; Couch v. Jabe, 679 F.3d 197, 201 (4th Cir. 2012) ("[T]he mere assertion ofsecurity or health reasons is not, by itself, enough for the Government to satisfy the compelling governmental interest requirement.") (citation omitted). Rather, DPS specifically concluded that recognition of Humanism did not pose a security threat. Pl. Ex. 50 [DE-76-5]. Finally, the BOP has approved
15
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 15 of 19

Humanism as a faith group and allots the group two time slots per week for worship and study. Pl. Ex. 18, [DE-73-3].
As for the remaining Morrison factors, defendants concede that Humanist inmates including Teague do not have an alternative means of exercising their rights nor are there ready alternatives to accommodate them, because unrecognized faith groups are not permitted to meet in small groups. Pl. Ex. 108 [DE-82-3], p. 26. Further, there is no evidence that accommodating plaintiffs' requests would have a negative effect on guards, other inmates, or the allocation of prison resources. Upon evaluating the Morrison factors, the court finds that the logical connection between DPS's decision to not recognize Humanism as a faith group and its stated legitimate policy goals is so remote as to renderthe policy arbitrary or irrational. Accordingly, defendants have violated the Equal Protection Clause. D. Injunctive Relief
Injunctive relief may be granted only upon plaintiffs' proof of constitutional violations. See Bolding v. Holshouser, 575 F.2d 461, 466 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 837, (1978); Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 242 (1972). A federal court's power to intervene in the internal operations of state agep.cies is limited. See Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318, 325 (2012) ("The difficulties of operating a detention center must not be underestimated by the courts . . . . Maintaining safety and order at these institutions requires the expertise of correctional officials, who must have substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions to the problems they face."). In prison conditions cases, the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") specifically provides that a court "shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation ofthe Federal right, and
16
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 16 of 19

is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(l)(A), (g)(7) (defining "the term 'prospective relief [to] mean[] all relief other than compensatory monetary damages"); see Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 369-70 (4th Cir. 1996).
Defendants' refusal to recognize Humanism as a faith group and to accommodate Humanist meetings violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses. The court has considered the factors for evaluating whether to grant a permanent injunction set forth in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006), and finds that the factors are met. The court further finds that the injunctive relief set forth below is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of a federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the federal right. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(l)(A). Accordingly, the court GRANTS IN PART8 plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. E. Nominal Damages
The court next turns to plaintiffs' request for nominal damages. Having found that plaintiffs have suffered constitutional violations at the hands of defendants, they are entitled to nominal damages in the amount of $1.00. See Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 112 (1992); Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 267 (1978); American Humanist Association v. Greenville Cty. School District, 652 F. App'x 224, 232 (4th Cir. 2016); Sangraal v. Godinez, No. 3:14-CV-661 SMY/RJD, 2018 WL 1318923, at *6 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2018).
8 The court specifically declines to fully adopt plaintiffs' proposed permanent injunctive order because it contains language that is not narrowly tailored. For example, plaintiffs ask the court to prohibit defendants from "[o]therwise discriminating against Atheists and Humanists." CompI. [DE-1 ], p. 21. That language is too vague to be enforceable for the purposes of a permanent injunction.
17
Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 17 of 19

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment [DE-68] is GRANTED and

defendant's motion for summary judgment [DE-83] is DENIED;

(2) The court enters a permanent injunction ordering Defendants, their agents,

successors, and any person in active concert with the Defendants: (a) to

recognize Humanism as a faith group and as an assignment option for OPUS

and all other prison records; and (b) permit Teague and other Humanist

inmates to meet in a Humanist study group on the same terms defendants

authorize for inmates of recognized faith groups;

(3) The court enters a declaratoryjudgment stating that defendants' have violated

the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses by refusing to recognize

Humanism as a faith group and by refusing to offer Humanism as

an assignment option for OPUS and other prison records. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2201(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 57;

(4) The court awards plaintiffs attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Counsel for plaintiffs is directed to file documentation in support of these

damages not later than 30 days after the entry of this order. See Robinson

v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 560 F.3d 235, 243 (4th Cir. 2009).

Counsel for defendants shall have 14 days thereafter to file a response. Any

award of attorney's fees will be limited by § 1997e(d);

/

.

18 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 18 of 19

(5) The court shall retain jurisdiction to make any further orders that may be necessary to carry out these directives, but except to that extent, this proceeding is dismissed, with prejudice;
(6) The clerk of court is DIRECTED to close this case. SO ORDERED. This thet.f_ day of March 2018.
T ' ~~~.w.AJ
1'ERiENcE w. BOYLE
United States District Judge
19 Case 5:15-ct-03053-BO Document 103 Filed 03/29/18 Page 19 of 19