9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 12/12/12 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA 


LUMuWlJ)(;( kef'lyaff-4.1f,CUJnQC?

)

[Enter the full name ofthe plaintiffin this action]

)

)

)

v.

)

J/ono/2.able W;!/lam g, BYr CfI2J..,, :Ill> as

) )

Ik 1>illt!cfon.. of Sc DC.

) )

)

-_._-----_._-­

)

)

- . - - ) --~~---------
)

)

Enter above the full name ofdefendant(s) in this action

)

Civil Action No. -9-:-1-2---C-V---3,4- :9-3--C- cM: -C---BcM: ­
(to be assigned by Clerk)
COMPLAINT State Prisoner

I. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS

A. Have you begun other lawsuits in state or federal court dealing with the same facts involved in this action or

otherwise related to your imprisonment?

Yesv'"

No_ __

B. If your answer to A is Yes, describe the lawsuit in the space below. If there is more than one lawsuit, describe the additional lawsuits on another piece of paper using the same outline.

1. Parties to this previous lawsuit: 


k, Plaintiff: LUWlUmhA

In.c UmOq 


~--------------------

Defendant(s): :S-OYlct+halfl £. DZW'linf) hillecl,,,, J Sc /)(

+ 2. Court: ~D7).b'cl- LouJt Ell fAe b7sl£lcf ~:F 50u/A, Catlalma (Iffederal court. name the district; ifstate court. name the county)

3. Docket Number: CA - 03-:2. 77'-' -0

/Irm, Me G c: 4. Name(s) of Judge(s) to whom case was assigned:

CClIVlet20H

OWtlll/ U~IZ ;e

5. Disposition: SUWlWlatty "SvJ.,qment- 3ll.Clnl-~d 10 DeFend(JI1-+. Aj>I!t7(J/t'IL-­
(For example, was the case dismissed? Appealed? Pending?)

.A 6. Approximate date of filing lawsuit:

U ~ U~ f ;).. ~, .;)0 0 3 ,

DctokeN. 2.4, ~OO4-, 7. Approximate date of disposition: ~~~~~-~~~~~~~-----------------

Complaint· State Prisoner Revised October 3, 2007

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 12/12/12 Entry Number 1 Page 2 of 7

II. PLACE OF PRESENT CONFINEMENT
A. NameofPrison/lail/Institution: L'iebell CO;2.}1.e,.J..)ona{ f,,~I-;I-Lll-faV\

VIol f k B. What are the issues that you are attempting to litigate in the above-captioned case?

Q/70Vl. #

!2LurpA ,I ('AflJ !VUf/.lee,l+A Ameltdmenf 10 U/~ L()Jl/sf/J-v f,'();1,

V C. (I) Is there a prisoner grievance procedure in this institution? Yes

No_ __

(2) Did you file a grievance concerning the claims you are raising in this matter? Yes V

No_ __

A When ffl-7( 1~( "J-Oo~'l_ _ Grievance Number (if available) L CI - D 4, !2.- c:r

D. Have you received a final agency/departmental/institutional answer or determination concerning this matter (i.e., your

grievance)?

Yes V

No_ __

E. When was the final agency/departmental/institutional answer or determination received by you? S-- .) ~- 10

Ifpossible, please attach a copy ofyour grievance and a copy ofthe highest level decision concerning your grievance
that you have received. S £:J; AiTA C H ED,

F. If there is no prison grievance procedures in this institution, 
 did you complain to prison, jail, or institutional authorities?

No_ __ 


G. If your answer is YES:

I. What steps did you

2. What was the

III. PARTIES

In Item A below, place your name, inmate number, and address in the space provided. Do the samefor additional plaintiffs,

i/any.

A. Name

LUYV'umt,q k, Tflc.vma

Inmate No.: !5~toS-l_ _

Address: L',ebefl. C~I. J p. D. gOj. :;.O~} llidjev,lleJ S,c. ,)J1472

In Item B below, place the full name of the defendant, his official position, and place ofemployment in the space
provided. Use Item Cfor additional defendants, ifany.
B. Name of Defendant: J-IOYlo;tOlb~ Will io!1;t R.. &1Qtls }~ Position: })i{le,..J..o(l.
, Place of Employment: sou+~ Cal'l.oirYlil DeoQtttYt'let1t of Collfl. ecl-iovl.i
C. Additional Defendants (provide the same information for each defendant as listed in Item B above):

Complaint - State Prisoner Revised October 3, 2007

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 12/12/12 Entry Number 1 Page 3 of 7

IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIM

State here, as briefly as possible, the facts ofyour case. Describe how each defendant is involved Include also the
names of other persons involved, dates, and places. Do not give any legal arguments or cite any cases or statutes.
Ifyou intend to allege a number of related claims, number and set forth each claim in a separate paragraph. Use as much space as you need Atlach an extra sheet if necessary.
I, 0;'1 A,MII l1r ;Joor J V/~d q SI-e; OM- r;,/l.~eY(b1u5-kI-/I13 tk

hnq 50vfh Caflo

lJe ()O(l fmel1.f oF COjt.[l.ec /--;?)PH (jsC!J() des,!jnc('f JOJ-t

I)F my

~el ;,9ioy\

I
():[

tt..~.rt i-t();A.

bf GodS'

one! EOlZfAs (/VOGE) as a

t

S'e{v/L;ly rAlt.eaf G!21J'f($'TG) 1$ ifV1j20S';flj a sub.:S.f4n/i-ol

fk .hUp-Je;1 0;1,

ej..ejl.cis:e bF nty f!e/IjIOPl as Cl h1eI'V1bi!1t 6f 4.

!itJG,t; becauSo, it ftuues ~ In cAooSQ.. kelVveelA fk_e)l.etlc?~

Qf lY1¥ gehj,ov\ Oil tj,e ahanrLoJ1meni ~t10unclnj) ~ my

geh~{Dnj qni fAa{- Ikl£ subs/anl-fClt bup-JeVi. 7r J10f It-. least

fk f-esig'ctiK rnt!anr 10 'FunfAe/l

COMpe/linfj !JovesVlmen1a(

111 feJeesf wk,c,h ~ +

·10 · ~ ..~ ~ VI: v/o/a /-i'o tP.f

& Celljlous LdnJ Use al'Jd Iltsf;tu+,t>vtCtlize£ /?e!2.ro;1s Acf

(gLU:r PA) 4;J., u~ 5. C.. ~ ;;"000 ee) ef. Se(~ ...

J.. ,Aal flu- 5t:./:)c.~ srG Polity ;5 'lW/p()~in9 Cl SubSfqnfrQ/

fk r1.., hUfldeV\ 01'\

exe{lc().e of MV tcehj'j(}J1. as q n1el'Vlhefl tJ

(
&1-10&4 of' G.ods and FatliJu (/1/0GE») J¥\ fAC(f ). l?t;gu;12e s

*il + fl~J.r must R..ei1OUYlLe wbGl"dol1) my &ehj~()Y\ 'flit et=choY13e ti f(elea. u h.d>W\ adm/V! 75/gg, ve S@/lejal--roVl. CQwJiJ1e merit

lie ~& Aene/?a( .:J

D/?60Y\.
I

rJ)loDulaholA

/4. :S'uhstai1/-ral bU/ldeV\. Jt /fof

of.'
lefJ.s+

5e1>(

~
"

Cindi6aithlJ

/l.es/;eichve ty1elUU -1-0

fUl'LfJtef2-f~ cO}1;1pelhlllj jDve/lVtYYleYlhl 'Inte!!est whie-IA-L/J=-_

~Fb/lWa.fl--LIo jvs+,£{ d-) If', VIOla!,))//\. Jfk. gLUT/A.

rAa + 3.

t tny Con flY-it/eel conf)~WleYL IV\ Cld(Y(/YI '/~.jl2a fIlA?

5€',t1ge!jrA~ 75 altt t:l-fYl,ad 4ltJ S/jn.i!';cQltf hOt4/5"'IjJ ~Joil

Complaint - State Prisoner Revised October 3,2007

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 12/12/12 Entry Number 1 Page 4 of 7

IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIM - continued. 

dU/LQ I-,{)V\ and de.9f<-ee_--'2L gesfllicf';Ot1; Itt /<elol-,oV\ 10 fk 

OUIYlQ&r In. cidel1-/r "{'lIZ,sOV\ hie} 'vlolatiYlfj My hI, eI?~¥ infelferl­
pilottef"d hy & FOlht f~e"l fA Amt'nJn1en I 10 I-k. u, f. {bYlrhjv-l-r~;'I1 


4. -rJr.at :r have beei/l denied a Wle41'L/J'-lj Nt /leYiew ~ h-t,y
ContiJllu:.J.. coy,Fil1Ll11enf in adfYI}n'isf/2afive Se,2£e.'ja4ol\ 10

de Ie(t1Yi'1 fill I~ I as CUt 'm J i 'vIci (/a I I/))?:;sonetl. If a~t. u'l!-t'--I'v-+f---­

tlw. fh/lea.f 10

!jC?f1egal

f)tl/SOk\
I

f)ODulC1I,~1I\
I r

tJy Ik

S(/)(41 btJ,SeJ alA. I

de /YI(N IVlJ, Vid Ua {
SCbC .JV(l i-~

conJVLJ Ctl1d dISC iJrl "nail"r gee aU liil-h7i1
las! 5ev(!V\teert (7) yectJij-) V)()/ah21.f:j my

_ - _.. .._ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­
s: S. M7 S+ef OM G.llle van~ Wtl,.(" de;,,!?" on. [eh/luCI/2.y ;1010)
..r a rid X ~eL e'ivt?d IAI$ dell/a I I>n. A10!2.cA. J. 5, ;) 010 • f),ell\ wet:( {pI

Ik,(c1el1/a( "(It £;hJ1j a si~l' Two {;/<)evctJ1fe Of'l. AAClf!ch. :2~

J-OIO f 011 Apt! 3D} :lOti) My Sft?/ . Two G/llevance WOj" also

den/eel) all"- I ,Il.ece>veJ.fj,7s hal del1.)al (Nt A44y )..&1 ;2.0/0;

I tb£i1 filed tl Nohle of Alfea! 10 ;h South CaJlall~M-,-,-q__

!ldfYl)Y\7~k(A.jiveLlli~L_COvn.+ C4LC) Otl :r()~ I, J. 010) appea/>J1j

rAe +k llna,{ Jevt)a( o.F my r;.'/l-ieVClnc.e. I

ALe 'SveiJ 12 . q';-;~~;v(e'

+k- .;;, yGl£Le I oF d c< { (2n 'let

m

VC01 (,e a I1.J d 7.5!J'J /55erL m tV I Clf>IJ ea

trn Attay ;24-, ;A 0 II.=.-,__.~_ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ __

Complaint - State Prisoner Revised October 3,2007

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 12/12/12 Entry Number 1 Page 5 of 7

V. RELIEF

State briefly and exactly what you want the court to do for you.

1. A DeLla,e.a.to~y .:5uJ-jrneYl± dec./olllh;j SCbC ~ c1es/~i1Qb"o"",- oF

my Rellj'IDI/\ f)§'.fk. !Va!-,oll\ tJF C;ools CtnJ £4ltfhs WoGE) as a

SrG. J ft/tC',;'!j ~ lochoDseke.lweeIA. fAe et.etl.Cts.l2_~J1.1<L""'y~__

&h:ff{)V\ OR IAe a,bal1.J.Oi1W1t'nt (iLevtOVI1CIl1,£j) <if my f(eli/{7()Y\

4 bE fk NaG.E) VI-a/oks

JZL U.rPA, . .._._ _ _ _ __

;)., AVl :r;t~ut1ch()V\ Ofl.de{?it't~ fAe b~<:fertrlQnf Jo gemovt tk STG des'; ?Jhaftcw,. #.0;11\ my /?e h;j'iOIl\ 1)9"---,-t~k~N~O::....:G,,,,-E.:"':I"--_ _ _ _ _ __

3 . A J)ecla/ltitf.oIlY TuJ.jiYIenf dec la{LIYlj SCbC ~ sTG /Joltey

Ik v:olaJ.-es

gLU.rPA In fAq,f if gt!!¥ulIU:.s .. M J.o gel'l'-"O=V..::...:..",-=U"'--__

(abanJoYl) my /lehj/of' a~ amt'tnheil. ~f& AlOG,'E If\. e)lchQI1,Je

.JOlt !2e/e aSe.. liz.oW\. ev)mIn Jsilla f i~ s6jje€j a t-?()V1. COYthl1embl t)

and thaf 5vc"- /2.e/lt.illt.emenf place! a .sub::,.J.ai'l/.-/a1 bv,uen "Vi

fk tAf2 etellL,Se if my Jlttd{j'ioY\.fhfAf 7J flol

leas! /2l?sl-!2khlte

meaYL.(__ liYtl.:lhe/l.. Ik. cOM/elf,n!) 30Ve&hn1en~(IJ1f&lle.st whi'th.

Em to 15 put WallA

j US--<-.f.:..:c'.J,-f-f--L-f.il-L1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

tk 4. A", I njUi1( j 10VI. O(lJe/?iJt1j

beFedcioJ1 f h JiL,on i:iJ11& fk.

, * _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _~I.""""_='_'C"Ylfinvej ()t'\ attack DQ9e.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed this _~~,,~..~....~ day

/2.

(/~Yl~iq gL-'LJ.~=.__"_I.=~~'_'_'«~q"'_____.___
Signature ofPlaintiff

Complaint - State Prisoner Revised October 3, 2007

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 12/12/12 Entry Number 1 Page 6 of 7

a4a:c'-. pase.
f/..ELx E F ctJnhYi ved ,

!<-e$ v~fOtmeYl.J.. fha.f .r i 111 Vf. £eV1 ()Ui't,e ~baYlJtJ~) ;n y ielijloV\
as Go{ WlerVl he!1- of Ik ;tIoGE /1'\ Olf-dell ~ ~ /leleQJed £;'I.\. C{J lVIirtl> .flZafJI£ .5e:J1Ze.jCt l,on C(h1.lil1e men!,

+ 5. A j)~,la Ita tony Tuol!Vnel1 y dec laflIn;) tAai h1 {J)JIlI jl1veJ

Con fii1e.mert+ /11 ad MIn j$. I~ /-Il--e. :S~J,R.ej fl'h-oA. ';r a Vl t:ifY/Jcal

Qn.J.. 5;!JYI.' {,ca YI f h&{,R.d'5 hlp II'l /'ol-h. d.Vila. f-701A d 01'/ d~/lee &.E

10 fk r IJ...e.sfll'ic. f-t()lA) 111\ /lela/lolA

Oil0/; nail incfJeY/1! tJF

PIl-'is o~ I, Ie ,

14 CD. An. IrrjuY\ctiol'l O/l..dt!7A-/J'tj

./)efeJ'l/Ohf 10 {l.e/eo£4? ~ F~;-"..

r fk af '/p'ta I and. S IBn. j F,(cfllt/ hOfl.d s hljJ cif;x, ConllJ1veJ.

I- cO/llFi VUL WI l!n;/" I i'\ adm'iJ1. 'is /2a Jill€ S ~j I< ej a -/'i7JVI. •

7. A Dec/aIL&{ -/oity YuJj h1erlt declcut-7J1j It. Fa;/up-ll. 10
Pflo\li('Je ~- iNtf'" a MeculiJ1j£1 l!-eYJet,.J 6f" fH-y ContinueJ
c:.on..F'i1em&ltf lit aJWlfl1'jsl/lahve seJ/(f!J4.l7oIA bused OIA J'J'ty

Irrtl ivlelval COYldul) and disc ip/i;-w;e y I!ecoftd l44'-IAm 14­

+4 5'c/)[ JOn

)osf seveYlfeev( 07) yea/i'-s> ..J.o defe/L/vlil1.iL

wAel-J..efL I (is Q I't In cI'iv;JI.ICf( 1/l'Jr 011 e/f- IS Q st!c V/l;-I-y
fhlLeaf -10 t~ jel'le~al !/l/So~ fOfu/al-ro\A of 14 SC.'-DC)
1'- 'Viol a teJ. »t y hb Pil ty iwt elf-eJi oft?c!-eel by f J,... FOVK f et?Yt II..
AmfnJmRwf 10 +1te uf. COl1silfu/.:/()/t'I,
I. CoYIf;Y1veJ OIA a f I ac h poje 'i:

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 12/12/12 Entry Number 1 Page 7 of 7
t'AH-ack pttfje.
"ELII!' F C()n.l-ihveJ ~
~# AVI IYljUf1C l;on ollclt(IL'~9 fk ])~:fencl(lnf 10 IJ20 v)k )h.(.
Wifk met:tPl/Yi.jh-I jleyjew.s. ffmy C(JnfIYlI.)eJ ConhWZW1enf /1-1. ac1mlrt's-!llctf,H? ;5fj;ee,jahoYl. hosed ()j/l Iny Ihd,vJdva( conduct
and oils L ipl'YliAfly fl-et:.ol41 t-W.;h"rt fk sept:. ~J1 fie Jos;'
.sevenf.eevI (l1) yeoll~-) fo de/-ellfrllN. whc/hell .r (l~ "/1\ lnJ'v1Jual jJlL'SOvte/l) /S ({ 5ecu;2.;/Y til/teat- 10 It jel1e~al f/L~SOVl po/viaf7Cv\ AF fk 5 C: IX: I

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION

LUMUMBA K. INCUMAA, #155651 )

also known as THEODORE

)

HARRISON, JR.

)

)

No. 9:12-cv-3493-DCN

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

ORDER

BRYAN P. STIRLING,

)

Acting Director of the South Carolina

)

Department of Corrections,1

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant’s Report

and Recommendation (“R&R”) that this court grant defendant Bryan Stirling’s motion

for summary judgment. Plaintiff Lumumba Incumaa (“Incumaa”) filed written

objections to the R&R. For the reasons set forth below, the court adopts the R&R and

grants summary judgment in favor of defendant.

I. BACKGROUND

Incumaa is an inmate within the South Carolina Department of Corrections

(“SCDC”) who is currently incarcerated at the Lieber Correctional Institute. He is a

member of the Nation of Gods and Earths, a group commonly referred to as the Five

Percenters. Pl.’s Br. in Supp. of Compl. 1. While Incumaa asserts that the Nation of

Gods and Earths is a religion, Id., SCDC considers the Five Percenters a gang that

promotes a racist ideology. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 8.

1 Bryan P. Stirling became the Acting Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections on October 1, 2013. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Bryan P. Stirling should be substituted for the Honorable William R. Byars, Jr. as the defendant in this lawsuit.
1

In 1995, following three violent incidents involving Five Percenters, SCDC promulgated a policy designating the Five Percenters a security threat group (“STG”). In re Long Term Admin. Segregation of Inmates Designated as Five Percenters, 174 F.3d 464, 465 (4th Cir. 1999). In the most serious of these incidents,
six Five Percenters and one other inmate staged a riot in the Broad River Correctional Institution. Wielding knives, softball bats, and a variety of improvised weapons, the inmates attacked and severely injured several correctional officers in the prison cafeteria and yard. The inmates then seized one officer and two food service employees as hostages, leading to an eleven-hour standoff with law enforcement personnel. Four officers were hospitalized as a result of these events. Id. In an affidavit, Elbert Pearson, an investigator with the SCDC Special Investigations Unit (“SIU”), asserts that since 1995, Five Percenters have been involved in acts of violence and other disruptive conduct within SCDC, including “assaultive behavior against staff, threats to inflict harm on staff, possession of weapons, and inciting or creating a disturbance.” Pearson 2d Aff. ¶ 2. Pearson includes a chart showing that then number of incidents involving Five Percenters appears to be trending downward and opines that the decline is a result of the STG policy. Id. ¶ 3. According to Pearson, STGs are groups that have been designated by the SCDC director to be a threat to the security of correctional institutions within the SCDC system. Pearson Aff. ¶ 2. Once an individual has been deemed a suspected member of an STG, the SIU rigorously investigates the individual to see if he can be validated as an STG member. Id. ¶ 9. In order to be validated, the individual must exhibit at least two validating factors, and the investigator, the investigator’s supervisor, and the SIU branch chief must all sign off on the validation of the individual. Id. ¶ 10. Once an individual has been validated as an STG member, that individual will receive one of two
2

classifications: Validated-GP (general population) or Validated-SD (security detention). Id. ¶ 11. A validated STG member who has not committed or been implicated in any disciplinary infractions or STG activities is typically, although not always, classified Validated-GP and allowed to remain in the general population. Id. ¶ 12. On the other hand, an STG member who has committed disciplinary infractions or participated in STG activities is typically classified Validated-SD and would be placed in a special management unit (“SMU”). Id. ¶ 13.
Once a validated STG member has been classified as Validated-SD, the individual remains in the SMU until the individual is released following a review of his classification status, the individual renounces his affiliation as an STG member, or the group to which the individual belongs is removed from the STG list by the SCDC director. Id. ¶ 14. In order to renounce one’s membership in an STG, a renunciation committee is formed to evaluate the individual’s sincerity and the warden and SIU must sign off on the committee’s recommendation in order for the individual to be released. Id. ¶¶ 15-18.
Because the Five Percenters have been designated as an STG, the group’s literature, writings, and other information have been declared contraband within SCDC. Id. ¶ 23. While a validated Five Percenter remains in the general population, he is not allowed to possess any written literature or materials of the group, engage in STG activities, or attempt to recruit other members to the group. Id. ¶ 25. However, for STG members confined in the SMU, there is a process by which STG materials can be returned to those inmates. Id. ¶ 26-20.
3

According to Pearson, Incumaa, then known as Theodore Harrison, was one of the Five Percenters implicated in the Broad River riot. Pearson Aff. ¶ 21. Incumaa has been in administrative segregation since early 1996, or about 18 years. Id. Incumaa was originally housed in the maximum security unit but is currently in the SMU. Pl.’s Objections 10. According to SCDC Branch Chief of Records Management Michael J. Stobbe, Incumaa has had his custody status reviewed by the Classification Committee Review Board every thirty days. Stobbe Aff. ¶ 3. However, Incumaa claims to have never been before the Classification Committee Review Board and that he simply receives a form, SCDC Form 19-30, in the mail each month. Pl.’s Objections 12.
Incumaa filed the present action on December 12, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming that SCDC is substantially burdening the exercise of his religious rights in violation the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”) and that he has not been afforded adequate due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. On May 20, 2013, Incumaa filed a brief in support of his complaint accompanied by several exhibits. On July 16, 2013, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge issued an R&R on September 24, 2013. Incumaa filed objections to the R&R on October 2, 2013. On January 28, 2014, this court requested additional briefing from defendant regarding whether the government had acknowledged and given consideration to less restrictive means. Defendant submitted a supplemental brief and additional affidavit on February 27, 2014 and Incumaa responded on March 10, 2014. The matter is now ripe for the court’s review.
4

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A. Objections to R&R This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge’s R&R to which specific, written objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party’s failure to object is accepted as agreement with the conclusions of the magistrate judge. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). In absence of a timely filed objection to a magistrate judge’s R&R, this court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). The recommendation of the magistrate judge carries no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination rests with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify the report of the magistrate judge, in whole or in part, or may recommit the matter to him with instructions for further consideration. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). B. Pro Se Plaintiffs Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this case. Federal district courts are charged with liberally construing complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980). Pro se complaints are therefore held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Id. Liberal construction, however, does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
5

C. Summary Judgment Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “[S]ummary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. At the summary judgment stage, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. Id. at 255.
III. DISCUSSION Incumaa objects to the R&R on four grounds: (1) the magistrate judge erred in failing to discuss the RLUIPA claim under the compelling interest/least restrictive means analysis; (2) the magistrate judge erred in applying case law decided under rational basis scrutiny to the RLUIPA claim; (3) the magistrate judge erred in finding that the government had met its burden of showing that SCDC’s policy was the least restrictive means of serving its compelling interest; and (4) the magistrate judge erred by analyzing the due process claim under the Eighth Amendment’s deliberate indifference standard instead of the Fourteenth Amendment’s procedural due process standard. The court will consider these objections in turn. A. RLUIPA Claim Incumaa objects to the magistrate judge’s analysis of his RLUIPA claim on three grounds, all of which are related.
6

RLUIPA provides that No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person– (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). RLUIPA demands “a ‘more searching standard’ of review of free exercise burdens than the standard used in parallel constitutional claims: strict scrutiny instead of reasonableness.” Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 186 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). However, the Supreme Court has not read RLUIPA to “elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution’s need to maintain order and safety.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 722 (2005). The court assumes for the purposes of summary judgment that the Five Percenters are a religion, thus avoiding the “‘difficult and delicate task’ of examining the nature and sincerity” of Incumaa’s beliefs. Five Percenters, 174 F.3d at 469 (quoting Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981)).
1. Application of Strict Scrutiny Incumaa’s first objection to the R&R is that the magistrate judge failed to discuss RLUIPA claim under strict scrutiny’s compelling interest/least restrictive means analysis. Pl.’s Objections 1. A review of the R&R reveals that the magistrate judge analyzed Incumaa’s claim under RLUIPA’s compelling interest standard. The magistrate judge first determined that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether defendant’s policies placed a substantial burden on Incumaa’s exercise of his religious beliefs. R&R 21. Next, the magistrate
7

judge determined that the policies at issue furthered a compelling interest. R&R 22-23. Finally, the magistrate judge determined that the policies at issue were the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest. R&R 23-24.
Because the magistrate judge applied RLUIPA’s strict scrutiny standard to his claim, Incumaa’s first objection fails.
2. Application of Case Law Decided Before RLUIPA Incumaa next objects to the magistrate judge’s application of a Fourth Circuit case decided under a rational basis standard. Pl.’s Objections 3. In 1999, the Fourth Circuit held that SCDC’s decision to designate the Five Percenters as an STG did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Five Percenters, 174 F.3d at 469. Because the case predated RLUIPA, the court applied rational basis scrutiny to SCDC’s policy as directed by the Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (holding that a prison regulation that impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights is “valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests”). In determining whether SCDC had a legitimate interest in the STG policy, the Fourth Circuit noted that the purpose of the policy was to “promote the secure, safe, and orderly operations of all SCDC institutions, . . . to facilitate the early detection of [STG] activities and members and to ensure, to the extent possible, efficient intervention into possible volatile situations.” Five Percenters, 174 F.3d at 469 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court concluded that “[t]hese are not simply legitimate penological interests – they are compelling.” Id. (emphasis added). Incumaa argues that in Five Percenters, the court held SCDC’s policy compelling under the “rationally related/legitimate interest test,” not under the “compelling
8

interest/least restrictive means analysis of RLUIPA.” Pl.’s Objections 4. His argument confuses the two standards. There is no compelling interest standard under rational basis scrutiny. The Fourth Circuit was explicitly indicating that the purposes behind the STG policy were so important that they were not only legitimate under rational basis scrutiny, but that they would also survive strict scrutiny as compelling interests. Although the RLUIPA may have technically abrogated Five Percenters, because the Fourth Circuit discussed the case under a compelling interest standard, it remains extremely persuasive authority that this court will not disregard. The state’s interest in promoting the secure, safe, and orderly operation of SCDC institutions, facilitating the early detection of STG activities, and ensuring efficient intervention into possible volatile situations is just as compelling today as it was in 1999, when Five Percenters was decided.2
Because the magistrate judge did not err in applying the compelling interest analysis of Five Percenters to the present case, Incumaa’s second objection fails.
3. Least Restrictive Means Incumaa’s third objection is that the magistrate judge erred in finding that the government had met its burden of showing that SCDC’s policy was the least restrictive means of serving its compelling interest. Pl.’s Objections 5. Once the government establishes that a policy is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, it must establish that the policy is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(2). While RLUIPA
2 Incumaa argues that because the number of incidents involving Five Percenters has decreased since Five Percenters was decided, there is a question of whether a compelling interest still exists today. Pl.’s Objections 4. That decrease, however, does not change SCDC’s interest in safe, secure institutions. If anything, it is relevant to whether the STG policy is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
9

adopts a strict scrutiny standard, Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 198 n.8, it was not intended to “elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution’s need to maintain order and safety.” Cutter, 544 U.S. at 722; Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 190. The Supreme Court has noted that its “decisions indicate that an accommodation must be measured so that it does not override other significant interests” and thereby run afoul of the Establishment Clause. Cutter, 544 U.S. at 722. Therefore, in analyzing whether a particular regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering the government's compelling security interest, the reviewing court must avoid “substituting its judgment in place of the experience and expertise of prison officials.” Hoevenaar v. Lazaroff, 422 F.3d 366, 370 (6th Cir. 2006) (“In conducting an analysis of whether the regulation in issue was the least restrictive means of furthering the government’s compelling security interest, the district court did just what the Supreme Court and Congress have warned against: substituting its judgment in place of the experience and expertise of prison officials.”).
The Fourth Circuit requires that the “government, consistent with the RLUIPA statutory scheme, acknowledge and give some consideration to less restrictive alternatives.” Couch v. Jabe, 679 F.3d 197, 203 (4th Cir. 2012); see also Smith v. Ozmint, 578 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 2009) (vacating grant of summary judgment in favor of prison officials because the affidavit they relied on was insufficient to show that the policy at issue was the least restrictive means of furthering the identified compelling interest); Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272, 284 (3rd Cir. 2007) (“[T]he phrase ‘least restrictive means’ is, by definition, a relative term. It necessarily implies a comparison with other means.”). Once the government provides an explanation for the least
10

restrictive means prong, courts will defer to the wisdom and judgment of prison officials on matters of security. Couch, 679 F.3d at 204; see Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 190 (holding that once the government provides an explanation for a policy’s restrictions, the court will afford such explanation “due deference”).
In a supplemental affidavit provided at the court’s request, SCDC’s Deputy Director of Operations Robert E. Ward laid out two less restrictive alternatives that the department has considered. The first would be to remove the Five Percenters from the list of STGs. Wade asserts that “[t]here have continued to be assaults, disturbances, and other criminal activities committed by Five Percenters since [they were designated a STG], and . . . there has been no valid basis for removing the Five Percenters from the list of designated STGs.” Wade Aff. ¶ 5. Wade goes on to opine that although the number of assaults committed by Five Percenters has declined since 2003, “the potential or even likelihood of assaultive behaviors by Five Percenters remains a reality and an issue that must be addressed by security operations.” Id. ¶ 6. If Five Percenters currently in security detention were released into the general prison population, Ward believes that “the number of serious disciplinaries including assaults, riots, and similar behaviors would dramatically increase.” Id.
A second less restrictive alternative that the government has considered, according to Ward, is placing Five Percenters in a “close custody unit.” Wade Aff. ¶ 8. While acknowledging that using a close custody unit to house Five Percenters rather than security detention cells “may provide the same level of safety and security to other inmates,” Ward opined that “it would create numerous other issues and concerns.” Id. Specifically, it would allow “gangs to be identified,” “create the risk of targeting,” and
11

“increase the likelihood of inter-gang violence,” as well as “allow gang members easier
access to one another and allow more opportunity for communication and planning.” Id.
Ward notes that “most importantly, the use of a close custody unit would create a
heightened level of danger for the correctional officers and other staff who would work in
that unit.” Id. Based on these considerations, SCDC rejected such an approach as
“unworkable and dangerous.” Id.
In addition to the less restrictive alternatives that SCDC has considered, Ward
notes that SCDC has made changes to the STG policy and classification process since it
was instituted. According to Ward,
[i]nitially, after the Five Percenters were designated as an STG, validated members were all re-classified to Security Detention, regardless of their individual circumstances and disciplinary history. Since that time, SCDC developed two separate classifications, Validated-STG-GP and ValidatedSTG-SD, which taken into account the inmates’ individual circumstances and are assessed on an individual basis. Therefore, an inmate who is validated as a member of an STG who has not committed serious disciplinary infractions may be classified as Validated-STG-GP and is allowed to remain in the general population.
Ward Aff. ¶ 9. SCDC has actually implemented procedures to make the application of
the STG policy less restrictive, particularly for those inmates whose prior conduct and individual circumstances did not necessarily warrant security detention.3
SCDC has not just considered less restrictive means – it has actually implemented
a less restrictive alternative to their original policy. The court therefore gives SCDC its
3 In his objections to the R&R, Incumaa suggests that SCDC not designate the Five Percenters an STG, but rather “only segregate its members after they have committed violent, disruptive, and/or criminal acts within the SCDC.” Pl.’s Objections 7. As discussed above, and recognized by the magistrate judge, the alternative proposed by Incumaa is “exactly the process that has been applied to [him].” R&R 24.
12

due deference and finds, as the Fourth Circuit did in 1999, that “there are no ready alternatives to the SCDC’s course of action.” Five Percenters, 174 F.3d at 470.
Because the STG policy is the least restrictive means of furthering the government’s compelling interests, Incumaa’s third objection fails.
B. Due Process Claim Lastly, Incumaa objects to the magistrate judge’s treatment of his Fourteenth Amendment claim. Pl.’s Objections 9. He argues that the magistrate judge treated his claim as an Eighth Amendment violation instead of a procedural due process claim. Id. While the magistrate court did discuss the Eighth Amendment at length, R&R 16-18, he also briefly discussed Incumaa’s due process claim, R&R 18-19. However, because the magistrate judge did not address the atypical and significant hardship standard of Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995), this court will review Incumaa’s due process claim in light of Sandin and is progeny. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guards against unlawful deprivations of life, liberty, or property. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. There is a twostep process for analyzing alleged procedural due process violations. See Burnette v. Fahey, 687 F.3d 171, 181 (4th Cir. 2012) (laying out two-step process for procedural due process violations). The court must first consider whether, and to what extent, the inmate has a protectable interest under the Due Process Clause. Id. If the court determines that the inmate has asserted a protectible interest, the court must then determine whether the government failed to afford him the minimum procedural protections required by the Fourteenth Amendment in depriving him of this interest. Id.
13

In Sandin, the Supreme Court recognized that “States may under certain circumstances create liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause.” 515 U.S. at 483-84. However, the Supreme Court noted that “these interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 484. After Sandin, “the touchstone of the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the language of regulations regarding those conditions but the nature of those conditions themselves ‘in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.’” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 222-23 (2005) (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483). The Supreme Court in Wilkinson held that, in order to measure whether an inmate’s custodial situation imposes “an atypical and significant hardship within the correctional context,” it must be measured against a “baseline.” 545 U.S. at 223-24. While Wilkinson did not establish a particular “baseline,” the Fourth Circuit uses the conditions “imposed on the general population” as the baseline for its analysis. Beverati v. Smith, 120 F.3d 500, 504 (4th Cir. 1997). “There is no single standard for determining whether a prison hardship is atypical and significant, and the condition or combination of conditions or factors . . . requires case by case, fact by fact consideration.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Farmer v. Kavanagh, 494 F. Supp. 2d 345, 356 (D. Md. 2007) (noting that Wilkinson “directs lower courts to consider the totality of circumstances in a given facility”).
14

Incumaa argues that the following conditions together constitute an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life: he is allowed only an hour per day of recreation either two or three days per week; he is allowed a tenminute shower only on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; he is confined to a cell at all times except the time permitted for recreation or to shower; he is strip-searched, including a search of his genitalia and rectum, every time he leaves his cell; he is served smaller portions of food compared to the general prison population; his legal and personal property is limited to what can fit into a 15-inch by 12-inch by 10-inch box; he is denied canteen privileges; he is denied the opportunity for a work assignment; he is denied educational and vocational opportunities; and he is denied the opportunity to receive mental health treatment. Pl.’s Br. in Supp. of Compl. 5-6. Incumaa claims that “the most atypical and significant hardship being imposed on [him] is the length of time he has been confined to administrative segregation.” Pl.’s Objections 11.
Although the atypical and significant hardship inquiry is “necessarily contextdependent and demands fact-by-fact consideration,” Prieto v. Clarke, 2013 WL 6019215, at *5 (E.D. Va. Nov. 12, 2013), two cases are particularly insightful for their analysis of when administrative segregation gives rise to a liberty interest. The first is Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005). In Wilkinson, the Supreme Court held that inmates had a liberty interest in avoiding assignment to Ohio’s supermax prison. Id. at 224. In reaching this conclusion, the Court distinguished the supermax facilities from normal segregation units on three grounds. First, inmates in the supermax facility were “deprived of almost any environmental or sensory stimuli and of almost all human contact.” Id. at 214. The facility had solid metal doors with metal strips along their sides
15

and bottoms which prevented conversation or communication with other inmates. Id.
Second, they were assigned to the supermax facility for “an indefinite period of time,
limited only by [the] inmate’s sentence.” Id. at 214-15. Third, once assigned to
supermax, “[i]nmates otherwise eligible for parole [lost] their eligibility while
incarcerated” at the facility. Id. at 215. After noting other onerous conditions of
confinement, including cells that were lighted 24 hours per day and only one hour per day
of exercise, the court stated held that “[w]hile any of these conditions standing alone
might not be sufficient to create a liberty interest, taken together they impose an atypical
and significant hardship within the correctional context.” Id. at 224.
The second case that the court finds instructive is Beverati v. Smith, 120 F.3d 500 (4th Cir. 1997), which the Fourth Circuit decided before Wilkinson.4 In Beverati, the
Fourth Circuit considered whether prisoners had a liberty interest when they were
confined in administrative segregation for six months in “unbearably hot” cells that were
infested with vermin, smeared with human feces and urine, and flooded with toilet water.
120 F.3d at 504. The inmates were only allowed to leave their cells three or four times a
week, were not allowed outside recreation, were denied educational or religious services,
4 Even though Beverati predates Wilkinson, at the very least it suggests that the bar for proving an atypical and significant hardship is quite high in the Fourth Circuit. Beverati, 120 F.3d at 504. Additionally, even since Wilkinson the Fourth Circuit has cited Beverati in rejecting the notion that inmates enjoy a protected liberty interest in avoiding confinement in administrative segregation, United States v. Daniels, 222 F. App’x 341, 342 n.* (4th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (per curiam) (“Extended stays on administrative segregation . . . do not ordinarily implicate a protected liberty interest.” (citing Beverati, 120 F.3d at 502)), and courts in this district have relied on Beverati in procedural due process cases involving administrative segregation. See, e.g., Morris v. York, No. 0:13-cv-01031, 2013 WL 2635610, *2 (D.S.C. June 12, 2013) (citing Beverati and holding that “administrative segregation, without more, does ‘not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably create a liberty interest’” (citation omitted)).
16

and were given “considerably smaller portions” of food. Id. The Court held that “although the conditions were more burdensome than those imposed on the general prison population, they were not so atypical that exposure to them for six months imposed a significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id.
Some of the conditions in the SMU that Incumaa points to as presenting an atypical and substantial hardship are similar to those discussed in Beverati, including Incumaa being allowed to leave his cell only a handful of times each week, being denied educational and vocational opportunities, and being given “considerably smaller portions” of food. However, besides the length of his confinement to administrative segregation, the court finds that Incumaa has not alleged living conditions nearly as bad as those present in Beverati. In fact, conditions such as those alleged would “likely . . . apply to most solitary confinement facilities.” Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 224.
While recognizing that the deprivations detailed in that case exist in most solitary confinement facilities, the Supreme Court in Wilkinson looked at the presence of two additional factors to find “an atypical and significant hardship” on inmates such that they had a liberty interest in avoiding it. Id. Those factors were the potentially indefinite length of detention and the fact that placement in administrative segregation disqualified otherwise eligible inmates for parole consideration. Id. The first of these factors, indefinite confinement, while not completely absent in Incumaa’s case, is “substantially ameliorated by [SCDC’s] renunciation program.” Tate v. Starks, 2013 WL 5914398, at *4 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 4, 2013). As discussed above, SCDC has a process by which an inmate can renounce his membership in an STG and return to the general prison population. See Pearson Aff. ¶¶ 14-19. This renunciation procedure gives Incumaa
17

substantial influence over the length of his stay in administrative segregation, and he
could have potentially returned to the general prison population years ago had he chosen
to renounce his affiliation with the Five Percenters. Additionally, Incumaa has his
classification status reviewed every 30 days, Pearson Aff. ¶ 14; Stobee Aff. ¶ 3, whereas
the inmates in Wilkinson, following an initial 30-day review, had their confinement
reviewed just annually. 545 U.S. at 224. Therefore, Incumaa’s confinement, while
indefinite as long as he identifies as a Five Percenter, is subject to substantially more
favorable conditions than the inmates in Wilkinson.5 The second factor that the Supreme
Court found significant in Wilkinson – automatic disqualification from consideration of
parole – is absent from Incumaa’s case. There has been no evidence advanced that
placement in administrative segregation as a result of classification as a member of a
STG impacts, influences, or eliminates parole consideration for SCDC inmates.
Regardless, Incumaa’s administrative segregation could not impact his eligibility for
parole, because he is serving a life sentence for murder, Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d
5 The court notes that several other circuits have held that confinement in administrative segregation for a definite, limited time period short of indefinite duration implicates a liberty interest. See, e.g., Marion v. Columbia Corr. Inst., 559 F.3d 693, 699 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[O]ther courts of appeals have held that periods of confinement that approach or exceed one year may trigger a cognizable liberty interest without any [specific] reference to conditions.”); Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 161 (2d Cir. 2007), rev’d on other grounds, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (explaining that a segregated confinement of 305 days or more necessarily triggers due process protections, and segregation lasting 101 to 305 days may trigger due process protections, depending on the conditions of segregation); Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1225 (10th Cir. 2006) (reversing dismissal of claim involving 750 days’ segregation, stating that when a “prisoner is subjected to a lengthy period of segregation, the duration of that confinement may itself be atypical and significant”); Williams v. Fountain, 77 F.3d 372, 374 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding that one year of solitary confinement was sufficient to state a claim); but see Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641, 654 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that seven months’ segregation, alone, does not implicate a liberty interest). However, neither the Supreme Court nor the Fourth Circuit has found a liberty interest based solely on the length of confinement in administrative segregation.
18

281, 283 (4th Cir. 2007), which he admits precludes parole. Pl.’s Decl. 7. The court also notes that Incumaa has not alleged the extreme isolation present in Wilkinson, which the Supreme Court also considered significant in finding a protected liberty interest. Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 223.
Based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding Incumaa’s confinement in administrative segregation, the court cannot find that the conditions of his confinement rise to the level of an atypical and substantial hardship. Most of the conditions alleged are nothing more than “the usual aspects of a solitary confinement facility,” Menei v. Rubenstein, 2012 WL 4845659, at *5 (S.D. W. Va. October 11, 2012), and do not reach anything near the conditions alleged and found insufficient by the Fourth Circuit in Beverati. Moreover, the factors that the Supreme Court relied on in Wilkinson apply with much less force here – Incumaa has not alleged that confinement in administrative segregation will disqualify him from parole consideration and SCDC’s renunciation procedure puts the duration of his confinement into his own hands to a significant degree. Because the court has determined that Incumaa does not have a protectible liberty interest in avoiding administrative segregation, it is not necessary to determine whether the government afforded him the minimum procedural protections required by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Although the court does not adopt the reasoning of the R&R, it adopts the result reached by the magistrate judge and therefore Incumaa’s fourth objection fails.
19

IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s R&R and GRANTS defendant’s motion for summary judgment. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 11, 2014 Charleston, South Carolina

DAVID C. NORTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20

 
 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6411
LUMUMBA K. INCUMAA, a/k/a Theodore Harrison, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. BRYAN P. STIRLING, Acting Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. (9:12-cv-03493-DCN)

Argued: March 24, 2015

Decided: July 1, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Keenan joined.

ARGUED: Emily K. Merki, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Steven H. Goldblatt, Center Director, Ruthanne M. Deutsch, Supervising Attorney, Lola A. Kingo, Supervising Attorney, Ryan H. Sellinger, Student Counsel, Appellate Litigation Program, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

THACKER, Circuit Judge: Lumumba Kenyatta Incumaa (“Appellant”) is a member of
the Nation of Gods and Earths (“NOGE”), a group whose adherents are also known as “Five Percenters.” In 1988, Appellant began serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in a prison operated by the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the “Department” or “Appellee”).1 Following his participation in a 1995 prison riot with other Five Percenters, he was placed in solitary confinement security detention. He has remained in solitary confinement for 20 years, despite not having committed a single disciplinary infraction during that time.
With this suit, Appellant challenges his confinement on two grounds. Appellant’s first cause of action arises under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, which prohibits a state from imposing a substantial burden on an inmate’s religious exercise unless it proves that the restriction furthers compelling interests by the least restrictive means. In this regard, Appellant argues that Department policy required him to renounce
1 Appellant originally sued Department Director William Robert Byars Jr. in his official capacity. The current Department Director, Bryan Stirling, replaced Byars as the defendant. Because Stirling was sued in his official capacity, we will refer to him and Appellee synonymously.
2

his affiliation with the NOGE, which he alleges is a religion,

before the Department will release him from solitary

confinement. On the second ground, Appellant claims that

Appellee violated his right to procedural due process.

The district court granted Appellee’s motion for

summary judgment. We affirm the portion of the district court

order discarding Appellant’s RLUIPA claim, which, we agree, was

not sufficient to go before a jury. However, we reverse the

grant of summary judgment as it relates to Appellant’s due

process claim.

Appellant’s 20-year period of solitary

confinement, we hold, amounts to atypical and significant

hardship in relation to the general population and implicates a

liberty interest in avoiding security detention. Furthermore,

there is a triable dispute as to whether the Department’s

process for determining which inmates are fit for release from

security detention meets the minimum requirements of procedural

due process.

I.

A.

The Five Percenters and Appellant’s Violent History

The NOGE is an “offshoot” of the Nation of Islam and

other religious groups “in the Islamic sphere” that “preach[] a

3

message of black empowerment.” J.A. 91, 92.2 The Five
Percenters also have a history of violence in South Carolina
prisons.3 As a result, the parties maintain differing views of
the Five Percenters. Appellant maintains the NOGE is a
religious group. Although Appellee does not contest Appellant’s
claim that the NOGE meets the legal definition of a religion,
the Department’s regulations treat the Five Percenters like a
violent gang. Of note, at times, the Five Percenters have
themselves denied that their organization is a religion. See
id. at 131 (stating, on the cover of “The Five Percenter”
newsletter, “WE ARE NOT A RELIGION” (emphasis in original)).
In April 1995, a group of Five Percenters -- including
Appellant -- organized a prison riot. The assailants took three
Department employees hostage and held them for 11 hours during
an intense standoff with police.4 Four law enforcement officers
2 Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.
3 In In re Long Term Administrative Segregation of Inmates Designated as Five Percenters, we observed that a federal intelligence summary concluded the Five Percenters were “a radical Islamic sect/criminal group that is often boldly racist in its views, prolific in its criminal activities, and operates behind a facade of cultural and religious rhetoric.” 174 F.3d 464, 467 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).
4 In Incumaa v. Ozmint, we noted that Appellant pleaded guilty to “three counts of hostage-taking and two counts of assault and battery with intent to kill in relation to his involvement in the prison riot”; his conviction was vacated on (Continued)
4

were hospitalized. Following this violent uprising, on June 16, 1995, Appellee designated the Five Percenters as a Security Threat Group (“STG”).5
B. Prison Regulation of STGs and their Members
1. Assignment of STG Members to Special Management Unit
When the Department’s Special Investigations Unit suspects that an inmate is a member of an STG, the unit conducts a “rigorous investigation” to confirm the inmate’s association. J.A. 126. If the investigators validate the inmate’s STG membership, the Department’s Institutional Classification Committee (“ICC”) either recommends labeling the inmate as Validated-GP, which allows him to reside in the general population, or designates him as Validated-SD, which entails placement in security detention. According to Department Investigator Elbert Pearson,
If an individual has been validated as an STG member, but has not committed or been implicated in any disciplinary infractions
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel grounds. 507 F.3d 281, 283 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).
5 The Five Percenters were implicated in at least 484 incidents “of violence and other disruptive conduct” within the Department prison network from 2003 to 2013. J.A. 220, 222.
5

or STG activities, that individual would typically, although not always, receive a classification of Validated-GP . . . .
If an individual has been validated as an STG member, and has committed disciplinary infractions . . . that individual would typically receive a classification of Validated-SD . . . . Id. at 126-27. Security detention, in contrast to disciplinary detention, is not a punishment for disciplinary infractions but is used to protect inmates and staff and to maintain prison order. If the ICC classifies an STG inmate as Validated-SD, it then determines where to place the inmate and what restrictions to impose upon him. The Department maintains two security detention units. A Validated-SD inmate can be assigned either to the Special Management Unit (“SMU”) or the more restrictive Maximum Security Unit, which houses inmates who have engaged in violent behavior or have committed serious rules infractions. The ICC also determines the inmate’s “behavior level,” which dictates the inmate’s restrictions and privileges while in his respective unit. J.A. 137. “Inmates who have been assigned to [s]ecurity [d]etention without serving [d]isciplinary [d]etention” are designated as Level II, and “inmates charged with . . . assault on a staff member and/or
6

inmate” are “automatically . . . assigned to Level I.”6 Id. Level I inmates are held in the “strictest degree of custody and control” available in their unit. Id. at 149.
Due to his role in the 1995 riot, Appellant was validated as a Five Percenter, designated Validated-SD, and placed in the Maximum Security Unit. His assignment to security detention was not a punishment for participating in the riot but was generally intended “to maintain and control the inmate and to provide safety and security for the staff and other inmates.” J.A. 284. Appellant was transferred to the SMU in 2005, and he has remained in the SMU as a Level II inmate since that time. He is currently one of only two Five Percenters housed in the SMU -- other validated Five Percenters are permitted to reside in the general population and openly maintain their affiliation with the group. During the decades Appellant has spent in security detention, he has not committed a single disciplinary infraction.
6 Although the Department regulations only mention two behavior levels, the ICC’s classification notices imply that a Level III also exists. See Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d at 28384 (discussing Level III classification).
7

2.

Conditions in SMU versus General Population

Appellant claims the SMU is substantially more

restrictive than the general population. The Department does

not contradict this account. As an SMU inmate, Appellant is

• confined to his cell “24 hours a day on nonrecreation and non-shower days”;

• permitted to leave his cell for recreation only one hour approximately ten times per month;

• allowed only a ten-minute shower three times per week;

• “stripped [sic] searched, made to lift and shake his genitalia, made to bend over, spread his buttocks in the direction of the officer so that he may look at [Appellant’s] anus, then made to squat and cough, and afterwards hand cuffed behind his back every time he leaves the cell, even to the shower where he is locked in a single occupancy shower stall”;

• served smaller portions of food than inmates in the general population receive;

• required to eat all meals in his cell;

• limited to property that can fit into a box that is 15 by 12 by 10 inches;

• “denied all canteen privileges”;

• denied

“education

and

vocational

opportunities”; and

• “denied the opportunity to receive mental health treatment for his diagnosed mental health condition.”

8

J.A. 23-24. 3.
Review of SMU Detention Department regulations require the ICC to review each SMU inmate’s candidacy for release every 30 days. According Pearson, there are three bases on which the ICC may recommend reclassification and release from the SMU: (1) the inmate renounces affiliation with the STG;7 (2) improvement in behavior level; or (3) the Department Director removes the inmate’s group from the STG list. To renounce his affiliation, the inmate “fills out a detailed questionnaire about why he or she wants to renounce membership” in the STG. J.A. 127. The ICC then reviews the questionnaire and determines whether the inmate’s attempt to renounce STG affiliation is sincere. Consequently, the ICC may choose to reject an inmate’s attempt to renounce his affiliation. See Reply to Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ.
7 Pearson diverges from the letter of the Department regulations don this point to some extent. The Department regulations do not mention the renunciation policy; they only state that “[i]nmates who have clear disciplinary records and who comply with unit procedures, inmate grooming and sanitation standards will be considered for . . . release from SMU.” J.A. 138. However, because we must interpret the evidence in the light most favorable to Appellant -- and because Appellee apparently concedes this point -- we will assume that the renunciation policy is a feature of the Department regulations.
9

Jud. at 2, Incumaa v. Byars, No. 9:12-cv-03493 (D.S.C. Dec. 12,

2012; filed Aug. 31, 2013), ECF No. 34 (“It is unclear whether

[the Department] would even allow the Plaintiff to renounce and

be reassigned to the general population given his involvement as

a ringleader in the 1995 riot . . . .”).

With regard to reclassifications based on “behavior

level,” J.A. 138, Department regulations state:

Inmates who have clear disciplinary

records and who comply with unit

procedures . . . will be considered for

advancement from Level I to Level II or

release from SMU. . . . The decision

to

release

an

inmate

from

SMU . . . will be based upon the

inmate’s overall disciplinary record

and compliance with all Agency policies

and procedures while in SMU.

Id. at 138, 139. The ICC has authority “to reduce or advance

the inmate’s Level as it deems appropriate.” Id. at 138.

Pursuant to Department regulations, after each 30-day review

period, the ICC is required to deliver a notice of its

classification decision to the inmate within 48 hours. However,

the regulations do not require the ICC to provide any factual

basis for its decision to maintain an inmate at the same

behavior level or to recommend against release from the SMU.

The record contains copies of the ICC’s classification

notices to Appellant, and these notices span nine months --

February to November 2012 -- of his solitary confinement. Each

10

notice is nearly identical to the next and simply states that Appellant continues to be held in the SMU and “remain[s] Level II.” J.A. 95-103. All provide the same perfunctory, fiveletter justification for this recommendation: “STG-SD.” Id. The ICC’s required 30-day reviews are also documented on Department records labeled Form 18-68, also known as “Staff Memoranda.” Id. at 138. The record contains the Staff Memoranda documenting review of Appellant’s confinement in the SMU every 30 days from May 2008 to May 2013.8 In total, there are 64 entries in the record. All but one of them is accompanied by the same comment: “Warden’s review, 30 day ICC & monthly visit.” Id. at 156-58. The single varying entry -- on April 25, 2012 -- states that Appellant “remain[ed] in SMU” and would “not renounce his affiliation” with the Five Percenters. Id. at 158. None of the entries provides a detailed explanation of the basis for Appellant’s continued confinement.
According to Department regulations, the ICC’s periodic release review is single-layered.9 The warden does not
8 Although prison officials claim that Appellant’s custody has been reviewed every 30 days since his transfer to the SMU, the Department did not produce the Staff Memoranda from, 2005 to 2007.
9 Although 30-day status reviews are entered as “Warden’s Review” on the Staff Memoranda, it appears from the record that the ICC conducts these evaluations on the warden’s behalf. Where they discuss review for release from the SMU, the (Continued)
11

review the ICC’s decision regarding confinement unless the inmate “appeal[s] the decision of the ICC through the inmate grievance system” or the ICC recommends release from security detention, in which case “[t]he ICC must ensure the concurrence of the Warden/Designee for the inmate’s release.”10 J.A. 137, 139.
Appellant filed a grievance on April 21, 2009, alleging that the ICC “refus[ed] to consider [him] for a lower security detention level until and unless [he] renounce[d] [his] faith” -- which, he said, “impose[d] a substantial burden on [his] ability to exercise [his] religion.” J.A. 12. In the section marked “action requested,” Appellant requested reform of

Department regulations emphasize the ICC’s role, not the

warden’s: “The decision to release an inmate from SMU can be

recommended by the ICC,” and “[t]he ICC . . . ha[s] the

authority to reduce or advance the inmate’s Level as it deems

appropriate based on the inmate’s behavior while housed in SMU.”

J.A. 138, 139. Additionally, the regulations state that “the

Warden must review the status of all inmates in continuous

confinement for more than 30 days,” but direct staff to document

reviews on a form entitled “SCDC Form 19-30, SMU Institutional

Classification Committee Review.”

Id. at 138 (internal

quotation marks omitted).

10 While the Department regulations, read literally, only permit inmates to appeal the ICC’s decision to place them in security detention, Appellant was allowed to file a grievance regarding the ICC’s decision that he remain in the SMU. Therefore, for the purposes of this case we will interpret the regulations as authorizing inmates already in the SMU to oppose a classification review decision through the grievance system.

12

the STG policy “so that classifications are made on an individual, not religious basis.” Id. Appellant also requested “regular and periodic evaluations by the [ICC] of [his] STG classification.” Id. The warden responded that Appellant’s requests could not be accommodated because “[t]he issue [Appellant] addressed is an issue against policy, which cannot be changed” by the administrators of the prison because policy changes “are made at the institutional level.” Id. at 13. Accordingly, the warden denied Appellant’s grievance. Appellant appealed the warden’s decision to the Department’s director, who concurred with the warden because Appellant “ha[d] been informed on what procedures [he] must follow to be considered for release from the [SMU], to include renouncing [his] affiliation with [the Five Percenters].” Id. at 14.
C. Procedural History On December 12, 2012, Appellant filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Appellant claimed that the Department’s renunciation policy violated his rights under RLUIPA. Appellant also claimed that, throughout his detention in the SMU, the Department violated his procedural due process rights by failing to conduct meaningful review of whether he was fit for release to the general population. Appellee moved for
13

summary judgment on both of these claims. The district court granted the motion. Though the court assumed that the NOGE constituted a religion -- and apparently determined that Appellant’s confinement imposed a substantial burden on his beliefs -- it nonetheless concluded that the Department’s policy was “the least restrictive means of furthering the government’s compelling interests” and therefore did not violate RLUIPA. Incumaa v. Stirling, No. 9:12-cv-03493, 2014 WL 958679, at *7 (D.S.C. Mar. 11, 2014). The court also held that Appellant’s procedural rights were not violated because he failed to prove that his circumstances of imprisonment “[rose] to the level of an atypical and substantial hardship” -- a prerequisite to establishing a due process right to review for release from security detention. Id. at *10. Appellant filed a timely appeal.
Appellant argues that a reasonable juror may find that Department policy places a substantial burden on his exercise of religion because it conditions release from the SMU on renouncing his NOGE faith. He also argues that the district court erred in concluding that the conditions he has experienced for the last 20 years in solitary confinement do not constitute atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.
14

II. “We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. . . . As to those elements on which it bears the burden of proof, a government is only entitled to summary judgment if the proffered evidence is such that a rational factfinder could only find for the government” and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v. Ozmint, 578 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 2009). To make this determination, we review the entire record, evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to Appellant. See Beverati v. Smith, 120 F.3d 500, 503 (4th Cir. 1997).
III. A.
RLUIPA Claim In relevant part, RLUIPA states: No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . , even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that the imposition of the burden on that person--
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
15

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a).11 By enacting RLUIPA, Congress afforded prisoners free-
exercise rights similar to those enjoyed by the free population. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 715-17 (2005). RLUIPA prescribes a shifting burden of proof for inmate religious exercise claims. The inmate bears the initial burden to demonstrate that the prison’s policy exacts a substantial burden on religious exercise. If the inmate clears this hurdle, the burden shifts to the government to prove its policy furthers a compelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(b).
A prison regulation may impose a “substantial burden” by forcing “a person to ‘choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting [governmental] benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion . . . on the other hand.’” Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 187 (4th Cir. 2006) (alterations in original) (quoting Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404 (1963)). In other words, the regulation places the person between a rock and a hard place.
11 As a “governmental entity created under the authority of a State,” the Department “fit[s] within [the] definition” of “government.” Smith v. Ozmint, 578 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 2009).
16

For example, in Couch v. Jabe, an inmate claimed that his religious beliefs required him to grow a one-inch beard. 679 F.3d 197, 199 (4th Cir. 2012). Prison policy forbade facial hair and the prison “limit[ed] or t[ook] away governmental benefits” to enforce the beard ban. Id. at 200. If the inmate cut his beard, the prison reinstated the benefits. We held that this practice “fit squarely within the accepted definition of substantial burden” because it forced the inmate to choose between following the edicts of his religion and losing privileges. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Supreme Court recently held the same. In Holt v. Hobbs, a prisoner faced “serious disciplinary action” if he grew a beard as dictated by his religion. 135 S.Ct. 853, 862 (2015). The Court concluded that “put[ting] petitioner to [the] choice” between punishment and violating his beliefs “substantially burden[ed] his religious exercise.” Id.
Here, Appellant argues that the Department policy similarly imposes a substantial burden on his religious exercise because it “forces [him] to choose between continued adherence to his religion in solitary confinement, on one hand, and the far more favorable living conditions of the general population,
17

on the other.” Appellant’s Br. 49.12 For purposes of this case,

we assume without deciding that the Five Percenters are a

religious group entitled to protection. This argument fails

because the Department Policy forces no such choice upon him.

Indeed, according to Pearson, renunciation is only one of three

avenues for securing release from the SMU, and Department Policy

does not guarantee release even if a Validated-SD inmate does

renounce.

See J.A. 127.

Moreover, Appellant himself

acknowledges that other Five Percenters are permitted to reside

in the general population and openly maintain their affiliation.

Appellant’s argument that the Department’s singular goal is to

make him renounce his religion is further undermined by the fact

that Department officials permit Appellant to possess NOGE

materials while in the SMU but ban these items in the general

population.

Appellant notes that he has not committed any

disciplinary infractions since the 1995 riot and points us to

one entry in the Staff Memoranda where an SMU staff member

mentioned that Appellant refused to renounce his NOGE

affiliation. He argues that this evidence demonstrates that

12 Appellant mentions in passing that SMU regulations also prevent him from celebrating “Honor Days,” the NOGE’s highest holidays, but the only substantial burden he argues in his brief relates to the Department renunciation policy. Appellant’s Br. 48.

18

renunciation must be a prerequisite to returning to the general population. Although “administrative segregation may not be used as a pretext for indefinite confinement,” on this record it would be unreasonable to conclude that the ICC has no plausible reason other than Appellant’s refusal to renounce his NOGE affiliation for continuing to view Appellant as a threat to prison staff and other inmates. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 477 n.9 (1983); see also Cutter, 544 U.S. at 717 (noting that Congress “anticipated . . . that courts would apply [RLUIPA] with due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
In sum, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that Appellant’s renunciation of his faith is a prerequisite to returning to the general population. Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Department’s policy imposes a substantial burden on his religion. Therefore, we conclude that Appellee must prevail on the RLUIPA claim as a matter of law.
B. Due Process Claim Appellant also presses a procedural due process claim. Our analysis of this claim entails a two-step process. First, we determine whether Appellant had a protectable liberty interest in avoiding security detention. See Burnette v. Fahey, 687 F.3d 171, 180 (4th Cir. 2012). Second, we then evaluate
19

whether the Department failed to afford Appellant minimally adequate process to protect that liberty interest. See id. at 181. For the reasons that follow, we conclude Appellee cannot prevail on either of these sub-issues as a matter of law. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s order of summary judgment as to Appellant’s procedural due process claim.
1. Liberty Interest Although “[l]awful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights,” a prisoner’s right to liberty does not entirely disappear. Price v. Johnson, 334 U.S. 266, 285 (1948); see also In re Long Term Admin. Segregation of Inmates Designated as Five Percenters, 174 F.3d 464, 468 (4th Cir. 1999). “[F]ederal courts must take cognizance of the valid constitutional claims of prison inmates.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987). In Sandin v. Conner, the Supreme Court declared that prisoners have a liberty interest in avoiding confinement conditions that impose “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). The Court reaffirmed the Sandin standard in Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005). Recently, in Prieto v. Clarke, we held that Sandin, Wilkinson, and our precedent “do[] not hold that harsh or
20

atypical prison conditions in and of themselves provide the basis of a liberty interest giving rise to Due Process protection.” Prieto v. Clarke, 780 F.3d 245, 249 (4th Cir. 2015). Rather, inmates must first establish that an interest in avoiding onerous or restrictive confinement conditions “arise[s] from state policies or regulations” (e.g., a regulation mandating periodic review). Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because there is uncontroverted evidence that the Department policy here mandates review of Appellant’s security detention every 30 days, we have no trouble concluding that Appellant has met the first prong of his burden under Sandin and its progeny. The predominant question in this case, rather, is whether Appellant established that the conditions he experienced during his two decades in solitary confinement present atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.
Whether confinement conditions are atypical and substantially harsh “in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” is a “necessarily . . . fact specific” comparative exercise. Beverati v. Smith, 120 F.3d 500, 502, 503 (4th Cir. 1997); accord Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2003) (“There is no single standard for determining whether a prison hardship is atypical and significant, and the condition or combination of conditions or factors . . . requires case by
21

case, fact by fact consideration.” (alteration in original)

(internal quotation marks omitted)). In Prieto, we recognized

that the Sandin standard contains two parts. Cf. Prieto, 780

F.3d at 253-54. First, we determine what the normative

“baseline” is: what constitutes the “ordinary incidents of

prison life” for this particular inmate? Id. at 253 (“What the

inmates in Beverati could expect to experience and what Prieto

can expect to experience differ significantly. . . . For

conditions dictated by a prisoner’s conviction and sentence are

the conditions constituting the ‘ordinary incidents of prison

life’ for that prisoner.”).

Then, with the baseline

established, we determine whether the prison conditions impose

atypical and substantial hardship in relation to that norm. See

id. at 254 (holding that Prieto’s death row confinement did not

impose atypical and significant hardship in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life).

a.

Normative Baseline for Atypicality

Although some of our sister circuits read our decision

in Beverati to imply that the typical conditions in the general

prison population provide the comparative baseline, see, e.g.,

Wilkerson v. Goodwin, 774 F.3d 845, 854 (5th Cir. 2014), Prieto

held that the general prison population is not always the basis

for comparison -- the “baseline for atypicality” may shift

22

depending on the “prisoner’s conviction and sentence.” Prieto, 780 F.3d at 253. Nonetheless, for the reasons explained below, we conclude that the general population is the baseline for atypicality for inmates who are sentenced to confinement in the general prison population and have been transferred to security detention while serving their sentence.
In Beverati, the general population was the baseline. There, inmates sentenced to the Maryland Penitentiary’s general population were administratively segregated in solitary confinement because they possessed escape paraphernalia.13 The inmates complained that Maryland prison officials deprived them of procedural due process. To determine whether “the conditions the prisoner[s] maintain[ed] [gave] rise to a liberty interest,” we compared the inmates’ living conditions to “those incident to normal prison life.” Beverati, 120 F.3d at 503. Because “applicable prison regulations indicate[d] that the conditions in administrative segregation [we]re similar in most respects to those experienced by inmates in the general population,” we concluded that the inmates did not possess a liberty interest in avoiding administrative segregation. Id.
13 One of the Beverati inmates was originally placed in disciplinary detention, but he was transferred to administrative segregation after serving his disciplinary sentence. See 120 F.3d at 501-02.
23

But in Prieto, we held that using the general population to gauge the ordinary incidents of prison life for a death row inmate was improper. See 780 F.3d at 252-54. There, a Virginia inmate on death row claimed a liberty interest in avoiding the “undeniably severe” conditions of death row confinement. Id. at 252, 254. The district court interpreted Beverati to convey that “the Fourth Circuit uses a facility’s ‘general prison population’ as the relevant baseline.” Prieto v. Clarke, No. 1:12-cv-1199, 2013 WL 6019215, at *1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 12, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted), rev’d, 780 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 2015). The court determined that housing conditions on death row were atypical and significantly harsh compared to the general population and, therefore, gave rise to a liberty interest. We reversed. Because “Virginia law mandate[d] that all persons convicted of capital crimes are . . . automatically confined to death row,” Prieto, 780 F.3d at 254, housing on death row was “normal prison life,” Beverati, 120 F.3d at 503. Therefore, Prieto was unable to assert a liberty interest in avoiding confinement to death row. See Prieto, 780 F.3d at 253.
The “conditions dictated by a prisoner’s conviction and sentence,” we stated, “are the conditions constituting the ‘ordinary incidents of prison life’ for that prisoner.” Prieto, 780 F.3d at 254 (emphasis supplied) (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at
24

484); accord Rezaq v. Nalley, 677 F.3d 1001, 1013 (10th Cir.

2012) (“The ordinary incidents of prison life will differ

depending on a particular inmate’s conviction . . . .” (internal

quotation marks omitted)).

Although the “nature of a[n

inmate’s] conviction” and the “length of [his] sentence” do not

“give rise to different liberty interests,” “state law mandates

[regarding] the confinement conditions to be imposed on

offenders convicted of a certain crime and receiving a certain

sentence . . . are, by definition, the ordinary incidents of

prison life for such offenders.” Prieto, 780 F.3d at 254

(internal quotation marks omitted). A death row inmate’s

confinement conditions must fall within the “‘expected

perimeters’” of his death row sentence. Id. (emphasis omitted)

(quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 485). Likewise, a general

population inmate’s confinement expectations radiate from the

conditions that inmates in the general population normally

experience. See id. at 253-54 (“What the inmates in Beverati

could expect to experience and what Prieto can expect to

experience differ significantly. It should come as no surprise

that the baseline does, too.”).

Although the general prison population is not the

relevant atypicality baseline in all cases, it is the touchstone

in cases where the inmate asserting a liberty interest was

sentenced to confinement in the general population and later

25

transferred to security detention.14 See Prieto, 780 F.3d at 252. This view comports with Supreme Court opinions as well as our precedent. See Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 223 (“Sandin found no liberty interest protecting against a 30-day assignment to segregated confinement because it did not present a dramatic departure from the basic conditions of the [inmate’s sentence].” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Prieto, 780 F.3d at 254 (“Prieto, like any other inmate, can only be deprived of that to which he is entitled.” (emphasis in original)); Beverati, 120 F.3d at 501, 503; Gaston v. Taylor, 946 F.2d 340, 343 (4th. 1991) (“[P]unishment or confinement beyond that contemplated by the original sentence imposed can be imposed only with procedures satisfying due process.”).
Because it is uncontroverted that Appellant was sentenced to the general population, the general population is the basis for our comparison here.
14 We previously took this approach in Walsh v. Corcoran, No. 98-7853, 2000 WL 328019, at *7 (4th Cir. Mar. 29, 2000) (unpublished) (“[I]n Beverati, our determination that administrative segregation did not present an atypical or significant hardship involved using the incidents of prison life that flowed from the inmates’ original sentences as a baseline for comparison with conditions in administrative segregation.”).
26

b. Atypical and Significant Hardship Having identified the general population as the atypicality baseline, we turn to whether Appellant has met his burden of proof. Appellant must demonstrate his solitary confinement in security detention constitutes atypical and significant hardship in relation to the general population. See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483; Prieto, 780 F.3d at 251 (placing burden of proof on the inmate).
i. To understand which confinement conditions are atypical and significant in comparison to the general population, we turn to Beverati and Wilkinson. The Beverati inmates complained that the conditions of their six-month administrative segregation amounted to atypical and significant hardship. See Beverati, 120 F.3d at 503-04. Prison regulations specified that although inmates on administrative segregation were confined to solitary cells, they were permitted at least one hour of recreation outside their cells seven days per week, just as the general population inmates were. See id. at 504. The inmates in administrative segregation also had substantially the same access to prison services and educational programming as the general population.
27

See id. at 503. Nevertheless, the inmates alleged that these

regulations were not being enforced and that, in fact, the

inmates in administrative segregation experienced more onerous

conditions. See id. at 504. We credited the inmates’

assertions but noted, “[t]he applicable prison regulations

indicate[d] that the conditions in administrative segregation

[we]re similar in most respects to those experienced by inmates

in the general population.” Id. at 503. Although the inmates

offered evidence that conditions in administrative segregation

were more burdensome “than those imposed on the general prison

population,” we concluded these conditions “were not so atypical

that exposure to them for six months” implicated a liberty

interest. Id. at 504.

Eight years after Beverati, the Supreme Court further

illuminated the atypicality standard in Wilkinson.

The

Wilkinson petitioners were assigned to Ohio’s supermax facility

based on the prison’s evaluation of the security risk they

posed. A unanimous Court held that incarceration in a supermax

facility implicated liberty interests. See Wilkinson, 545 U.S.

at 224.

The Court emphasized three factors in its analysis:

(1) the magnitude of confinement restrictions; (2) whether the

administrative segregation is for an indefinite period; and (3)

whether assignment to administrative segregation had any

28

collateral consequences on the inmate’s sentence. As for the first factor, the Court found that incarceration in Supermax was “synonymous with extreme isolation”; “every aspect of an inmate’s life [was] controlled and monitored”; inmates were “deprived of almost any environmental or sensory stimuli and of almost all human contact”; and exercise was permitted only indoors for one hour per day. Id. 214. Second, because inmates were confined to a supermax facility for an indefinite period, their interest in receiving meaningful procedural review was magnified. See id. at 224 (“Unlike the 30-day placement in Sandin, placement [in Supermax] is indefinite . . . .”). And third, assignment to Supermax “disqualifie[d] an otherwise eligible inmate for parole consideration.” Id. The Court concluded that, “[w]hile any of these conditions standing alone might not be sufficient to create a liberty interest, taken together they impose an atypical and significant hardship within the correctional context.” Id.
Notably, the Wilkinson Court did not engage in a point-by-point comparison of the conditions that inmates experienced in a supermax facility with the ordinary incidents of prison life. Nor did it determine whether the applicable baseline was the general population or any another segregation unit. Instead, the Court concluded that incarceration in the Supermax environment was so atypical and significant that it
29

would give rise to a liberty interest “under any plausible

baseline.” Id. at 223.

ii.

In the case at hand, the district court held Appellant

had no liberty interest, reasoning that “[m]ost of the

conditions alleged [we]re nothing more than the usual aspects of

a solitary confinement facility”; “besides the length of his

confinement . . . [Appellant] ha[d] not alleged living

conditions nearly as bad as those present in Beverati”; and in

any case, Appellant was “subject to substantially more favorable

conditions than the inmates in Wilkinson.” Incumaa v. Stirling,

No. 9:12-cv-03493, 2014 WL 958679, at *9-10 (D.S.C. Mar. 11,

2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court further

reasoned:

Even

though

Beverati

predates

Wilkinson, at the very least it suggests

that the bar for proving an atypical and

significant hardship is quite high in the

Fourth Circuit. Additionally, even since

Wilkinson the Fourth Circuit has cited

Beverati in rejecting the notion that

inmates enjoy a protected liberty interest

in avoiding confinement in administrative

segregation, United States v. Daniels, 222

F. App’x 341, 342 n.* (4th Cir. 2007)

(unpublished) (per curiam) (“Extended stays

on administrative segregation . . . do not

ordinarily implicate a protected liberty

interest.” (citing Beverati, 120 F.3d at

502)), and courts in this district have

relied on Beverati in procedural due process

cases involving administrative segregation.

30

Id. at *9 n.4 (citation omitted). The district court was also persuaded by its belief
that Appellant’s stay in the SMU was not indefinite because the “[Department’s] renunciation procedure puts the duration of his confinement into his own hands to a significant degree.” Incumaa, 2014 WL 958679, at *10. This, the court stated, distinguished the present circumstances from those in Wilkinson. See id. The court also relied on the fact that, in contrast with the Wilkinson inmates’ assignment to Supermax, Appellant’s transfer to the SMU had no effect on his parole eligibility because Appellant was already disqualified from this privilege as a result of his sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The district court was incorrect on two fronts.
The district court misapplied Beverati and Wilkinson. Beverati does not signal that “the bar for proving an atypical and significant hardship is quite high in the Fourth Circuit.” Incumaa, 2014 WL 958679 at *9 n.4. The bar in our circuit is neither higher nor lower than that of the Supreme Court. Rather, Beverati simply highlights a failure of proof. The Beverati inmates failed to meet their burden because the evidence showed that administrative segregation was not significantly worse than confinement in the general population.
31

The district court’s conclusion that Appellant had no liberty interest in avoiding the onerous conditions of his confinement was also erroneous. Appellant offered evidence demonstrating that conditions in the SMU are significantly worse than in the general population and that the severity, duration, and indefiniteness of his confinement implicate the concerns the Supreme Court identified in Wilkinson. See Wilkerson, 774 F.3d at 854 (collecting cases that “considered the severity of the restrictive conditions and their duration as key factors” in the liberty interest analysis).
First, Appellant demonstrated that his confinement conditions were severe. He provided uncontested evidence describing the severely restrictive and socially isolating environment of the SMU in contrast to the general population -the near-daily cavity and strip searches; the confinement to a small cell for all sleeping and waking hours, aside from ten hours of activity outside the cell per month; the inability to socialize with other inmates; and the denial of educational, vocational, and therapy programs.
In many respects, the circumstances of Appellant’s incarceration in the SMU mirror the experience of the Wilkinson inmates in Ohio’s Supermax facility. It may, in fact, be worse in some respects: unlike the Wilkinson inmates, Appellant is subject to a highly intrusive strip search every time he leaves
32

his cell. And, the Beverati inmates did not allege that they

were socially isolated to a similar degree.

Second, similar to the Wilkinson inmates’ confinement

in a supermax facility, Appellant’s confinement to the SMU is

extraordinary in its duration and indefiniteness.

See

Wilkerson, 774 F.3d at 855 (concluding that inmate’s 39-year

indefinite solitary confinement was atypical and significant).

The district court relied on an unpublished opinion that stated,

“[e]xtended stays on administrative segregation . . . do not

ordinarily implicate a protected liberty interest.” United

States v. Daniels, 222 F. App’x 341, 342 n.* (4th Cir. 2007).

But Daniels has no precedential weight, and it did not consider

an exceptional 20-year stint in highly restrictive solitary

confinement, as we do here.15 Furthermore, the district court

wrongly concluded that Appellant’s stay in the SMU, although not

limited to a particular number of days, was not “indefinite”

because Appellant could secure release by renouncing his

affiliation with the Five Percenters. As we explained above,

15 In fact, it is not clear that Daniels had been administratively segregated at all -- his interlocutory appeal pending sentencing was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Daniels, 222 F. App’x at 342 (“The order Daniels seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”).
33

renunciation does not guarantee release to the general population.
Appellant was already ineligible for parole by virtue of his sentence before he was transferred to the SMU, and therefore his confinement does not implicate the third concern identified in Wilkinson. But that fact, in itself, does not undermine the “material and substantial similarities” that this case bears to Wilkinson. Wilkerson, 774 F.3d at 855 (finding liberty interest pursuant to Wilkinson where inmate was administratively segregated indefinitely in highly restrictive solitary confinement conditions for nearly 39 years, even though segregation did not affect the inmate’s parole eligibility).
Therefore, Appellant has demonstrated a liberty interest in avoiding solitary confinement in security detention.
2. The Process Due Because the district court determined Appellant had no liberty interest in avoiding the SMU as a matter of law, it did not address whether the Department’s review of Appellant’s ongoing confinement in the SMU satisfied procedural due process standards. Because we hold otherwise, we now address whether the Department’s process meets minimum due process standards. We conclude that there remains a triable dispute as to whether the Department afforded Appellant a meaningful opportunity to
34

understand and contest its reasons for holding him in solitary
confinement for the past 20 years.
a.
Particularly in the prison context, “the requirements
of due process are flexible and [call] for such procedural
protections as the particular situation demands.” Wilkinson,
545 U.S. at 224 (alteration in original) (internal quotation
marks omitted). To determine whether procedural protections are
sufficient to protect an inmate’s liberty interests, we look to
Mathews v. Eldridge’s three factor test:
First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.
424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976); see also Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 224
(applying these factors).
In Wilkinson, the Supreme Court examined the procedure
that Ohio prisons employed to review an inmate’s confinement to
the Supermax unit. Ohio’s procedural mechanism was a complex
and comprehensive three-tier process that afforded inmates
notice of the basis for the prison’s transfer decision and
provided them an opportunity to contest the decision on at least
35

two occasions. See 545 U.S. at 215-17, 227. And the inmate’s
administrative segregation was reviewed pursuant to this three-
tiered process at least once every year. See id. at 217.
Applying the Mathews factors, the Court held that Ohio’s process
was sufficient to protect the inmates’ rights. See id. at 228-
29.
Regarding the first factor, the Wilkinson Court noted
that the inmates’ private liberty interests must be
“evaluated . . . within the context of the prison system and its
attendant curtailment of liberties” because “[p]risoners held in
lawful confinement have their liberty curtailed by definition
[and] the procedural protections to which they are entitled are
more limited.” Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 225.
The second factor -- the risk of erroneous deprivation
-- favored the prison in Wilkinson because its review process
was comprehensive and multi-layered:
The . . . [p]olicy provides that an inmate must receive notice of the factual basis leading to consideration for [Supermax] placement and a fair opportunity for rebuttal. Our procedural due process cases have consistently observed that these are among the most important procedural mechanisms for purposes of avoiding erroneous deprivations. Requiring officials to provide a brief summary of the factual basis for the classification review and allowing the inmate a rebuttal opportunity safeguards against the inmate’s being mistaken for another or singled out for insufficient reason. In addition to having
36

the opportunity to be heard at the Committee stage, Ohio also invites the inmate to submit objections prior to the final level of review. This second opportunity further reduces the possibility of an erroneous deprivation.

. . . .

If the recommendation is [Supermax]

placement, Ohio requires that the

decisionmaker provide a short statement of

reasons. This requirement guards against

arbitrary decisionmaking while also

providing the inmate a basis for objection

before the next decisionmaker or in a

subsequent classification review.

The

statement also serves as a guide for future

behavior.

Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 225-26 (citations omitted).

As to the third factor, concerning the state’s

interests, the Court concluded that the value of some aspects of

a traditional adversarial hearing -- particularly the right to

call witnesses -- was “doubtful in comparison to” the danger

they posed. Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 228. The Wilkinson Court

encouraged courts to consult the “informal, nonadversary

procedures” discussed in Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 476

(1983), which were adequate to protect the prison’s interests in

security and order. Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 229. In Hewitt, the

Supreme Court held that a nonadversarial process may be

sufficient so long as it provides “some notice of the charges

against [the inmate] and an opportunity to present his views to

37

the prison official charged with deciding whether to transfer him to administrative segregation.” 495 U.S. at 476.
b. Applying the Mathews factors, we conclude Appellant has demonstrated a triable dispute on his procedural due process claim. The record, viewed in the light most favorable to Appellant, supports Appellant’s assertion that the Department’s review process is inadequate and fails to honor the basic values of procedural due process. This record, bereft of any evidence that Appellant has ever received meaningful review, stands in contrast to Wilkinson and falls short of satisfying Hewitt.
i. Because Appellant has already been held in solitary confinement for 20 years, he has a significant private interest in leaving the restrictive conditions in the SMU and serving some part of his remaining life sentence outside of solitary confinement. Appellant’s private interest in this case, even if “evaluated . . . within the context of the prison system and its attendant curtailment of liberties,” is clear. Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 225. Appellant’s life is severely restricted, and his body is subjected to extraordinary intrusion on a regular basis. United States v. Charters, 829 F.2d 479, 491 (4th Cir. 1987) (“The right to be free of unwanted physical invasions has been recognized as an integral part of the individual’s
38

constitutional freedoms . . . .”). And as the Supreme Court has

made clear, “administrative segregation may not be used as a

pretext for indefinite confinement of an inmate. Prison

officials must engage in some sort of periodic review of the

confinement of such inmates.” Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 477 n.9; see

also Wilkerson, 774 F.3d at 856 (looking disfavorably upon a

prison’s “rote repetition” of the original justification for

placing a prisoner in segregation to support continued

confinement,

which

rendered

“his

solitary

confinement . . . effectively indefinite” (internal quotation

marks omitted)).

ii.

The risk of erroneous deprivation is also exceedingly

high in this case for at least three reasons. First, the

Department has only a single-layered confinement review.

According to Department regulations, the ICC makes the sole

decision on which inmates are candidates for release. The

warden does not participate in the decision to release an inmate

unless the inmate files a grievance against the ICC’s decision

to continue detention. This stands in contrast to the multi-

layered procedural mechanism described by the Wilkinson Court.

See Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 226-27.

Second, the Department regulations do not require the

ICC to furnish a factual basis for its decisions. Instead, it

39

need only “provide the inmate with a copy of its

recommendation.”

J.A. 139.

Moreover, in practice, the

Department’s process apparently only requires the ICC to give a

perfunctory explanation supporting its decision to continue to

hold Appellant in solitary confinement. The ICC has merely

rubber-stamped Appellant’s incarceration in the SMU

(figuratively and sometimes literally), listing in “rote

repetition” the same justification every 30 days. Wilkerson,

774 F.3d at 856 (internal quotation marks omitted). The policy

encourages “arbitrary decisionmaking” and risks the possibility

that the ICC may single out Appellant “for an insufficient

reason.” Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 226. Indeed, the ICC’s ongoing

classification of Appellant is especially wanting for

explanation in light of his nearly perfect disciplinary record

while in security detention.

Third, the Department regulations do not grant

Appellant the right to contest the factual bases for his

detention before the ICC makes its decision -- either with

respect to his assigned behavior level or his candidacy for

release. The regulations merely provide, “[t]he inmate may be

present for the advancement/release review if security staffing

allows.” J.A. 138 (emphasis supplied). The fact that the ICC

is not required to provide a factual basis for its decision

further increases the “possibility of an erroneous deprivation”

40

because Appellant has no “basis for objection” to support his grievance against the ICC’s decision. Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 226.
Appellee nonetheless argues that its review process “meets the flexible due process standard” approved in Wilkinson because, compared to inmates confined in Ohio’s Supermax facility, “Appellant’s custody is reviewed much more frequently” -- that is, every 30 days as opposed to once a year. Appellee’s Br. 39. However, in view of Appellant’s uncontested evidence demonstrating the inadequacy of the Department’s confinement review, this argument falls flat.
iii. The third Mathews factor -- state interest -- accounts for the Department’s need to maintain order and security in South Carolina’s prisons. But as the Supreme Court noted in Wilkinson and Hewitt, the prison’s interest does not eclipse Appellant’s well-established right to receive notice of the grounds for his ongoing confinement and to present his rebuttal to those grounds. We do not decide whether prison review mechanisms must be as extensive as in Wilkinson in order to pass constitutional muster. On the facts presented in this case, however, we conclude that the record establishes a triable question of
41

whether the Department’s review process was adequate to protect Appellant’s right to procedural due process.
IV. The district court’s order of summary judgment is affirmed as to Appellant’s RLUIPA claim and reversed as to his procedural due process claim. We affirm the district court’s holding with respect to Appellant’s RLUIPA claim because he has failed to show that his religious beliefs, rather than his choice to participate in a riot, are the proximate cause of his continued solitary confinement. We reverse the district court’s order on Appellant’s procedural due process claim because Appellant has demonstrated a liberty interest in avoiding solitary confinement and Appellee has not proven as a matter of law that it provided Appellant meaningful review. We remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
42

 
 9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 07/16/13 Entry Number 25 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION

Lumumba Kenyatta Incumaa, #155651, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

Honorable William R. Byars, Jr.,

)

as Director of the SCDC,

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 9:12-3493-CMC-BM
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TO: LUMUMBA KENYATTA INCUMAA, #155651, PRO SE PLAINTIFF
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney for the Defendant William R. Byars, Jr. will move before the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Beaufort Division, pursuant to Rule 56, FRCP, for an Order granting summary judgment to the Defendant and dismissing the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice on the merits.
The Defendant's motion is based on the grounds set forth in the supporting memorandum filed herewith.
The Defendant's motion is based upon the pleadings filed in this case; the supporting memorandum filed herewith; the Affidavit of Elbert Pearson; the Affidavit of Michael J. Stobbe; the Affidavit of Sandra Bowie; the rules of court; and any other matters as may be required by the Court.

1

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 07/16/13 Entry Number 25 Page 2 of 2

Columbia, South Carolina July 16, 2013

DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A.
BY:___s/ Andrew F. Lindemann ____________ ANDREW F. LINDEMANN #5070 1611 Devonshire Drive Post Office Box 8568 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 TEL: (803) 806-8222 FAX: (803) 806-8855 E-MAIL: alindemann@dml-law.com
Counsel for Defendant William R. Byars, Jr.

2

 
 9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 1 of 27

IN TilE UNETEb SrATcS ArsT/l.rcT c.ou/lT
Foil. ill.E bIsT,i,rcr of SOUTH CA.lOLr,Jl.4Ci-,' "", C'," :!'C'

Z~I? "'::.- 5·1\, '''': ;: 1

LUMUyvlJ,q kel1ya/~ ~LLhnQc()
P/a'ht,F~

) cIA ;1/0. 9: I~ - 3 f 93 - C MC-'B/Vt
)

) lZesPt.J/tISE ro

Vs,

) 5 UMM.AJZY -SUbG/AEN"T.

)
J-Ionoflo/,Le W;//;~f1'l /Z, 8yCill.f.l -TI.?/ )

CiS- Di/l!9cf{)fl, of f/.e sctJc.)

)

DG> Fen.dant, )
------------~--~~~-

I-k P/clll1ll;:~ In

abol!e- - cOjlh(med. Civil Cali7J1A hied Cl 42.

Ik U. 5. C, ~ 1~ gJ V~/ll fie~ CC;v\j>1(iiI1A- 0,5 Ct'insf

DeFel1clCinf as- 1J i,et?c.!tJ/!.

1-4. of

$tJvt"- CalLfP/7rla. be/ottfme",,! of (oflfit?,!-llJllfS ($"ct)(:)) Seek,,,)

0"/, dec./clIlt;(.ItJ127 and Irl~lN1C.J.ive It-el~eF) .hp Vi-olaftoY\. oF hi-.r /C,yhlr
pf20 tec leJ by ~ /!e/;j iou.J. La;tJ u~ artd Il'u:/iiuf-i'OJ1..a./ il:ed

pe/lsovtS Ac.+ (!..LurPA) tJF ,;LooO and Ik Fov;z.teen 1ft AmenJ/neVi!

10 i-t.. u,,;kJ 5~ks (OI1S/;'Iu+l~Vl,
Ik 5pecr+fcClI/r) .Def'enJoltl ~ fILomvlJcclBc/ .5ecu/l/fy Ji,;ee~f

G/l/)vj> ~TG) Paltc7 cle.slji'lal'hj !>Ia,nl,:ff~ Go) Lt?I1/Bl'ld C'ullt/~

1-4 o f' O-e. .£S IC/yYI.. IZe /fJ Fa VI.) fAa:f /j

/ll'cr/-;{)V\. oF C;;oJ,s Q ncI C r.jI't- /It, Wot;.G)

fk ,is-elf: t{ 5Tr;. C?nd j>!Zohib ;i~~

eteflC/~ f~o.:F ~;'~iA -f~

& 5(})C, WAefhefl- /Yl

!jeJl/.e;lal jJ/l';.l()1.'\ /o/ulal-ID-M. OI'L >11 fk5:;;ec;-a(

MaflQ),Lmfllvf VI/I'f (jAAU)) 7t i~o~)J!j a $U.bsfon/-'~Cl{ hU,f!.dev.. /)J/l

P}ct:ih-hf'F1s t:?:l-e/LL"~ t.J= Ai;; G"J C'enfelf-d {ul/-(//t.rL Q~ Ii/Q#'l (i·e.
+k. k/'ji(».) /haf J> #0G,£ by J>Ul1tsh.lY/j Plaln+)~/ f/L1fh f4

i

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 2 of 27

k j(e.rf/l."je/..ive. c.onl'iJltemeAI of fk 5MU urzhl /..eJ/lOunc..e (QhandoVl.)

his f4 CttlJ {en/elle.! tuliu/Zi<.. tJ Is/Clh\. (I.e. tee/,'J'Jl)n) I-ACtI /.f /1/0(;,£ " J
altJ fAal j)/a,nf;/"f s-- L"onF/N-meltl rUth'A It- SMU ;5" aPt a fr/Tea {

tUlc1 5 IjhlF,CQI1J ~a/lclsh'l )J4 b(}fA dv/la!-'/{)r\. ane! deJfiee oF

10 I-k /l..e51-/2.J<:::f-icl/!. 'i;'1. t€e(C{/-i{)Y\

O/Z.c!7na/tr IltcWeniI J jJ~';rOA. Ilk)

v/(;!a·hf}3 P/a.'hf-;f"F ~ libe/tly inl-el2esf !;Zofecie£ by fk h,V>zfeew/A

Amen.Jn1enf 1-0 It.. u,s, [ons/-;!-vl,oY7,

Tie .DeFol'ldCllltf ;:;-If'cl an AJ1sweJl -4 jJ/ainhFF Y CtJfftjJ/a;n;f

Ollt ft'1anett f s/ ;)0 13.

Pla/hfiFF .:filed yvilA It- Coup-f ".-1 ,dar Jld; ;;'013 OC E;'I-h7
jl/uMhell. 21) 21-1. Crn...{ :21-2. pla)nf,FR 8n.ieFht S'?ltJ/t1 or

I-ljf Ve/l,heJ. LOMjJlaif,d- Clltd plCtlnfJJ:/ ~ AI"FlcluV:;f IN?'lh E]lhikilr al-/a.ched ~.J.o) at! oE wAreh P/Ctlnf,J:"j: .Fvll, incoltjJOl2alu he/lein.

r/ze DeEt'ncianf/ileJ a fo1 of;ol4 hi! 5UfflrYlClt27 -Suc0l1'leJ/lf 


cia Ie) J vIr /to; :;"013 /)lJ)2.H/CI,J .Jo /!vk S-ft;) F /(. c p, 


?!tf,It!-;f:F k/l.R.7.vt Jj~~ j,71 ,R~~f>0nse To 5i/mmCt/l,/ Tu6men;f

~hov..J'YLJ fhal theA!. Qr~ 3el/l.vihe ISSues of cI'i~pule Q.!"" -A. 14

1-4 Mal-eIL/el( kt;~ pl<eclJJ"lMJ

Jlltlnhny tJJ' })eFen.c!Qn# /1A()"ill)JA.

hit 5 umlVlQI'lr TuJ..Jmt'l'l/-, PIC1ll1fif"Fs /2esfJ()Pl5.e. Iz ha.reJ U/O,A.
hI? BIDe.I'.:z;;; S'!IOltf. OF !II? Ve/liFie,} Lol'JItfJlCtlnlJ A FhclaV)'fr,) b;(hib;/r) Cin.L any olk/L }11(;{fle/Ls a.c may be /d-~v;/2e' 6y -I-k

C'OUtt+.

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 3 of 27

RESPONSE

I. p/,-tin l;J:"r 5vbmih 'herl fk !1IalloVl ()F C. odr CiI1 t:i £Q/t /lrs (A/0GE)

C.e. }$ Cl (;'(U) Lenfe!2d CullvtZie. t).f" .£5'1(;111.-1..

;2eli'':{;OH) JAlh)Ch If

eJuivaltnl 1-0 any matlttSf/ZeQM flefi'ji'olA be/I'I'" j>;2Clcftce.l II\. A)'YIe/lIC~ hJCLY) and occu/Jer tP( !)ace ,rt J>Jainf;l--r'l /;/e jJo/f.ollef
4 fhQ.1 FdleJ "y /-/~ ofl//'ociox be/;e~ iA G(ui 7n MolLe. »1al.M~f/lecN'Vl

/l e/iJ/oI1J which. CiA w;lel! accej> I-erl 111 fAe u,s.

Seve/lal V,S, feiet2al t:ov/t-k ),~~ field fhal- f~ def'jnCt/-io/A
tk of AlOG.E (also LOMfY/OJll~ k;tOWA. tls r;w:. PellceJfle~5) tl,J et s-rG

I> UI'1COJ'l5iJl-u/i'OY'laI ) MCl/l/l,a v, B/loacltlvs." )003 U,S, b;s-f, LEx/S- 1332'1 $.D·;V,Y, 3u/( 31) 2003)) )-/t:(,ed.~wat V./-ICl12e)!./y)

;2.ooq WL 6.,093273 W,D, MJch, flvj. J1 1 )..oo?)) a~o/-'Ie~ jA

lleleVaitf fatt!) )010 Wi- 113144' f/;,D,.A1lch, MCI/l, ),,2) )..Dlo) j

aftJ 5eVe/l~( slale !/lisolA. DiJlecfOllr all~ of';:>c,o/s IA Ame/licQ

ft. Aa.v-e Vo{unfJa/llr f(.efVtoverl

5rC, cle~'JnQ"f7()V\ F~Wl f~ /l/oGE

fh. F a Qi'Ll. (l.JL n ow a :/OJ2d inj !/'lIS" ol1 etts hifhiVl fi.. ()u, :sloles

1-4 0ffOJl- fUYII'fy 10 :F/!.ee/r I?x.e/lc. 7J'e

G,ut L enfe/2.ecl Cf/!Iu/t.e of

L:fICih-L (i.e. f(.elljil)Yl) fhal Js 1/"2. j1/oGC:; su~A 0> it.. #tlI.f.ac.hu.$elir

DePCifl. +"/rtey,J J {O/l,t ec f IOVU I

In acco/?-~ l4NA fAe tes I v,J.elcJ by fk Fo"'lllh C)/lcuil in fk. CaSe Del1hte(l. v, Lal1do",; 79'7 F2c1 f:2r (1-1" Lilt, Ir'?6)} fJ.e
docill)nes r1f'lt (;"d Ce".le/2e~ Cvlf"'k tJ:F IS/oM U.e· l2et:'Ji'Ovt) 1/1(jf 7.5 lie /110 GtE) COnCellfl.f ulhrnale c:it/e~ /;OJ1..s: o f J,Ui11tJl1. life) as
3 


9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 4 of 27

fl. ~

doc-!IL'i;1t::S of /2eco!Jnlz~ /le(ijIoVt.f) believ(u In ont)fhel'i 


'Vv1JldJ. (so-called aFtetLi>k)) anJ ha.r C{ \~/l()CJd. COrlLe/l.vl:!On.. 


rle ifl1tfU> VTi'lj 1-4.Juali/Y J /; Ie hit- oIAel'lS::'

dOL f/L;jljL 6.F I-t­

G."J Cel4fet2eJ {'v Ifu!l.t.. of.IS !Q/4A (,.e_ khJ7on. ) fAat "6 d #2>(;6 


kac~ aJ jJllacf IU?- ceftiL/J1oni es palloltel 1-0 fhok of ~ec.6:.p1';'l'i"cR 


jlel'rJTDKI' ) Cftt£ lYle~Le,JlS" jJlla.c/;Ce. 601-"'- ii'tJ.'vlducdtr tll1,( c"l/ecitVely, 


fk See ela,nf,Ff'5 AF.f'i-dov"-.j filer.R ~ft"...

(()unf ()iA- .May ,;J..o/ 2011

eLf" £"tI/l Y #vMbe/l 21-1 .. I

rt- It- hy /'tYS de5 lJnatioV\ of

;110(;6" ar a srr;

fk $C{)(

D7!Zec!-on. M IcttaeJ A Ootl£. ) Wa~ ba.rerl ¢n. Ik acf-I'()J'lC 6.F ikdh'''-l:/uer/

+k. merV\bcrtr of

/lfD GtE • See k Ie: L"jlY Te/l;rt ArJh'l7n.7f::.JJ2a/-'//I'e

+, S e''1{!eQa I-tOvt of £'n1 Cl I-er })~5IjnClI-eI .k Hi,Ie. pe,zc.en,leflJ') /74 F,]d <1­

ur 0
e4th. (7fl. JCf?1)

(Ae!<La.F/.e1L

/le re,i'.~eJ

Iv ~

HL-e jJet2Len te/2!).

Acl-il'MJ

Wh'll'" 5C1:>( efFIe/Clts dee/VIe; -h k 'V1o(enf) d7.J/lV/F!ilre one/Ion..

ell-Imina ( In. naiv;tiL /I lYi/l.echlL .M()U/le ~ de-.n3J1vtl--7lJl/\. of'I4 A/oGG

.-I-k as a 5 rG, WAs ;VOL basetl {>JIt

feachihJS) beliefi and

or p/LIUf Ices

Ik C;"J. {enlet'le'-' {'ull~ oF IrlaM- (Fe. ,uli,)i').,.) -fha! if-

fI.e. 1-4 jI/OG.t; ,ire if) bv! 01'1.

I t acf-;?NU of' ;neMbepJ of-' A/oC;€

It. wh~c" },.vefoz.- k4~£) COyvtllaliY 1-0

/et£cftiI1JS) beliek altef j>/bic/ite.r

of 1-4 /VO Gb- ike (J::,

Tie Qf>J tenfe/let! Culfv;f.IL of Ji/OM (lIe- kbJiVIA) f/ted- is 1/'4..

k. /l/OG.{; dselF doeJ. )II()f k~ctl Ok J.o a C~/n-1IJf&d)(}l1d /'lOll does ;f

11v(' erLCOVfLa~ ancl/tJfL Cone!OPIL C(l:[h1lrla( ) cl7:r/C"'j>

QI'L. Vi"()/eN/- etck 


afld/~ft behoVj-OYl.I rie Fout1.Je/L &F fk A/oGE C:4ve !e/d-cenleJ2J) 


AllalA. ttThe ;;Ih~fll( did J'ldl /ea.c1A an, 6E fACtf /I .Allah {tTlte 


4 


9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 5 of 27

Fal-hell/{ ~VJhA- C\ fL~!jhf-etlv.s jJulf.. 05 S(;J/V,,-/-i7JV'L whJeh /eath vr bltck.

-rk -1-0 CulL Ji\/i;te Yll?l.J-V;tL iNilh'ilt"

A.l'oGE 7.f a. C;~J Lenfe/le.1

Lv{iv/lJ1- oE IslaM 6·e. klljit.U1) wA,'-ch wAi?Y1 /ia.-ed. ovf etld, Cind

r evellydctr IA q !2):jAftUJi./.J, al1vl C>V;/;Ze4 way/ COl'lsc'/ov.s;.l Owa/cevtf Ul

1-4 -1-0

t/4tlh. fhcJ.. we aile- 11&1 51-MjJl, hvJ'11oYl /'el!1Jf seek:;nJ q

5f'/L,fvCl ( e '!-'7>leYlC.e) hl./J We. 4/l1L 1ft -/-'€vlh S jJlYlifvcd be'flJr It ~nJ Q
hI/mal"\. e)LIs:.ft?I1c£) Cinel COItSC;ou-s;!y {.(I-ief v..s· Fa.>!}) .J.o at/It. d/~Nl­

)1aj·v/lIZ- !hal Ii +~ 5UjJI!Lf1JL Clleaf()/t (4lla"'.) f(;oJ) eil/s-/-Ih.!) "n 6'Ci/LfA.

//1 fhys7ca-t Fle,)A~ TA7J If Ik /e3;/;h1Cl/e Gt>;;( Certfe,;erd. Lvll(/M.. J

i4- .Lslcul'1. (,.e. ;tel>j/()VI) fltJ 7J It- /IIOGC" qnd

lalh Way if

5a/vai-lrlvt wh'rch. p/a,hf;:I"F I/~s c/a;/7 F

rk ;VOGE rAve. pet2cen.fe~~) )re &r ha~ hQd Cl I eJil-in-tale anc/

;Ir Iaw-ct 1o)J.'y!) e .<.7!i-enu 111. .;-J.... us. SinCe

Fovnc1my /J/I. lye; 4- by

Allah. (l'r4, (;.l-hL/t)) a/Mo).! 5"'0 ye41ls Qj()1 .A )t?Jd-,/'Ma1e ~,(lslel1U!

Me", vv-hich Was acknDw/eJ.je-d 1;1. 19~7 by

Alew /()Jt.k ,l?t?jJvh/ICClV\.

,lfAa/olt Johvt L'I1.Jsuy aflri COVelli10/l.. ;Ve(solt j!.t>cke:/"e/(e/f.;

..Mayo/t Llftalray :Jtt ve 1-4 hUftJejL oF 14 ;1/oGE" Five Pe;2cer~kylJ)

t4 .Allabt ltrk [; Ihfl/L 1/ bu;/J.,1'}j 111. whtch. 1-4 hits! /Vl>G 6 Schoo ( tva!"'

openu in Itt67 7//\ flaltlePIA J .J.Iew YOJ'Lk) wk;t..e ?f ;l?-emQ/j( t:)' 10cia yl'

L !'Itpg f k ;tit 1, Govellt1 O/'L Nel>oVl /!cxkeFellel! futlley

HTk Yojt. el'Vtb/lcu ed and C(/;,j/IIYleMe./ AlttlA

(;1/'(2/1... It

/,7J ~;tt.. lAil"

+4 youl~ cutd .hn h/~ an.el A~ Pive.. fell<. e'l1,f e/2~ fie!; '''J 10 lee!,

f4 pe(lCL In.. Ilaft-/e,,~ /1/&..1 Y{)~k a.;:le/1- 14 Ct.5~-ar$-;hCt.JI'oV\. or

Aalll-m Lvl1--.e,r. k;~ I JJ2 f)A AjJ;2-;( 4/ Itt(Q g: See £)//""1'1_1_

M 14 a/{a.ch eJ ru. k) paj.rL. 3 t!J£

Ht,e Pe/lCe,de/l l1eW5fJ0jX3IL) Vol. l'tr, 9/

.;1/lay ;;L 0 t3.

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 6 of 27

Ti7s Is !Cillf or lie Ij~Y!J j,;S--ht2( anJ leJihmCtIe e;( hfeH'e;. "..,r
I-je A/O(;E /"" Awu~t2IcQ hit ali11~>1 s;-o yetlll.r how. Nt/I oFa ~/c.

ad/()/l. 13a~) bt/+ Vi /e:}il;Male GodCerl'fe/led Lullt.4U oF rs/((M..

-h O,e. ,ttelC}'j()y/) whIch 7.r elv~val en! Clnr ma)r1siltC'QM. ;eeb,.3i'on... be';;"J

p"uc-I- it&! as- Q /e!}ifimal-e palA.~y 10 G"c/ Ih Al¥1e~lCa , Alee #uk

f"o~ wA.-o

iclenf;:J:y

fhem5elF as

fk. betnj of

AlOGE wk hare. do~

fk'ihj> which Cl/2e COltffiotL7 1-0 14 /e«ch.iYlJs J belie;; an.d 1~t2cfi£ef ~F

Ik ? ';voGG iftelF) SUe fA as ytolenl J d7..r/Cv,J'live: Clncl C;2:;wt;Y/a ( Clc f

Ye~.J bul Wh(1./ ,Relljj'ort does no-l inc jude IAe~ lYle .Followea,{'?

ThelU. (.avt be. Found ntJrvtellous docurrlenl-ed inc;--c/Pnlr )hS;~ Cine{

ik oufs~~ of

SCIJ( wAe/l-€ CIII'l'6hans) Mv5. hms } (hul ()IAe~f have .

eifhe/L ~/J1JI'v)'JUIi(/'r and jOlt co/(ec/-iwly ('omh'1illerl Yie;/enf J

OhSlltlj>t-I've. ClAd/oil. C!2IiY(IHa( 'lei>. HoWeWlIl) seoe D;;eeclolZJ hove

these l1()f de.s IjnafeJ 11011(:, bE'

/U'liJ"'YI~ as C( sTc' OiL jurO it

TAe Covill- 1i1 AAtV2.(l?C( Y. J3/l.oClcldu~" SUI/lQ.. oLse,R..ve..-f ;

((We S//t.eu fAal we aie Itol 5aylflj I-hai fj,e)!e t:l;t.e. lIo! ,/l/sOJ1e/lJ
Wh-o wovlJ Jesc/tJe I-Ael41Se/vef as five.. />e/lc.eJ'l'feJt-r wk ),ave
COYYlWl,i/u C/l.IWles Ort o l k Vtiiu{ y'jo/~l-e" //l7,/:olA Il~vlol-Itm.i.
H-olAlevetl-) ;).e hJn'itRl-ll>H.{ "I" !hl:> Fete.f J S'h ovLJ b~ ob\/;I)u$.~
((rietu all.e jJll,sortell.> wkc wovl.4 der(/l.;b~ lileMse/wI ur Lafhohc~ P/l()fe~ta;16J 3 ewJ) .A4u5h~51 /l/O.I')elc. wh.c IikLvi4ie ytolo/e jJ)e'rsc.....
/lejula!-loJ1.r) Cln,( ;t 7S easy io imO!jlite a. Si-iw/-'~ WAek fNt.
COWlmol'\. el-hYll< Oil /le{ij'I>/.JJ lonJsiw/led by menAheJ« oFQ jll-ovp
covLJ 5'ettve ar j./,.e iMpel-v> :!OK. sOnyt. 1-0 band foEefhep- and af
t;rnes act- cohe>iyefy) bv+ 110 one VV04.l!,J SUj '3esl rhal Sv(:A. Feulr
f!lee Jude Me c/,;:u;s; FIt:. a .f:;oV\. of fAes-e /lee 0)11 iced J/LoUju as 

/leL~!J)oJ1s de.>eJ!.vI"!j of /7)2s.i Amt'ItJJ11t!n/- IIlDt-pchoVl.? 


9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 7 of 27

;r;,. .5vm) IAe Fovrt-iA (ilUv;f'f clec's"o;..'t il1 1;, ..fe LOJrt; 7Ffi~

AdW11117S/./lahve ..5~!Vle9alTl)Vl of .LJ1I11Clf eS be5J.!jJ1al-~" A hire. Pe'I<lU'J1!P,RJ

14 war eva/ualeJ and decide' t)11.

deh,eel'lfial 51<1'n/(jrJ-~ t:J,F

Ik IvtLnef{ v' £qF/eYJ 48'2. u. ~I 78) 8'9 (J9~)) onel hoi

Sf/l.'cf- SLl<.vhnrl

Ik leasf !2.esflZtcfi>ve M&uu: S/4ndtlJed of j2LUIjJA J 2000, Tk

;VOGE .,~ C( 1t>.J;hmClIe G.oJ (enlelle£ Lvllu/tIJ. of £S/q~ Ue. /le/;.J/{;A)

wh,th 1/..11. DeFend((nl /1QC oIe.llyna0 a 5TG.J ,ml0's1J13 C{
:5vlosJaYli-ia{ bu;e.delll On. t/afJt+>Ff'J eie~c-;ie. of A,'j" God ('el1/.e~e.1
fk CvlJ..()~ tJf hlt"'''\ (I.e, /i.e/01o",) fAa) 'IS' /1/0(;£) a. .Jel1ui~ /sSu.e I1f Ik d'5pvle a5 .J.o mafe~';a( heirJ jJ/lec/vd,#,J fAe J/!.ollftl1J i f I-k

beFenJal'lfJf AAoftol-l lly hit- 5uI'Yfl11 Cl Jv,,13 mewf..

n.

flainl,FF kilt IIICl>I<-I()llak5: AeMir1) jJ/alh1;.fF y !1;CieF ..z;;,.
5'1'POfll t>.f HIS Ve~JFieri C"J2rl.I/a'Jt.f) jJ)ainfil"F ~ AFhdQv;i and
E~h,b,1:I :fileJ h4~f'" 1£ L()(.I1l1 t)n. Mar ;l~.JOl.l as En~y N('/n4b~/2f
)1} ;2.1-1 QI'lJ ,:2.1-:;',

P/a1ltf)I"F) vl'/hk ';J1 Ve/l5a /.;/e. VI '"SOhn.son.; .2.0 It ).V.L .5"'11925 f

10 +k (£: D. Va, ).0/1); has Ill.e.>enfed

('o(/;tl !/llma FCl(:)e E'v,ciel'J<'.R. fAa.:!

fk Ik b.o,j {errle/lel ((./tfVk 1!)f'I5IQ JNI. 6e, l<e!>Ji?JYI ) f.~wI 73

A/oGE

fY7ee k I t s-l-an.cJa/2.~ as: fo wkd- 7S' a "ee/;:J~5'el- :hJl'lfh by fk-

Fovlt t~ {'IYlC v/.J.. {'ov~f "F AI/,ea k lit .l>elfl11e/l VI La. lidtJl1; .5VjJ;la '/ e~",

de>fik

It- ;;',,1 fArAi

f4 ;VOGG I~ /101 a.

/leb::{;o0..

.fk /11\

ConVenf/orlo(

USe of t~ tell-Mil See plaIYLt;.Jf f BaleI' J; 5vpporrl of /-I;r VeIL,FieJ rl

7 


9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 8 of 27

p/a"h/-;:FF Aar- Shovv#v fAal f)e. ~~d Cenfe~eJ. C~II£)k Q.F'IS/(U,1A

(I,e, fl-e{)j'IoY\) fAaf 1$ It. Ai06'6 occvfJie~ a ,lace 1;1 1,/> hk 'jJClflOtlel 10

Ti fk .fAal- of mOA convC'n/)ol1oi f(e!0)'ol1s!) s/-al'lda/ld wA-let,

FOVlLfA

!-o Li/lcv,'1 vj>Ae/J lit .J)t?llmel'l dele/lh'l,ne wAelAetz C{ /fl.().feI".£P,J

1-£ .7a.7fh /.J q /2ellj ,Opt jJllolec fed by

hee C')l..t?tlC lie. clau~ ~§ Ik.

I-k F7)'lsl AmenJmenJ, Ar

LOvi2-.f 111 .l>el-fl11ef2 Fovnd Wilh fk LAv/lch

t).J- W,ccC() whel1 il- vlAel' It b7ti/27c1 Lovl'lf'.s t:lec7r/o~ IAaf Ik

& ChU(lv'" fir W;-(Ca oCLvljes C( ,lace ift

/iW!.c of )Js mtf'mht?)l..{

fk 'laRallel ~ thaI- h/ied by-

O/llhoJ(JX he/;er /1{ God" In. ft?e/)j/1N'iI

fY1O~ vvid ely 4cce;fed In fAe US,,) lAir: also AolJs !-j2ve Ji;~

Pla.int-)Ff alld AI> God [Pnfe/<.eJ. Lulfvk of .:£s/Q;kC,e./lP/)j/()n) IAaf Ir

f4 /110(;£, A plaInt IFF enVMe/laf-eJ In hI! AFFtvavd- fiLed //Lilh

fk ar + /fA (()i/It 011. .:Lo) ,;20/3 rL,£ En i.R-y ;V;;m be,l ;2.1-1) Ii. (;,'a '"

{e14!e/le.J. Cvt fu}trL oF hlorlA (ie. /Ce1>.J/ol-'t) j),a.f 7? ~ #0 be::- deal..r

fk or i/L-1fh.

uili/71()/e Jves!-lDyts

hUI11(Ut hie) be/levet' IV( CU'ItJ fA eft

1-4 h I/V'OflIJ) (lJ: q h/lbad C()l1cejtl1, hit. lJ"Y1jJll<;V"J'tJ

Jvalilr tJ.f I;k

-/0 h n ~lhetLJ') lea.cA ClItel. fJ/laci-ICL Ce/leMonieJ ,Palla/lei fAo~ oF

'ft jleCf!.jnizeJ 12ellj'ibY1s) an",(

h1embeAr jJ/t.ac!ru iJ1"',t~--..t.vtll'r t:lrl--t

C() If t!, 1'1\.4. Ly I

T4 14 })e:f"el1dal1i) fAflOVjlr.

Af"Ftt/oVii of' E/befl..f Peal2-soVl.)

FaJsc?/r Io.~e( I--k J1/()G.E ilse IF C< !)Qf'lJ/ lurk 3 f2ovjJ IAcd ft"'fJche,r q

/ 4 fLaCHf >dea((J!J7 and black SVI'/leJ'YlClcy"

A/OGE 7r nol Cl..JQ"J)

oltd -IS 1'101 ~ h.ale 3!LoUj> I/'Ctl- leacAe; Ci. !la.cis-I )deo1o!}y tind

I t hla.t-!, :5vpfl- eW\i{cy' II- 7? /f2ve fAa.f

A/t>6E /era£-. fAaj· 14

g

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 9 of 27

fk f4 .Blackmal1. u G6.l QI/r;(

wAlk-mar>. Is

oIenl, !foweve/'L J by ,Leach"",,,,

fk such JOel. J1 Dt mctiu,

A/O(;~ ~. !JCl'!j tilLL/Olt hale J/L{}Ufl f/7(J,j.· fellckJ'

Tt.. a R.Cl( /$1 Ide~/()Jr cutel billcit. 5u;~eW/acr"

A/rJGti a/fo /.eruh thai

14 k wh" h1QV\. wh.c /;vef q j2}'jhl eo us. /;/€ live-f' QS" ~ ci'v:,(i~etl M"~

O;'fd .JJ.e .s/cakmCl/l\. wh...o /ive~ a. /;k (j:f devil7sf.u'Yle,,1 /? /;0i1J CIS q

14 Jev-;', 'wAy i1 ;1 f~af IN'k 14 N" GE /eruh -IAa!-

g/ruk m()b1 If

G;oJ. t'iltd fk while ma~'l 7s i-k devil) ;1 /J C( !l0ytj Clnd hCfIe yjJ.-()VI

fAaf feache5 q /lJlCj~.J ,t:!e()/oJY ancl b/o(i. 5VjJ~el'''1QCr; bt.lJ w~

CJ1//;r/hulily ieCl.cA I/u,lf God 71' t;( WJt!/emQV\ VIA ima3eJ i f 6'0£

allJ :::resv.t Cls WA,k ~ (CClVCa.5'ClJII)) ClJ1d fAa! I-~ de"".;! i? a

14 fYle{ P1. ~ C (J/ on Via 1M C?Je.s o..F

de...-11 ,t{f a. WlQvt 0-1"Ih.

wty swuvz.fhy Sk-lIA) 71 IS Yto!?

7J' CAfiirf,0I1I'17 nol deel'l1eti Cl hak

jlLovp fha.;f !-etJ.c.Au. q /ltLc J~.j ,&/eo/tJ.J't COl~ wh;1e. Sull<effl CleY?

rie/UL 7t /'LO /2e/>Jil)r. 01-\ eOlZlhfj,(4/- ot11et:J,1L 0""- erN21h Cl/le.. /i-t

/00 % Q3/leemevJ. V!-ifh i# ft?tlc.AtnjS") 6eliefi Cln" lOll !~(jcij(e.f'
rAek ujU. 50~ ;eo;Uz. who 04 .nil/- qJ/lee VVI'fh O/l /;k fk

k I t lea.ch I Plj.s- 6-F Jesu.s; {j,,t';(f Wk favJivf

k..FkY./()VIA. i f God

+. k 75 ~+h,v\ (s Lv~ 17:21)) W~ fatl!jhi C( teOlk u. ye /)k 'yo's II

k (5 h )OhVl /0:34») Oil. w~ fUV'jhi IAcd- q ;eojJl.tt lM'k ~ I-klYL

fdlAelt Ihe dev-;/ (5i, "'Soh>'\. 15:44). cj,(r;st;OJt5 dOh'f Q:J/lee k4fh -fh

feac./AiYtj 5 of /Y1vsirwu' QIt" SClY tier Ok al! JOlnJ -10 Aell )1.0

Aow liter }'YIalfell

}r/Vlt... !lij Al-eov.sj1eS"J Clnd 30fJrl deeds

do be((Ju.r.e

/4 -1/..,11.'( hCfvt' lIof acee,fecl Jes~ C-A,tt27)f af

on?- heyolleVl ...>0.0 0:1""

G.o"l wh.-o J..ieJ 10ft I-kiK >1115, ,;1A.v>hlMJ don'f Q,jIlef2 JM/~ -J-h

SQ." I-Ae feca/t....IY1J.s ()C{ t:A,i.7s!tOKS ClIte(

y Ok ,,1/ J()~J .J.o jut! )to

Yvtaffett ~w h1V('1A.. jtiJhfelJvsl1es.s qn..i ()otJJ deedf fky ~)

q 


9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 10 of 27

beLa v~ titer ha\tt1 nIFf Ctcce,fed Allah a.c I-Ae ()j.JL f/2ve C.oci and

./vfvhammaJ l2.C' Air Ja>1 j>fLo,AJ Qn£. ./t1er.re1..Jt?I'l-# Jew-.s cioAA- qj/Zee

14 Va4~/~ II e~/"ett Lh/t7!'t7aV\ Ofl. mv~ /in",. antL. sur

Ok hld'A .jOlh,) !o

fk.y 1-4 Ae/f) bee a uk..

Clk

''cit oSeV'. jeo!,k I( qf C()d ()i/l eq~#'i

rAeu fk C'>faMj'ks

JO C('iYl.

ClV1.

/A4~/h

ali

I'Y1c/iJits-I/2etllVt /2t'h.J/~;'tJ'

OM eClfif"-) wkfU2.. m aile e~ di.fFe~eJ t:!6'I1./)JvliJ1afloVls; w~ 04

nc>+ CtJl<.ee Y'-1~f/A each (}Ihell) Ql'ld //,ey have FouJhf tind kl//ed C'Qch

olk(l )" Ik )nill/()/ltS' overt. IklIL dlI QJl2ee men ft al1.( c/ryJ:edencef •

Tier 5/;11 aILe.. /-;11 lh'lJday,

1-4 Tie.re. l2eflJ'bKs al1ct tJfAeflI I;k IAeM ak

/28/}.3'1"11-.r

I-k. 14 deSOl;bed /11

u~ CtM.YC!ntlcll'l.af

if

/-e/lJlVl /le~'J)()V\) w)t/ch. it.

ry No (; E dDeJ f1" I- ,den/i ;Ise Ir lA-f"-fJ"

O)t.e. tJ{ ft- J/leCtt Ikll1J1 abOuf Ame/llca and ft.. U.S,
[Oil s-l ifuf-Irm. is fA.a! ()# Cal/{ At:I~ 12el?Jj()//J t /et(ch'ln.jJ) e!,efi QI1£
jJ12acl;-£es y,,"',({(4 ofAe/lf May )10 1 Clj/tee tA-1ih tJ,f. li~ ) eve",... ;.t.. !)ove;t~me4) bv+ aILe sHit nee fo eXe)'LC'tUL litoi.e krlch'iI1Ji./ ~ebe'1i­ Qnd t/l(uflCeF a~ loJ1...j Q$ fhey do Itol Int~';h...Je L1!O#'L Ik /2:0hlr of
o.J.~p.J ) Ylolok I-k-Iaw Cine/loll c:avS-e o/~e/LJ Anltm~ /AOMtZJ: v, Jev,~w
BtJo(lri of Il1d;PI1C1 EmjJl()yme~f Se.cv~;17 J)/V/;-'TOVl j 4-s-o U.S. 70~
714 (19g-1) (t/ze!;j/'-'1)VS behe'Fr i1ee~ Ito! ~ acce;l-al,le) /(!).,iCai)
COh>7slent ) bit C{JJM.I"ehe't5'ible 1-0 oIAe;t.r: /J1 Olle/ell 10 mefl,;1 h'nr}
Amen.dmel1.! /h'lafecJ-jQv(J). T,l l>eF'en'/cml i? oIePlj'n..j pla,hllrr f),;u­
/2.IjAI CII1J1. jJ120lec 1--;7)1-1. h)!t h"7:J God Lenlt!l2e.( (UI/vk of d.s!t?Il-\. C.(!r
/lehj/(M) -that 7l 1t.;1/0 G. E;

10

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 11 of 27

rk fk ;1/bG.E /ecu'h thai

I3ltl(j.-fYl~1\. i? Gol Cllt.elfk wJ,.;!eh1Q""­

I-t is

ole vii) 17.0110 /et<ch. c:t ,etu.7sf ,"-eo/()!JY J ~/alk SVjJ/le/"J'1Qcy 012..

r4 Aak J wh;/.e peo,~,

f(;vltle/l of'lt /VaGc AllQh "T~ ktlkll'f

pubhc-ly 5~kJ fAa!- fie. ;Vt>GE (f:5~ j>ell(e~feli'i) If )tI)l 112<>-- block ()Jt

an h - whlk) buIll J/lIJ - j2 1ykleo(.lJ)1e.(f tlnti 411 Ii - P!eY)/ t~jvned. J:;.,

ha j.) ;!.P1Le aile. wh; Ie HK pet2c enfeJl-s " 5~e .exhibit J. all-ached

heklo) paje. ~

'rh 6{"

h've Pef(.(e""fe/L

new,(fafe;t.) Vol. Itr.r) Mtly

fk- 2013.. hllfhert.) wAi~

It. #'OG.E c/()es feat/"'" f),at-

B/~ck mavt Ir

G.J and 1-4 wh,kWlaIA.. iJ I-k c/ev-if J fh./l-e. /1 11.0lhlJltJ 1#1 I-k /each'IM,jr;
hetiefi alli t J2a.cf Icer df It. #Z>GE ) as /-a(.lshl ant! VJ1"~t2sloo£ ;t. Ik G(h/. {'e~l-el'2eJ LvlfvtLe. ~ Is-lclItA Ma/- 7l 1-4 A/or;E) fAal kacb.

hak t!Jr /#'h'lt.. feofk) C{ /la.c/s! ~de()LD9'f Olt- black Sup/lemacy) QIt£ )'LO(L jr t#k fi,uJl4i Clll{ -Ih,rtj wA'lett J..e~c~ OM-. /.0 k C( CIL'}YI.'i1al; acl

Iv\ fA. vlolenJ QftJ d.esl-;2(.1c.f','ve. Wtty ) 011- coni OIVL Sud",_ beAa. vj(};t. See

Plain/IFF's At:£rlavif hied v.-1th' tk Covill 6x Ma.ft ;lOt ;201], as I

pi ft... CL'iit:/.) f:f subrn/~ fAaf

#t>G c is a. G. ~i. (i?#LfeteeJ CvltviZ-tt.

o:F I~/alVl 0e. t<.ehj/D.-t) wh'rti-1. ha.r h.ad C{ /eJihmr;r/e Qfld !tlw-a,hi'd;Jf.j

e>LRfence ocAs7'rk. j>/L7S{)f(S kif.. almo.{1 5"Z> jeCl}1..{' hOw) ClJtd Whl'ch.. /f e;£t/lvaleA:f 1-0 any lJ1all1sJ-/leClr~ jlebji'o",- JI,,/J"lch olk)Q.s u.f.e. Q;..t' I-k//2

ful-t.. 1-0 Gftd. This IS jJla'J1.f;FF~ cOl1sc;enCe C)O/~ Cl.r hII jal/... 1-0

h G"J) Cl11.d hIS j>alh 6&d.. ,nar }1-tJl ~ C<CC.a,foh"') !Ojica(j

Coni/stew/.- ) tI/t CofVl!k)wvtS;J,k /.0 I t beF'e,ttfaw/ ) ;1 7l 5411 jJ/C/)lth;:J:j­

10 I t haf COPLSOeJ1ce C/U1iU 1/(..)' Als jJalh

r;~J) i211r:/

.beFenLon-f

hO

/L'Ifj h+ .l-o PILe.($. Ufle.. h'7J4/( f.o ap (>5 ia: k ,

it

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 12 of 27

TAe {;url-fA Ci/ecu/I- has },eld fAat a 5Ubsl-Cln llal bu;ec/evl ''(f'
h One fACtI- (j>u& svbshulha{ j>ft.es5L1!2-t 0;1 an aclAe/it'p,! JIYltJc/;ry

), '"is 'beAa ""'Oll cpu/I-o Vio IQ Ie AI> be/iefr·) bit , __ fi>IU. es- a /€,/l..>ovt fo

'c.hOo.5e befwee..t FolfovVlJ1j Ih. !/leLe/1i tJ.F Ae/Z. -<eb.ji'()n. al'lcl

1-4 FOl2l"e,flJ1!j CJove~y{/nenfo{J benef;fsjon

tMe h(lnd) ClI1t;/

lie abandoninj ot\.i... 6F fie tflece,lr 6F he/l. ~elij;OA .. -- on

()fAel'l

/1Jtb'l d," SrYlith ~. /}zMlnfJ S"1r ~ 5d :24~) :2 51 {"ff" (lX.. :;lOo.,),

Ar P/a'f'lhFF hal' shtJw/A. 111 A7s ERler 1;.. 5ujJp0J.f /)j: IIIr

Vef2-)fieJ LOfrlJla,nl and AF:f,dav}f Ctifached theA 10) fk

De{eIlJall)'S Sr' PoLIcy 5vbsi-anl-lQllr bUfldeJll It. e/.e/Zt.7k ()f

-Ik. h;s God (enfelte..! Lvlfurl€. J 1:slam G.e.l!eb;JlDV\) fJ",d· If ;voG£'

fk. by rJes/jna.{M.j

;V06G a srC tincl J>,eer;5U~/11J P/tlinfiFFiv

!<en Dun Ce (a bt2l1c1()11) )., IS GoJ (enfe~e" Lv IfvIU.. of I s JOl'l-'t ctnol

-ik 'vIDI Q Ie h7s he be Ii 711 t)/ldtl/l /.0 iu... /le/eo.J'e.l ~M

I t !Ze>J/l.';cfive cuul IJI..lnll-i've. Con/iJ'IR-1YJ8J1tf tJf It. SMU h

jefI. ettal S C IH_ pilI> Of\. popula I fOYl.

ne DeFen£QY,/ 'VvOvlr/ like ~ C:ovlti 1-0 belie-I/o.. f),~f 'Sc/)( 7I'

IltJi- pUfi'J1j p/lesst..I/te ()~ tlaIPli>:{J: /.0 /(eP10unce h'7f' be/;efi QJ1d

1-4. fo ;eefU/lvl

,gel1 e ll.4l !o/v/al-roYl, rill> 7~ l.,mfflue" P/Cr'Mh:f~

& S"vlm;/-r I"~I C()n FiJ1e m(?FlI lit

fCe>.JI'l;--c.)./~ and jJUhi)ilre.

1-4 COI'lJ,-/-Irn1.S oj:

SMu /> bl'-'J1,) USee! as t:( !uhlsh/YIen-r whiCh

will no! end Un!;! tla'hftfF abC/holo",- (j<..en(}vnce) hir- G'od

Len/elf6;/ (v tIC/IlL J £5IQht\ fAaf IS Ik .A/OG?, PlathlilI Wtl.f'

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 13 of 27

14 /l.eleasei ~IM. 14 Aa;L il"Vlu~ Sec(.//l.;ly Vn/~.f in. J-OOS- 1-0

S M UJ

k. w). €f'..e ha.> s/n Ce beert Sv hjec fl'c( h fL /lC'sf/2;, five Ond

Ik pun. ;fi've- conJ ; I-l()illS of

SM V ar a. m(?anf 1-0 l/less Uk ~/rn /.0

I-!v.. A fACti !<.ei1.OUYlC4, /1" G"l Cerzfel'leJ (ult-v/'lfL of ~/a~

?>

fiI'"t; 6,

I-k. W~elAefL OIL 118/

:)r'

Pohry

lILt) vIde>

t:f

ech )1/1

Or/ISM

()/2.

ptoceJ.V/lfL hfL C( srG. mBWlhs/l.. 1-0 l2e;lOUl1U CJIL llal/-emJ>1- .J.o

l-efl.OVvtce hTf behe.Ji C{nri FUlZflut./L ct+,F/bi:i'!rOvL OIL palltrc ipu/..;-o"!.. 1n.

fk eLVI Sr(;'1 i> 1101-

;S'.:5Ue fOn PIQ~f1h:!<{', pia/nit}:! 7? hel t:t STG

J

meWlbctl al"ul nlJ/t Tr fk. #lJGE C( STC" Plq'l1hFf It q )?'7~mbe,z &f

fl. GoJ (enfe/teJ {'vllvtU- IlF ~/ah\. ~e. Jt.el'tjlo>t) iACif.:f 7.? fk Al'O~F.I

I-k f4 Cll/J.

belerle/an.i I~ U-Sin.J

j<.t!siJ2/(. iilA!. and j>VI1,five. CfJnTil1Rmeni

flu.. IYl

SMu fo pUnIsh. ti'lc1 j>!Ce.5:S.V/le J>1C('ivth~F Ihfo 1<t'I1()Vl1c'iJl1Y

A7$ leJ,),mak /'ebe/i el'ld I/lClci-/(.("r 4F I-k C:cdCenle~e£ Lullvtte

IJ ~ :r; fa; ~ (I.e. ICe 1:j1Di'\.) +AtA-/- J:t Ik /f/() GEe

.I:-t ~S5ence) 14 DeFendQltf 7J funishil1J pla'm/-,J:f: uhlif he

p.e,,\OI.JJ1U (ahtuuLon.) hlf G,l. Cenl-el1ed Lulfv/ZlZ.. tJ ..1:;/0"1-1. (;e./leliJ;()~

I-k -I/'Q./ 71 A/O(;£, l-IovJevefJ./ fk DeFendQnfs WClnlr I-l... Coon-I .Jo

6ehe \-e fAcJ ((whal- fk pjoll'lflff 7J )?ell/~ cOi1.l-enelr'1!) If .fActi Ik

3f(6;l fett /{(.iVi/ eJeJ.' and btl:- tfetl C'Ortd l'I-TOJ4-~ J COytfjJNlmerd t9xl>I,J'!)

I-k Foh- 'in males il1

jel1 Bltcr.1 to/vIa h"-oV\ IS what 'rr /,flesS-v)t7n) J" irvt

1-0 /lenovl'ff..e. hi> "/lehj'it>u.-\ lehen~') PJCi,nh:fF subm;1s IAa-f )<j: 01/

h k 'vVa nftJa waS-!.iIL eakll jJ/l'Vfle!)er a ltd bel-kit conI if-i'1Jn5,;

'iAA1v/J h",w. !2eJII.OI.JI'I(eJ. ht;c G(}d Cel1!-eJied LU/lVJte... o.F 1;/a1'l1. (iCJ,/Ce/u'iov...)

tk +W- '11

#066 e1jhl-eeV\ (18') yeO/ls aj(), pla'ftf, .TF is ene/ulLin)

flt-TS funl'!. h..me""f }/vtlfr/Yl fA..e5.IL p"e~!;e;t: five. a n£ !l.Jh~h~ Cond,-/10J1.1

oE L-fJvJiYl.LY'newl- bec ctv5JL of h7.> SinLe/2e1t Aeld J(e/0Iovs behefr.

13 


9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 14 of 27

It.. Full/hell)

fk /(ecopd 7£ C/eCitl. llfAaf 5CD( IS U~/J1J

112:, Vii eyei. a nrl {'OI1J i)--/OYls;. 111 ,'3e~eJi(t1 fOpv lo/-'-()I'\w h ,~esIulllL Ik

'k rlo.'llttl:FF /.0 Wlod711 OIL Chonje AI{ belieE-.JJ

/)eFe"dol'//l- har

made. ;!- clean 111I14v9h h7I 5r&, f~I;-{7} IF jJla'I1/';:FF do naf

jlePlOf./VU:.L (a~ClJ'tdt§JIl) his God {RAfeJieJ Culfv/lN.. o..F .L'1a/Yt e-i!!, /leit,JilTr0
IAa/- fk JJ /VoGEl plolnflr.J vW11 ne~1L be. al/owel aFty 6F 14

pfl',v;1 ejer CHt' cond,.-froM.S lit jel1L/4A ( fopvlal-lrwl) bvf Mit svf:fcf'L

Ik onlr

pvn'is-hmenJ- i f Ik.. f(,esl/l'jt;-!,jve a~d lun,-live Cond/f,oJllf t!d'"

ik. z.. SMU,

eFFeci) If. Yllu VV'{,(vvF the£€.. p/lI\rileJef qnd

COJtJ,.J-lblti lill jenek{ popvlQf./()I<1.)Yov 30+ 1-0 fYI~J)ry cUld choY/k

,/OV;t heLen.

FUll/heft molZe. J PJalnliFF is only be'nJ CtI/oCAJeJ 10 jJ()sse~.r

/<.ehjfc>v,S /;).t'llatvk )n I t SMv. P/alltf)-FJ-- II if"! be'n.J 41!/)wer.(

Tk h oh:s"e/2 Vi an y ~ F Ik lion () /l.. (}!ol.,) Da y-f of fk .;Va GIf.

Foultlt..

C 7Ilev;! In F'i\,e Pel'lcelttetlf." may hen-e /loke! tAul {(CeJlfeVl IV! h'iJh­

JeCLJIl;/Y conJ:il'ti!menf ~ Hve pe/lce!1ie;ts /lema/IA hee /.0 jJl4tfl
hsJ ) cOld s-.fvc1y hj /le ;(JUS h1ClleJ2-fP/S If) ftoweJten.. '/J/l kv It... :5C b(
doe$' not /lee o,JI'l'ize Qllt 6F Ik II-ono)l. ~/y) baYJ oF Ik Gb-cf
e Cen,!e/leJ. v itvjU, ~ Is fa#\. Oe. J2eh!.{fD,,) IJu... /.. It -J~ fi/()(;E) ('ultl
pfl-Ch)o;-ti +kilL o/'.:re/Lvanu- lNllh7rl flu. ~G/)( wA.vik£ /Vl fk SMV

po on.. j ette/l..rNl pvlCt f./O V\, •

:r:... Ik f v l'W1.J

10 j)<?Ft?nJCllltfr- ST{".' J>o/;{y) as; i.f 1:1 heiJ1y of/liP.!

p/Ot",nf,;:F all~ A7~ GfJl Lenfel'leJ {'v/l-v/1.e. &1' .:rs/'IIJ''' (i.e', l2e/;-JiOvt) thaf

fl- 75

NOGE) S'ub>ial'lf'ClI/y hU/lde" h7$ f(ellJlov~ C'xe/l.C/J.eJQnd Oil\.

,fh7f. has",s Plc/tl1h.ff".s' ~LurpA c/aiWt .5hov'lJ. k ,J/lQl1fed.A

14 


9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 15 of 27
~enUll1e ISS ve of tl/fpuk CiS /.0 I-k mafe/l,czl Faclr jJ«ec/ur/ll1j fk
!j/LantiYl.j ()f' })el'enJQ'I1!Js Mf)f,oJt\ nit 5UWlM.!llty Jud...9 f11 E'I1.,I·,

It- /laV1Y1J Showf\- fACti

/)ehllLQntt srC, jJ!)/)cYJ as ;flr be/h)

Qf/heJ /.0 P)a,ltfiI"F and )1/5 /eJ~fjmale God Cenfe,lleJ Cu/fvlf.e i f

I-k. J.s/ClI'Vl ?~. l<el'i.9'bu) fkJ. '.> A/oG'G) $ub.5knfictliy hU/lJe,H h,;s'

llehjlrJu.s eleiU-7~) Ik bu/?deJt\ sA;:1/r .J.o th- DeFeI1~Qnl J.o

JefYI();1Sillale f~t thl> .sUh5..fonh-a/ hU/l.clevt 7s /1\. J:'o)ZfAe/lClnUL J q

it. C()mpet/1Vlj !JoveflJll#lt'11, lot 'in I-t';ee$/ ; Clnd 7s

leas-f /<.erf)'lrc I /V€

fNal'LS 01' FUlL I~ eltll"!j fhat CO'''''Ie11iJ1.j J~vetthl'Y1e/lla! in le.£es- I,

Tk fk COfVl pel/; Y3l jDveJfVlYY1el'z,fol JllfE'lle.sf. Wh,ch.

J)eFePit!(ut.,+

Qs,;-e{Lf. u.> FUlll-heJ'l-IMj AlI 5TG. Po/;,,( deJI'JnCif;n..J f.h- .A/oGG a

r; :SiG.) .subs /a nftCll17 6urzJ BYlII1J PIali'll; f F!5 C';((J(2c7S-e J k;.( oj

v.e. r (erdetteJ CultU/ttL oF rslc/tVl.

+h. fle6JIbIA.) ..JAaJ. iJ NOGli) b

pUnl~kjV1j h"j~ YL1".J..h fk /Ze.sj./l'lt.i '/K CI/ld j>u,,;hve cIJN/It,-?))1s 6..F fh.

Nt S/iAu u"itl

/<.eJllOl/YI(iL ~-~tl,.,I(ff\) hl.r G()~ {ervfette} CulfV/le 6!F

Is-Ioill\) 7J th~1 iI j>l<ese/l.. YeftI 1ft jell J!la{ OtLJeJ'l.) CUl~ oilS c ip liN- Ctl'ld

WlQI Yl-t a.'TIIt·, t'!-j IftS! ;..f..u i-roVl&t { :5Ec. UI'l ;/y!'

* it.. PICt~{ft.J.';:f .5C.;/"l'ti~ fAovI

tOflA/elhV1J !} ove/lY\.n1(?J/I.,1a( 'inte/le5f

wh.lrh.

be fel'ljq "",I- ha.?, Cts.>ett.IU w: he/VI.) .:Ni'lJheJeecl by

d e s(jYtat-Tl1j PJaIVl-f.):FF5 Gael. Ce"fe/leA Cv/fV/fL oF.ISlahll... &.e. h/IjJrJVI)

+-, +hwl- is ~ .A/l) G;; a. 5 rb 4.tv1. f fl-o hi b; VI.J .;.4 exe !LC', k Ik/le oF

by Vvtfl...:iV\. l-k :5CbC.) Can. k k 5hDI/vv>.. J't()f .f.o cOMpe/I~l1j

It- fiei

1s­

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 16 of 27

lAal o/heft 5fale Depallfrf1eltl Of COlZ.flecf'o;ts IPt AMel2;CCf.
/leC"jniZ'e fk G~J Celtle~~J C(.,I/f(.l!l£ &F .IS/Clivi.. C·€'. kll'jtev..) I/rCtf If
Ik -h AlO(;;E curd allow A/o(;E mer11hells heelt c>xe/l.clk Ikih Go"
CenietleJ Culf-v/i..L J" f>lq~ fLifhlYl f/'os:e s/ah })ejJq/lfmel1t i f

(o/Z(l.e"j. tlJ;1.s Ih w; t?vl CQVSi;1j an y d'.'/lVjJ lloi/l f.o IAel/l. li1feJ'lJ1Q I

Ollclett.) cl7Jc'phl1-{ 011. irtS f;)ufiorto.( .sec.u/t;!y, 5ee ,;1/fctl2t<.i'a Y,

131l.()aJdvf) )..003 U.S, biff, LEx(S /332r (5,D./I/>/, July 31) 2003))

Ha/lQ.,(awa.,.y. v. IICl,,~efll-y) ;;"'OOf lA/L (0073113 (/:·/J,M,ch, AVj./7)~OOc()

Itlfl. aJop 1111 In j(.e(eva n I

f) :;"010 wL J131f4~ (j,D.M hit, fir1CiA. ;;. 2.) .)010),

See also P14cLH11ell- VI /f/{a/t.hJt1ez,, 41t; V,S, 3Y'J 414 11.14 (1'174) Wkk
1-4 [O(.,lfl.f J1ofe£ ({wj,;/e nof neLe~.>'"a~il't fk I C()J-'lfll o1 iJ1.j) j>olk/eJ

f'Dllowei af afhell well- /tv;<\. in'f>fiiufioYfS t.vovlcl be IZele Von f 10 4.
Je/-otLfninaf.iol/l IJ:F -Ik lied Foil- a PC(/J..ficu/all.. IYpe I;:F /l..e.cl-,eic.jiOR\~

ha> n" rAe De:f'encico,j

11?t:.lenfed

eVidence S'hOWIYlj hcw

fk ik de> 131la/ inj

;V{)G E ii-JefF C? S n; 7.r

leas';' fief/fiie! ive

means t):/ +ultfhetltH.j lie C()J11lelhJ1j ..~oVe!lHnU'1fa ( il1f&t2&si G.F

ItILe5efLVinj Intellna / bJ2de!2- 411' d isci"lil1e 411" main. lain i I1j

tns/-;/.-ul tonal seCUje;!,!' A God {enfe!241 c:.'v/l vj!e oF IflflJ1.1 (i.e. j(el''JiO~)

fhut I> lie ).lOGE wkat.. Aas hqc( a. leJ;{iJ>Yla/e qn.J. /tlw-a.b;clii1j

-It- e,t:./>fel1ce OvfS!de !,tl';so",- fln. a/most '5"0 Yeatts)

bef'en.danf

i"? Illeq/-inj exc/v.s Ive~ as- q 5r(; (:ja'!j)} CinJ ho).;e. Ovf/l;JAf

banned fk eie/lc/5..e fAe~(laF Vv1~ih;J.t fk Sc be) whethell- In. }k,

..!jen ella I jJopulal-,ol/l Olt.. in IAe SMu,

Ik FutzIAe/L) Ij,e IJefenrlt:tnfJJuof"inj F!2-b11A FOUlLfh Ci/2cu;f
iG,

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 17 of 27

hl£ declf,oIA. In

jJet€c.el1fetlS' ) as;-eltf fAa! JF fiel aC-f ()/11 a/,len

7

6t inmaie ~ demtHls//(Q/1,,11. "F iJt/}~tlua( dOl'lje/2ou.$.J1esf,; ;/ lA/t)(.//J

clefJll-l ve l)eM "f" ft. all ... ifr1/0I2fe"d- o,pf701A J l/leVenI-loH.. pIa/nit.]":!

5ubm;h +h&Lt- seDe JF,c'ials. da;~ acf onlr aF-fe/l in.may..es (:o/l1lY!;f

V/01elt-f, J~/lff've andlOIl- (/limlJ1a{ tick- Vviiki;,. fAe SC{)C) chid b7 dO'YtJ 5-0 If ha.s nof e~(!)de" OM bif) Ik'lL ab;I;ly 1-o'/ASe/LY€

/n-fettvLa( ol2de/L) a;rJ J7s c,!hltL 41'V/ /'YlClll1-iClInII'{j ihrl-;fuiJ7Jl1c, (
.5eLvrt-iiyJI) o~ fkiK lo;1-1ffl4. (, AF !I<even/'/rtn, IF fk beFendQH.Ji.. c<'?~

(/u fills lell>1 jl.e>l)?'ilh~ )'Yllalltf YL4f"" tll{ "fhelL SCl)c II1J;?aIeJ "bte!

f4 sAil FUtlfhetL

tJr (omj>el/;J'1j Il'/,l-eA!e~J

Ol2dell j d7r ('l'hk Cine!

5ecl//l:i/y) wAy ('4vt fkr flol 01.0 ft ~glNL iA1fh pla"inf,fF? -,i'i:J Ir Q

-4 ll/es£ Re.sl/Ctc!ive.. a!le/lJll,t:i:five 5ti2cv)'t.;-ly defenf/DIII" t;.F IloJnfif':r)

wko lUI> not had a. d7S"cIj>/lnClIlY C()I1V;c..j.ilJ~ In f~ /cui Sf?vf?nfeePl

(j 7) yeatts,

He De J:el'ttlQl1f 71' tVh1j"k-,l1.j ?/Q'hhf"F rv1fh 14 /le.sI,(!llf /~ a"J

pUI1"d- /1te- c oJiNfi1el1:f 6F It. SAAU 501e~ .be'CQV~ oF h,r- ConscIenCe

to eho,u n,,/

h7s-. /(el1()IA1LrL (g/,,(jI'lJOIA.)

(;'{}J {enfelu~J LvlfUIle 6F

.J.4 £5!Clw., (,e. l<..ehj"/oYl.) fAa!- I> ;110 t;E j anti wAil.t. 111 fkif Col1 kw-meni

a~ fP-chibtf-iflj Pla'l1.t,-Ff ;:~OM ()b5t"llvIYlj ai'll of fAe fhJ-toll.. f1-klr)

Da. y..' of" fie AlO C.c.

TA e /)eFendanf Ih kt> A1em(!)ll..al1 dUh-{ .z;..,. 51'Ioltf o:,c AAofiol-\.

I-k Folf. 5uWlwtailY 0uc1.jrn ew/" 3,vot-e.> plZoFuselr Ft2-cYVl

Coon-f y

,jec..i5IoVl. 111 Ave Pe/lcenfellf) 17<1 F.3c;f 4fo4-(41h. (lil, 1999) whItt...

+k Was evalv4.ted 4.Yld decidt!d USti'lJ

deFe/len/-,al Sfanlt2llol

of IV/2.-l1e;l. V, Sarley) 4'8).. U.S, 18') '8Y 09a7)j allc/ )101 Ik

1.7 


9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 18 of 27

14 ,5/-/l-ill .5Cl2v!ihylleaff pe$/I'lIc/IVf. meanS, I-e$/ o...F

j2.LUIj>A lJF'

+k- :;Looo, k f),75 w«y)

Dt!!FendQw/-- j$ /p.rinj 1-0 ,Jef OJ'l()vxl 14

hullde~ b~ pe/l.5Va.S;-OIA. hav'Jtt..9 1-0 Ill.eSenf t!l-1del1CL- 10

deWloYlsfllctle fhal I-J,.e :5uj,~l-al1l-'ja( bultjev. which. hiS 5TC lohcy

P pi J> <'WI os i'rJ3 0;1 Qllltt' J"F 1$ e;t.e!lC~i.tL of AIe (;/bJ Cen!e/2.e.J Culfvl4!

f4 of :t:SIClI-'Yl. (j·e- !lel>j/l)/II) thtAf 7s A/t?GE) by d~s;Jnaf}hJ fk A/()G,[

a S I~ ctYlri plt()~ d,,+ iYl.j fk e~e,u is.e. fkkJ ~ikilA fk S(J>c }

fk Aa> FVllihetLs

cOl'Vtle!{'jnj in!ellR.S! wh,ch Ae

45fe/Lleol)t:llllcl iI

fk fh. lellsl !<.CiflllC!-ive ~aYlS io de 50 j and

lJeh/1dl:lltf 'ir

10 fk alfel'Hlf-1f1j

m7$COPl:5J/l~ h

{(Jutef) fAal f~ j'YlOA-

It.. J i! fe/ltn 1-111 { 5).4nJa/ld b:f' !VIZ-Het!- 7r

S-/-ondal2ri h b.a- vSed 1-0

fh.. eva,(vaJe and Jel.. '(k a clalW1.. hJl.ovJM unJe,z

/2LVrpfi (J/'

;2o/Jo,

-rJ,e DeFenjruvf has Failed !-o esl-aloh$h ..JI/(~f h'j~ 5Tt;

des Ij 11.a 1-}7m of It. God L enle~eJ {ulfUk of .:£i/Olk. (f.e. J(el)jI'()i1) IhtJtf

t-L- 14 7? ;VbGG 'itself an.d COMple I.e haVl 611

e:t.etzeJUL I-kRaF

& ~+h"i)/\

Sct>( ) wAeflw./L In 3e~/lal /o/vlol/o/;\. ()n Ik SMUI

fk FutL-thefL?

COJ41!elhn.j Itt/ell-est t>:f I12e.>t'/l'Vii1j Infel2-;u~{ C)/2de/t)

J7SCiphl-'lf? arid mU'hfa7J.1.ih!j }/1sf;-I v i-ivYlCII .5eo.."Ijl;ly and fha.-I- ,I­

fk... 7r Jk leasi ,Ileslll'clive. ~al1> bF doiYJ.j 50 unc1e/L

f!.LlIIfJA of

l-k ;2000j and plaltt+iff ha.s showV'. fhet+ vnrlett

s/-,e'lc) .fcl-l..Il-my /

/eQ>! /l.e>ffl-Ict,ve. )lJ\Ra;tr ana(y~1> "E /ZLurfA) ~ DeFenclowt htl>

h a va.,} Q ble Aim a /ellsi lI..e5//li'l; five.. )Nal'tl") wh'ltt. k I../~ delily

/II-1'lh "lheIL 5C/>( Inmqles,-/-o ,uI17~h'ii1j PlaIntiFF MfA. fk..

fk. k j..-eS!-IL,c/-ilJe.. ~ltd ,()I'll/I've.. CbrlHf1./l..W1ePl.i J..o

SMV un!;1

,i.enovYlLe

obaVlJc~) ht$ G; oJ. (ehfetteJ. LuttUfb2... cF I51C11'V\ (j.e. ~eIiJ'Ov1) fhcd 7r

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 19 of 27

fk. If TS unJ '>fJvi-ecl !ha/- mainfa';;fiYlJ

otedell) J;s'C'IIiM... ClnJ

Sec.ulLi/.y tJ F !/llS ens aM- L enyJelhl1!j JoVe/Ll'lWlel1lal il1fe,e estr ) One{

..fAal judiCial .J-Aaclil,oJ/l s4le> fha/- dve d;rFe,eerlLe ~ a.frLJ/ldeJ /.0

fk. ~>l;el!lenLe and eJllelllis:.e of jJ!Z750Vl ()fF/c "&IIf In es /a bh!-/.'t'I1~

pel It.. 10 i',-,es maIn fa71'1

ollJell) d7re iplii'lL and Sec vlli'/.Y bf j/l;S'OJ1S

con :5 I> lel1f ~,t.JA C 01'1.5 i'c/ejtu .f701<\ tJF t();;/s and /;Mlff?&/ jle.rOf.,l)tCef,

I I /} 41$<0 ~Jua!l7 uncl,sfukel fActi ',tt'isOIA. walls do flD! FOI<-fY! a
hall.fl.JEtl. 'SefQ~IItI-'Ylj !flt$(Jv\" Inmates. /ita"", fk jJ/l(rfec.I-;-OI4-I 6f fk

ctJnsii/-u';'lfJV\" ) 1ufl.l1e{? v~ Sa.:I/e.'f) 4«2. U,S, 78f "8''1 (1'1'8'7») Onc/

fAa.f dve d;ffellenc.e h /lliS"(}V\. (I)/"F'(l'als doeJ n,!- !?'Leopt f~

CovILl-.> alto.jelhelL abd,cak ;k /lole In Consfif-vf;-()ncd eerIe$"

b b7' ) rJ, Il.OUjJ.J.

VI. W/..a/eJ'. u} wh i/e J/Z7fO}l\ o<f:F/c i'a/j' 4/U.. !J I vel/\. d ve

dlf:Fe/lertce In. mak7Hj deCi>~()I't> :fOrt. i-k sQ,Fety J secu/l-;ly and

fk liter tJ/lJef/.. /)<j:

iltls/.;/-uftcp1. s/ 5/-&l:F:f CIne{ olAel1. i J1 h1q ler )

(Q;1;1cf

It. metZel, b/l..anJ /)h

Wt>/Ltlf "s eCU!2;fr I. ) safe 17 If J Cllt J "0/2 tle,r:." Cind

et.pecl- IhCt..f fMIt.. ac I-rtm.> "",1/ 4vf,uV! a t ;(ally he deemerl

C 0/\.5/-)U f Tr>Vl a "7 petlmT>s iJ,Le C()ndv(..l.

Tk DeFel1ridnJ ha.f: jJlu!J:eJ'cf<!'d Itt) ev;c/enLe Jemol1.sfllQ:/-inj

h()w de5/jJ1ohl1J fk ;VOGE 4seiF 4 .:STb / 7~ IL.. lellsl !.esll€iChve

Ik k w-eal'lS ()~ ':fVlt-tJ" efi..il1.j

(;Ol1AfJ€II7Y1J Ihfeflesft which j,al-e.

a»e~/eJ) (Jfh ell fhal'l. h me/telr J vok p~rusel7 F/lcvvo. 1-4 Fovl2.lh

C;/lLu;f 'S d~cl~101A.. 11'1. Tille.. j>e,uel'lteJl-s) wA,ch W~f eVo.{uaJf!d and

c1 t!c~J eJ VS Ivtj -I-~ J. ~ Fe/l(!vt 1>0 ( ~-hU!J all-d. of rU/lnert ~ 5ayC/er.)

fk I-e + atl.d f1",f

Sfltkf 5LILufrny//eQ$'f /lesf/l/CI-iK jlltLQJlLf; s of

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 20 of 27

/ZLVIPA; ailJ. Pltt,ltll!"f' has sAow~ he/t.IJ.iJ-'l} q lea>1- ~esf/lIt'"I-/i-e

ft.. j1A€llttS wAlth.

DeFendQI1.f l./k da;ly iNI"f/tt ofAeJ( IYlH1t:I'It!'...f) whlt4

I t FUlelhe~$

CDYv1.!e/f;J13 'inf(3'(ertr Cl~{'ellfed);1 Ct lea.>! ,£e.c.j../l,,;filA!

-4 j1\ttlJllS ;vn,sh'J.1!j i>la'J.1/-iFF ~fh coJihemeyi/f 10 It f(e.rl/l;cf;~

Ik /u allJ. pun-'/-/ve cOI1J;f,fJ/IfJ oF

5MV vl/ll-d

j?ePlOl/ji/ce (gbQl1d()Jt)

hIJ G.~, (eJtfeJleJ. (ultvk J .:£ilok-( U~. ,ReliJio<A..) fAa/- 'il 4- A/oGc,

rAv> ) 5/"()fA//I1.Y Jen'/i~ Issues rJ t;{;sl"'lc as 1-0 It Mctl-e/lla (

hLh 6E pIa/ttl; fFI$ !ZLVI PA cIQIJIIA.) j>~ecluJII'fJ fk

·fk. r 3/LanA-IYl) of

be:feltdqnf3 MoffU"VI.. FoK SC/YI'1I1J1 Ctll Jud"Jmel1.lf,

m.

Plain r h:r~ ,i.esl-al-es kk/it f'ecl-lO~ II. f.JF )17.1 g/<.ie I;.. S 'f/Dflf
r Or I-/lJ Ve/liFieJ CoIHRlall1,f :!lId 1M'';'''- Ik ('OUIl f OVl Act :J.t})
;2.fJ 11 QS E hI}!!! j\/"v» ~e/t .2~ J 10 5AfJW 14 h1 e/li-fr c/" h7s
F()UJ'l..tl!enfh Aml?;1c1me",,; jJ/LtJCeJvlla( due //l(Jc..e.5I C/OIJ11 ,

PIClihli~F 5ubM,1r fAal ),rr C"nf)J1.verl atll11'J1ts!IZaf/!.-e

14 sej/leJafro"1. COl1ftltUnewl VI4~tk,vt

.5pec;-al Mal1Qgel'Ylewf Uh/f

(SMU) i:r 41'l a/.Yllca( altJ 5Ijn)J:>cQnf AQ/Lels-h>jJ I~ 6()fh ~(/llal-'b1A

-4 1-4 and P(e!J~ee I- d>~ fl..e$f/l"je 1014. J );, fl..elQflrM.

Olto! /hQ/ly

'lAC )del1h of l/LtS'0111. It;;.) v/tJla I- 1M} ht:r Ii beft-fy ihle,l!esl !J4,f et-fIlJ

by tk FoufLf.eeVL''''- Am t?I1Jmen-f,

ao 


9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 21 of 27

h .5e.!j/le.J4./-llJ ¥\ conFi/llemel1f.. 0Jll10UI'lft

CO'l. alrpleal eNId S/j/l) FtcQlt-f

Me h )'allrl<sh'f )" !Z.ela hoV1..

O~"IJ1()J£r in( ,elel1ft "E !~';s()~1.. Ii:k,l

+k FovltfA {ifl(C//~f COc/1l1- tJ<F Appeal5 In Eeve~al-; 'v, SIn;I~1 120

r: 3d !:iOD I SO?- (4th C'7/t.19?7) used 143enetta( 1127£()Y\. fOfJl.Il~ In;./!. 


as C{ cOfVI.palla.five. bau.hYtR- , u/thk. fk~'ei1eRal 5CD( jJ/d7:fon. 


popvla koL-1..) vvNhil't -I-k- SM u Plallti ,.I""-F : 


Lt, is (JJl'tr'"m.eJ 1-0 ({ CRtf .24- hoults c:{ day /)K !lOll/. "/l.eCRe~I-;-ovt CiVleI

noV\. .. >hDwett ky.f,

b. 15' allowed f(.ec/(eaftoV\. 0;1./7 ()Y\. ei-ihetl. fir{o"Jay) Weelnesdar and fill-da.y

Oil. 011. 1vi'.>Jfly a'(r,( r}u//l-sdtty lift only 0) ()/te hoV;(.) wAlth oIe/un& Oil\. wktf

1-4 I-k. da,y> (j),{

Vvei'h.

llec/(e4/-'OY\. /l-c>fcr/-i7JV\. !eIL/OJ.. .];1&, n}!ee 0') daYI

I-k /let./lea he>'\. OM. wee~) fwo (2) daYI ..J.k IIClJlf week I fil/zee (3) dayS'

nell/- 'llteek) efc" e/c"
C. 7$ a!lDwed enl, q /-el1 Od) J?1il1vfe 5howetf.. (n'llr O~ Monday) W'edl'lesday

o.llJ. FIL'rJay.

cL is sfll-'ppeel 5etUl,ht'JJ mak -to ItFi- a.nd shcd~_ hIS!]eYlifCl haJ h'tClc& Iv

I-k fk bend ovelZ) >pl<eQti hTS' bvHccks 111. difl.ec/-rol'\. o:F o:FJ:ice/l. So I-J,(d

k mCiy look. a f P}Ci'-mhF.J':/ qn u.s iAel1. Wlak 1-0 sluClf tind C ovylA) On&(

q ftefl--wartJs han' cuFFed behind his bact.. eveJty I-i~ he leQve.s fk

1-4 eel() eV'e1A. .J.o

s hO'vVe1t Whe~ ~e 7$ I (}(;.k..f?J in q .SiJ?j)e OCLupaY/Cr

5howefl-- $./-all.

e. 11 se(l>veJ ~rnQllejt. !o~hrJi't"CJ i f koJ eactt ~() comjJojle£ io I-k p0!lffoYL)

I-k IJ./h)€ Gk- heil1.:J 5e;tllt:J. ;.... JenejtcJ .",-sC/>C j>/l/J'O/II.. fopv/al-IDYI"

I-k f!. eah at{ ;nea15 In.

c:e If I

.3. fell-sonal 'Utd leJal ffl0j>e'Jlly lim,feJ 1-0 whaf LQII/. :1"7+ Ihfo C{ /5"If)l 12- 'I- loll

SI l.e box,

h. l~ del1ieJ all CQl1feeV\. pfliVile!}erl

i. is 4eYlieJ & 0PP/)/ttvhd·y ftm. a. VVOJt.k Q>s-;jhtylert!,

J. 7J; den,e" t?dvCaflortal alld voc.al'toJ1o/ 0fPO;z./iJYllfief#
k. E JeroeJ fk a,pon lu",,;/-, .J..o j(ece11le. menfol he(fl/lh I-"e~afmeltf JOn. j",r

J 1a.jY\c>'e<i YI1 enf a ( MattIA C OJlto/ ;/-rort..

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 22 of 27

P/a,Vtt)fF subh1;h fhal he daily surFeit Ihe~ OJ'lc/ W/tJ/~

JZe~ l;z,clive artd !un;J..ti-e cOMel;i tOJ/lS h-i"h II/{ I-~ SM U 1Jti.

bee k ad min I:; !,I2.a.five 5:' l?3/<0 C? f/()I-L C::tJilFtJUI11I?I1I) J1 01-

a VIe. has

Com/Ylill-eel drS"c ijJ/;I1Cf/2. y iI1F/2ocfJOHSj bJ ScJ/eiy bet: Qv.I.IL J

AI> CtI;tfcit:I1Ce Cltolc.e nullo ahClnd(')"t.. (!..~I1()Ul7ce) hI) C;"d

I-k C t?n/-e'Jeed Cullvk of f.rloJN\ (;-e, /-e(1j IO~) IJtt;rf IS'

Alo C; £

f/a'J'lf).i"F has b~e"t tlttcecl ~yt t;:l/mlJ1.lsfllofi've ..:>e,J/leJClh-"Oh

t C onf"'iYlemen ul1Je;L ~ Sf(; Pohty .5iJ1(..e I?rf(,) Qllcl ),7s COn IIJ'lveJ

10 & f L Oi1tihtZn1en

j<.e5!/Uc fi've ell'll IUJ1;hve.. COI1J/!-ll:JM.l /M'"tJliilt..

fAe SMU ;S ihelRFll1;fe) 6ee auU. Plain I rFF is 5e/l..v)~J q

seufence I/F Ir* IIv1fhovf !Q,e~k, r J1Jefihile COflFiN mBvd 1-0

/k adMI117s..f/laf/Vf!. .5~,Rc:.JaI-7ofA -h

SMU l41-fJ!7rt. Conclif/()Mf

wA Ie ~ aWl Ovn -I> -4 all( a/71 'it:C{ I .::{l1o/ s'J i1/ f"'i(onf )'l/J/lJshil /1/1 1,01-"­

-4 Jultah'()VI.. ql'ld deyJ(.ec rJ ,Resj.,IC;c/.1olA '(Yl /<elal-I()I/l

fk

OJf..d 1J1ady 'ihC ;den~ oF jJ/l1s Cu~.. /;k. ~ eYL~~a I SCI) C jJ/l/J'o",- j>0jJv!4!-Xtn".. ))

his .5o/e/y beclf?-vu.. Plalhli?:F chooSe.. ..fo:fOl/ow

C()VISCJeVlte CiI1c1

flof l<el1OUYlce Cab CIl1d()u) hif' God Lenle/leJ (vl/Uile i f IS/Q//-1.
O-e. ~ehJi()VI) #tClf IS 1-4 ;voGE"

COJ41'tJ/Le~/ 10 Ik concl;i/()J4J J ConFi~fi1eJltf which p)a'ml-iFf

I-k covlel if''I-/(gcf 1-0 eXle(lienc.e rYl

..!Y~l1e,ea/ SCI>C Ill/soli'\.. fOfUlql-107A..

fk a.s ClP'l ()1411J1{lILY ih.C)"~;t1 tJ!/-fsOlA. hk.)

,l!..e>llZlci i've an&!

tUi1ifi've. ConJ;i,ol1S 6f PICl'Jllfi:FF:S- cOI't-/-;J1vecl t:?clMivt/$"I-/llllii-e
.5e..Jf(.e!}af'io",- coJ}~h1evt'f l/IJj/-hil/\ I t 5MV j C0I/l/1/',net! J,1,ffh I-k
Iv c>xi(le/14.L /el1!}fA i f f'IWL of hi:> c:tJhFineJnewf) 1f? yC"Q/lS clQIe)

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 23 of 27

'W71h. /1.0 &11c1ih SJ)hf; aI'VlOUJl& .fo aV\ afY/I(al ant! 5";jni{'tcclltlf

1-4 -4 Aa;tclship IJIl )?ela/-;-o/ll

O/lJ,nClIlY '/J1citlel1fJ of fJ~/S-OVL h~

t k VttrJe/l.

SCll1oiil"l SfQl1do/fd) fhe;eeb y C/leal-i~jForL JJ/Cl'iJ1fi:FF

C<. !/lofecfed 1;6e~/7 inft7/fE"s.f 111 h7:.r Covt{'tnvec/ aclh1il1./s/-,tQ/tve

10 sc:J/(t:jaf"-ol/l Conni'l£fflel4.! lie 5MU, Sc/YlC!;/l v. t.'o}1J1le~ S15­

U, 5, 472 (79)-) rAe/" liJ~elt17 Ih felZesf e;(lsft WAek COJ1di!-/OPlf

y;) of COl? hhe mPn f ~esvi/ 1/1 Q"" aryf i{cd and :Si~11 i:f)(()It I- hCl;tri~h

in e;IAen du;e,,/;o'-1. ()/t "1fJlt.ee cJ.F /<BslniLtiolA) ';1/1 J!..elal-toVl -4 14

D/l{)/iJ1C1.ey incit!el1& &F !;2/S0JII- j}J;J, S-ee also.> Colo", II VI OWCi/lt!) ;2.15" F:3c1 :2:27 (2dC,/'l.., ).000) (},eld 3os- day C()JltF/~merl.,f :saf';sFit"£
fAe ,SanJfj/\ :5)anJaflJ); sAoair Y; I/OI2-Vl) 213 F,]clI10 (30/ clI1,;2ooo)
(Ae{J S~/Le.Jufl()vt fOil. e/Jhf 'leans /-1Z0J etl-eJ due jJfloces.> ;2<Jhf)j

koch v, Lewis) ;L" F, SUI;.:2t1 ?91- (j).Arllz, ;lOOl) (j,et/ Al,e Ql1d

One-halF yeCllis oF conFinemel'1lj Wilh nD end Ii'1SiJhf) jQve ;Z/~ h

!ltoleeleJ due /Jl.O(eJ:f l;hell/7 )nfettes'/); IJ.bQ;/ v, /-Jos-Ir) 1'10 F-Jc/ J43) Ito 1 (lei (7)l, ;lO(7) ael,l 5e..J!<.eyCl f'lo"\. ~F IOI1Je/t- IArb! .5os

clays IS s-v:F:FlcjeYLfI7 aly/it&t! 10 ,eectui/t-e /P-oceclUit-al due };eoceSf

Pfl.()/ecf lOlA.. l.)ItJ ell Sand 11'1),

Pla'hh:f":F was /leleflSe~ ~VIA- It P(Cl)(imv~ S(f!LV/lt-/Y UI1/-I
01.su) /,:, fk SMU IV\. -:Su~ rtF ;2()OJ) wkk k ha!:. /leMaine" r CtJftfirleri In CldmtV1/sf/lQfi've s~/C.e.Ja.);olA. .!Ok. app/lbXih1afeJ +k
ltisl eJ9hf (r) yeQ/LS"
P!a,nJiJ:F.I ),00J1J es-Iab/'S~e" J,7S fJfl.ofecl-ed /Jbe/Lf7 jnfe/t€-sf fJll hI> C{)14.1-7J1weJ ac!h1.JJ'/.Is!-/Zaf,Y€ s\.5lteja{tOIA con:Fn1.il-IY1t'~ h fk

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 24 of 27

Sf\ltUJ whlc"'- .;s FoIL qtl "Vtfenfr tClJII '/IldeF7h;fe COl1nhemeafJ

u.s. Sll~Wllt +h~f 14

.5ufj(efl~ (oual- //1\ Hew;/I- y, lle/m,!j t}s-'l

U,S, 4cPD 098'~) hpll fAal- aJmrnis !/lahve st:jf2. e.J et i-llJvL may l1"f

be USe) a.J a upl'e-l-ex.t 10ft iYlJeF'j/ll,;!e C()rtFilttlme~j i f CiIA..

J1
lJ1rYlClf.e

~ncl

~fl{stJv...

o</'F'ic'JaIJ

mU$f

eJ1j"Je

'il1

S'lJN

SOil! if

or fk pe,f..lbJ.lc ft-e'viet-v

Co~ f}Mmel4.+ oF such. 'inmQl-es~ Id, aJ 177;

10 n,9,W~)~ 5Cln.chVl. ahCfndoJ1e£ lIew;l/~ jl..e(lso//t1f1:J defeIlM'iAR.

IF C{ Ii'b efLi7 'in felli'r! e~7s/r) ;/- dhl J1 ~f ovett!ll.Jk It dec 'i~·;-oV\.,

Pla',nItFF 5vl,/11;& IAQ) 5CD( o:f:frCIt:lls a~ /1,,1 ei1JuJiYl.J

!}It Ctit7 yY/eal/llh3£1 fiev5ew J A,; Conf'J1vec1 QclJfltln7rfR..",live

:5e:Jfl~a!-';()YL c()Yl.Hn emel1f h fk SMLJ) bul q/ltL J11e/le1r selld;",)
r p)alit I->:F~ t{ COf of SC DC hJ2.M. /9-.3 0 (SMU J AlSTI TV T IO,AlA L

CLASSJ'FICA-rIO.AJ COMMrrTEE ~£V.r£W)1 s..J.ccf 'YJ.!) Plo'iJ1/(Ff

h'i.s /lema/ttl !ttl SeCUIZ//y..helen/llJtA (Sf)) Levl'f J{ ~e((luk oF

5' r&;

Slalu.s. See Ex/' il)/-; D. [a.J.+ached fo Eltief"JTiey aile- US;J1~ I-k

Ik 5aJN..jVs../-,BCct-h'o-vl Of't

((.die h/ZM )n q

FClf'I-t)OIA) aJUI fk)1'I..

seItJ'iJ1j P/~/l-tf):ff tt (0'7 of Ik SCI>( h/th-o. 1?-30 /J !e/lFul1c)o~y,

14 Tn filet; iF It. LO(,1/Lf ~lllle4~ lak. )1o/e oF E,.chib/f /)J

<:<4'

/l ~I eveVl F;117J13 t)ut !lew :hllmS) Ji.ey Ci)f..e SiM.I/Y jJh.olo co/yil1J

IAe $'tihVL Ilileel. ovl- fOJeWl. and Ok jLlS";' adcliVZ!J C{ )'lew dale;
fk and 1:F ~51;fullonal Cla~>;.F/c(lI,'l>1A ('om~i;ll-ee }eIfI()l-1­

Chal1.jes) q /lew f/.f1#tR-.

IlaiJtf i:f.f ht:t5' Il evell a!!eott.(£" 1eF()k Cilly bOCl/U (lh~ /o/t..

/'y Ji'lJ-;v'idvCt{ ) Oft... he&'l \,'/":f;f eJ

CiI1.[OAe...) w~ ha,r j(ev)ewetl Aff

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 25 of 27

fk C on-hnuerJ. a"min IS f/2.a/-' lie .5e!jlle...Ja 17t>1'L CO/1 F;J1e mPl1f 1-0

S /tAU,

plaIn);!'! VViI( ;2ec.ei've )10 h1t'QfLiJ13Fvt pe.R./tuttc ;:?e'view tJfh"!5

cont)nued CO/1f;NLmel1f /.0 Ik 5MU VI"iii Ae 7> flo /ol1.Jt?1f.- in..

SrG. 5.J.a/vs; SLDe 0.1"F>Clflls) b)' .f~i/l.. aCf;Ol1f) Qf(.e fn4k.iJtJ ;f

pefl.Fecj~ c/~C(12. -tActl P/a,nhJ-;- V!411 ;2.eceive .flo acfva{ ~eview

h7s of"

C0J1/7nved tl"m7}1ISf.£a-fI've 5t'!}IlCjJai-ron. cOh';:;Kemenf ~

Ae f)e SMLJ vl'lll /lenOVl1le €:tbClndo~) h'I Go" Cenfe/le,! Cv/fV/lll.

of hlcuVi (iH!. /l.eh.J;o~) fha f il 1-4 ;110 (; E,

?/a'YlliFF 5ubm,h !-hell 1,75 Con!iJ1ve,J ar/frl'1ll.7S/.R.af'\.e.

10 5E.!jR.tjal-:()VL COYlftM,Ynelt<f Ije SMV '/~ cantl;fIOK> VJ,;ch.

10 Qmovnk

aYt al(f~(aJ alfd $';jhihcQn! AOJlc/s-j,'ip illl. 60ft..

fk.. dVl2-af/()Y\. CUIJ deJllee ~F Re.$lllhfloY\) fA f(elal-tob\ 10

O/l.dil7QIlY

'me/dents of til/soli\. hIe) wrlJ..ovf Ciny Qc.{uCJ{ mef.ll1.in.j£1

pell,odlc.. lle'VJew # hts Conlll1vel CoJiM.mel1,f vlola/e}
Pla'J'lJif"fJ5 J;l,e/f.~y )nft'/le51 t!lotecfeJ by Ike FovJLfeel1tA

AYtIlendmertl,

fk !3t1sed tJit

FOk!}07n!;) plaIn/iFF Atlc t~efel1lecl C(

Via tie c!a:j~ :/tJfl- vIOla I-llJ/.'t. 0:1' ),/> li~e/t Iy ihfe/le>f jJ~/t?c led /',

+k FOvn.:fecvt/A. AmenJmenl) al1.d a 3enuiN.. ISSI.€ of clir;vf.e {if
h. }-~ wtct+e~,;(/I :hcl-~ pfec/vdihj & J/lanf iJ1.j of fk 


be fenda I1,t '.s- Mb 1-1oV\ ;:OIL 7 Sum jY\QP -:sud.JlYlen-f. 


9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 26 of 27

m. 


rie U)1/feJ. 5l-p/-es SU!I<-e~ COV/L+ Ivt It (Q,k fiAvlrclJ'YlWlt:ld
v' L~I()Sq) S4-D V, 5. 70 q @004) (pet2.. CU/I-'iaf'/1) c/a p.)Fi ed fhcd·
pf2-fS()Vl.e~J 014.- f'lof f(.eJv1fled 10 :File a lel;lIDv\ :fOil ftaheaJ­
COflf U5. be~fl.rL blCiYl.j/llLj ctfl ?lc.tioVl. ul1c1etl. 42. u,s.c., .9 Icr83
5eck,Yt.:J /<.eletlu 7/tol/Vl aclM'/i1/Sflla!il/€ f;€ .. CtJJiwune~f
r Jf s u~'" a c f..,()VL M~II J1. () f. C{ Fee f it 7$ /l. eleQ£€ dale, At PIClih';',:f":F
IS .>ellV1Ylj q .5enfel1ce J Llk I/vtl-AlJvf jJQfL(}l£.) hts !<e(e.C{~ :F4J1A.
fl..-- 5MU VI-1~/{ YI-{)f aFFee+ A75 /l.eleak dale, ;>/C1in fjj:F hCU: ho
[)()bJ tl ~ h .g e + ),0. ck .Tk Cooll-f W,) JAwI 5vch Cic tlonf 0/u.
no! !J 0 Vt9fLn ed by Ik- (l.u&t ef.f a ~ hr.AeJ by 1-4 Cat/it.! /;-1. P/leIJe/t- v,
u.s.. ?-oJlllt~Vez) 411 U.S. 475"" (1973) an.d Heck v. HVU1fJh.ReYj S/2
477 (1 C(94) I

P/aih-hFF Ao.> mef Ii e;t.hav5h~o//l /l.~Ulkmenk 6F I-t.
!/l7SOV\ L/f)j(r!-,'7M. j!.e.fOJ2.#1 AI- (PL£A) by h>/lOIAJii'tJ and £q~JJ1j
fA 7> ISSue fAllouJh. fk SCbC InS..) ;/ul"';7)JI'l14 ( :J/lle. vance 1/2.{)(eJv/U.. I
:fones Y. Bock) 54'! v,s; 1'll( flZ()07) ('Cbfvlj>ll-ance W1~/h /);tITOlA
.3flie Vai1LR.. p~Le..JU!LeJ, ... 'S at/ IAal- I{ llt;tu;ll.e.:l by..J-h. PLI2A Iv
r 'flLope,d e)lhavs I.' If)

E i t (i..)ed Dv1

FolteJo';t.j h:t.c I:r Q;t,) /eJCi I Q vlh(jJt/fies .J 


Aa.s pIa/it J} -FF

mack C{ v;a.},Ltz. f(~ve.>1- ;::On. 'el; eE Jo Iu. Jeele.c<5'eJ 


J-k- FfLDlM.

atyplca{ aile( .>ijJlt'tF;(t/uJ Aafl../$'J,,! <>Fhts COi1flJt1.ve~ 


c.()illf,iU-YYlert,t ;;'1. Clcin1JI'V'1f.f(a/- iVf!.. ..5e:JRe.Ja.flOiA.. ($MU)I

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/05/13 Entry Number 28 Page 27 of 27

CONCJ..USION r'
Eased tJl1 tAe F()~~Jdii1}J fl,. efloI15e) fac& O;fct anol'j.sif
P)alnt,fF fi..esJ>ecl:fv/~ l2eJu€slr Ik COVILl f.o deny I-k. De.Fene/aHf'f
.;v1of'iOvt foil 5""1¥I/'Ylt1Jlly -Suc!.JmeVlf} all" Ihal- ,IJ/ain/;:FF} Lauser t'J/"
Ac f ,(Jill he ofe I-.Fo/l. tll}a I an.{/o~ 14 )2elie.F ..J'laled '''' h>f
vettl Fie" ('"Mfla/If f he 3/Ctl n feel

/l.;JjevilleJ Sovlt. La/l411i14
AUjv>t.1. ),:1.013

f.e.f'lecl:fvll, $""tm;lfeJ)

Luwt./d.Wtiaa

c:T L bet. k. V!t1i.JIVI

If
:Z:J1C{JJ11Ra. /

)S-~Sl

Lie bet{ 6;/l/l.ec/-Iol1od .ri1sl-i..)vl-io~

P,O, 8 ox ;LoS

/l:jdJelril/e) $,C 2'1472.

a.7 


 
 9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/31/13 Entry Number 34 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION

Lumumba Kenyatta Incumaa, #155651, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

Honorable William R. Byars, Jr.,

)

as Director of the SCDC,

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 9:12-3493-CMC-BM
REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff has filed a response to the motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum filed by the Defendant. In replying to that response, the Defendant relies on the arguments previously made in his supporting memorandum. However, there are also a few additional points that the Defendant wishes to make in reply.

DISCUSSION

In support of his Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claim, the Plaintiff argues that the application of the SCDC Security Threat Group (STG) Policy substantially burdens his claimed "religious beliefs" as a Five Percenter. He insists that the STG Policy, by allowing an STG member to attempt to renounce his beliefs and further affiliation with an STG and thereby obtain reclassification from security detention, places substantial

1

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/31/13 Entry Number 34 Page 2 of 8

pressure on him to modify his behavior and to violate his "religious beliefs." That is clearly not the case. Importantly, as the Plaintiff readily admits, SCDC has allowed him to practice his "religious beliefs," including allowing his possession of Five Percenter literature and materials which are otherwise contraband, for eighteen years now. Moreover, the Plaintiff has not cited one attempt by any SCDC official or employee to convince or coerce the Plaintiff into abandoning his beliefs or renouncing his affiliation with the Five Percenters. SCDC is content with the Plaintiff remaining a member of the Five Percenters, but for the security reasons upheld in In re Long Term Administrative Segregation of Inmates Designated as Five Percenters, 174 F.3d 464 (4th Cir. 1999) (case hereafter referred to as "Five Percenters"), the Plaintiff must remain classified for security detention.1 SCDC is not trying to change the Plaintiff's beliefs. It is unclear whether SCDC would even allow the Plaintiff to renounce and be reassigned to the general population given his involvement as a ringleader in the 1995 riot at Broad River Correctional Institution.
As the Defendant previously pointed out, instead of showing that SCDC is pressuring him to renounce his "religious beliefs," what the Plaintiff contends is that the greater privileges and better conditions of confinement existing for inmates in the general population is what may be pressuring him to renounce his "religious beliefs." However, SCDC did not create this system of greater privileges for general population inmates or providing them less harsh conditions of confinement in order to impact anyone's religious beliefs. Likewise, there is no evidence that SCDC is using the privileges and conditions in general population to pressure the Plaintiff to

1

The Plaintiff erroneously describes security detention as "punishment." That is

not correct. An inmate is placed in disciplinary detention (DD) as punishment for a disciplinary

offense. Security detention (SD), however, is not a form of punishment but is designed to

provide for security and order within SCDC for inmates and staff. See, Fair v. Ozmint, 2011 WL

1658761 (D.S.C. 2011).

2

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/31/13 Entry Number 34 Page 3 of 8
modify or change his beliefs. Consequently, the Plaintiff has not sustained his burden of proof that his custody classification as Validated-SD and his confinement in security detention substantially burden his "religious exercise" as a Five Percenter.2
In addition, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendant has failed to prove that the STG Policy and its enforcement against the Plaintiff serve compelling governmental interests and that no less restrictive alternatives exist to serve those compelling governmental interests. The Plaintiff is critical of the Defendant's reliance on the Five Percenters decision; however, even though the Fourth Circuit was addressing a Free Exercise Clause claim rather than a RLUIPA claim, the Court's analysis cannot be disregarded. The Fourth Circuit discusses the interests served by the STG policy and the reclassification of Five Percenters to a higher custody level requiring their confinement in SMU, and the Court describes those interests as "compelling." Specifically, the Fourth Circuit concluded that such interests "are not simply legitimate penological interests -they are compelling." Five Percenters, 174 F.3d at 469. Even in the context of RLUIPA, that discussion is pertinent – there is no reasonable argument denying that the preservation of internal order and discipline and maintaining institutional security are compelling governmental interests.

2

In his response to summary judgment, the Plaintiff concedes that he may possess

Five Percenter literature in the Special Management Unit. He also seems to agree that he may

pray, fast and study those materials. He does, however, argue for the first time that he is not

allowed to observe the "Honor (Holy) Days." He then states that SCDC does not recognize the

"Honor (Holy) Days." See, Plaintiff's Memorandum, p. 14. The Plaintiff, nonetheless, never

describes what the "Honor (Holy) Days" are or how they are to be celebrated. He fails to explain

how he is prevented from recognizing and celebrating those days in his cell on an individualized

basis. He also fails to show the importance of the "Honor (Holy) Days" to his so-called "God

Centered Culture of Islam" nor how he is barred from "observing" those days by SCDC nor how

his "religious exercise" has been substantially affected or burdened thereby. Furthermore, if

SCDC does not "observe" the "Honor (Holy) Days," as Plaintiff claims, that would seem to be

the case regardless of whether the Plaintiff is in SMU or in the general population, and hence,

have no relevance to the Plaintiff's claims.

3

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/31/13 Entry Number 34 Page 4 of 8
The Plaintiff further complains that the Defendant cites to the Five Percenters decision to show that no less restrictive alternatives exist to serve those compelling governmental interests. Again, even though Five Percenters was not a RLUIPA claim, which the Defendant concedes, the Fourth Circuit's analysis cannot be disregarded. The Fourth Circuit explained that "there are no ready alternatives to the SCDC's course of action." Five Percenters, 174 F.3d at 470. That is reasoning that is persuasive, if not dispositive, of the issue before this Court.
Nonetheless, to the extent that the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant did not present sufficient evidence in the affidavit of Elbert Pearson filed with the motion for summary judgment, Pearson submits a supplemental affidavit providing some statistical information showing that Five Percenters remain a dangerous security threat group. Attached to Pearson's supplement affidavit is a chart showing the actual number of assaults involving Five Percenters since 2003, including assaults on other inmates and assaults on employees. See, Pearson Supp. Affidavit, Ex. A. While those numbers remain substantial, there is a downward trend which Pearson attributes to the success of the STG Policy and the re-classification of Five Percenters to SD-Validated custody status when deemed appropriate. Pearson states:
In my view, that reflects that the STG Policy has been and continues to be effective. SCDC has been successful in identifying the validated Five Percenters who have engaged in assaultive and other criminal conduct within the general population, re-classifying them as Validated-SD, and as a result committing them to security detention where they are subject to greater control and observation. I believe that the STG Policy and its application with respect to the Five Percenters has successfully reduced the overall number of assaults. See, Pearson Supp. Affidavit, para. 3. Finally, the Plaintiff cites to cases from New York and Michigan for the suggestion that those correctional systems do not designate Five Percenters as an STG and thus allow the "free
4

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/31/13 Entry Number 34 Page 5 of 8
exercise" of those beliefs "without causing any disruption to their internal order, discipline or institutional security." See, Plaintiff's Memorandum, p. 16. The Plaintiff's premise, however, is flawed and has previously been rejected by several courts including this one. For example, in Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2008), the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a RLUIPA challenge to the Arkansas Department of Corrections grooming policy which did not include a religious exemption. The Fegans Court rejected the plaintiff's reliance on "more liberal grooming policies" from other correctional systems:
[A]lthough prison policies from other jurisdictions provide some evidence as to the feasibility of implementing a less restrictive means of achieving prison safety and security, it does not outweigh the deference owed to the expert judgment of prison officials who are infinitely more familiar with their own institutions than outside observers. 537 F.3d at 905. Similarly, this Court addressed a similar issue in Malik v. Ozmint, 2010 WL 1052660 (D.S.C. 2010), which involved a RLUIPA challenge to the SCDC Grooming Policy. District Judge R. Bryan Harwell ultimately rejected an inmate's argument that inmates confined in other prison systems are not required to adhere to hair length limits and forced haircuts and that should demonstrate that the SCDC Grooming Policy was not the least restrictive alternative available. Judge Harwell wrote: [T]he fact that some prison systems employ exemption approaches similar to that proposed by the Plaintiff is simply not dispositive. Federal courts should extend great deference to the experience and expertise of the prison administrators responsible for the particularized circumstances of their penal institution. Although prison policies from other jurisdictions provide some evidence as to the feasibility of implementing a less restrictive means of achieving prison safety and security, it does not outweigh the deference owed to the expert judgment of prison officials who are infinitely more familiar with their own institutions than outside observers.
5

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/31/13 Entry Number 34 Page 6 of 8
2010 WL 1052660, *6. (Citations omitted).
The case of Ragland v. Angelone, 420 F.Supp.2d 507 (W.D.Va. 2006), is also instructive.
In that case, the district court explained as follows:
To accept the logic of this argument the court would have to conclude that the least restrictive means necessary to serve the interests of one jurisdiction's prison system is the only lawful means to serve the same interests of another jurisdiction's system though they may be entirely different in terms of their history, inmate population, structure and funding. To state this proposition is to refute it. The drafters of the RFRA did not intend to require a "one size fits all" approach to evaluating rules of neutral applicability in any context and certainly not in the context of prison condition litigation.
Id. The court in Ragland further recognized that:
The Supreme Court insists that courts must defer appropriately to the expertise of prison officials in matters of prison administration even when reviewing a prison regulation under the RLUIPA strict scrutiny standard. This court believes that any court ruling which would force VDOC officials to make the same choices as prison officials in other jurisdictions have made, in balancing the established risks of inmates' uncut hair against the many other issues involved in managing a prison system, would be entirely inconsistent with the high Court's deference mandate.
420 F.Supp.2d at 520.
Consequently, the Plaintiff's reliance on the fact that New York and Michigan may not
treat the Five Percenters as an STG is not evidence that a least restrictive alternative is available
in the South Carolina corrections system. Furthermore, as Elbert Pearson attests, there are other
corrections systems, including New Jersey and Virginia, that have designated the Five Percenters
as an STG or gang. See, Pearson Affidavit, para. 6. (Dkt. #25-2). The designation of the Five
Percenters as an STG have been likewise upheld by the federal courts in those jurisdictions. See,
Fraise v. Terhune, 283 F.3d 506 (3d. Cir. 2002); Johnson v. Jabe, 2011 WL 2493763 (W.D. Va.
2011); Holley v. Johnson, 2010 WL 2640328 (W.D. Va. 2010); Johnson v. Jabe, 2010 WL
6

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/31/13 Entry Number 34 Page 7 of 8 3855217 (W.D. Va. 2010).
In sum, the Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim, even assuming that the Five Percenters are a religious group, fails. The Five Percenters have been and remain designated an STG within SCDC. The constitutionality and propriety of that designation should be upheld. Moreover, the enforcement of the STG Policy and specifically the classification of the Plaintiff as Validated-SD and his confinement in a Special Management Unit in security detention do not violate his rights under RLUIPA. As a result, the Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on all claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.
7

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 08/31/13 Entry Number 34 Page 8 of 8

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, the Defendant William R. Byars, Jr. respectfully renews his request that this Court grant his motion for summary judgment and dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice on the merits.

Columbia, South Carolina August 30, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A.
BY:___s/ Andrew F. Lindemann ____________ ANDREW F. LINDEMANN #5070 1611 Devonshire Drive Post Office Box 8568 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 TEL: (803) 806-8222 FAX: (803) 806-8855 E-MAIL: alindemann@dml-law.com
Counsel for Defendant William R. Byars, Jr.

8

 
 9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 01/28/14 Entry Number 44 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION

LUMUMBA K. INCUMAA, #155651 )

also known as THEODORE

)

HARRISON, JR.

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

BRYAN P. STIRLING,

)

Acting Director of the South Carolina

)

Department of Corrections,1

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

No. 9:12-cv-3493-DCN ORDER

The court requests supplemental briefing on defendant’s currently pending motion

for summary judgment.

Specifically, the court requests further briefing regarding plaintiff’s claim under

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). Under RLUIPA,

the government is required to establish that the challenged policy is the least restrictive

means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-1(a). The

Fourth Circuit has “required that the government, consistent with the RLUIPA statutory

scheme, acknowledge and give some consideration to less restrictive alternatives.”

Couch v. Jabe, 679 F.3d 197, 203 (4th Cir. 2012); see also Smith v. Ozmint, 578 F.3d

246 (2009) (vacating grant of summary judgment in favor of prison officials because the

1 Bryan P. Stirling became the Acting Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections on October 1, 2013. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Bryan P. Stirling should be substituted for the Honorable William R. Byars, Jr. as the defendant in this lawsuit.
1

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 01/28/14 Entry Number 44 Page 2 of 2
affidavit they relied on was insufficient to show that the policy at issue was the least restrictive means of furthering the identified compelling interest).
In his motion for summary judgment and reply brief, defendant has not submitted any affidavit showing that the South Carolina Department of Corrections has acknowledged and given consideration to less restrictive alternatives, especially in light of declining number of incidents involving Five Percenters.
Therefore, the court requests supplemental briefing and affidavits, if necessary, on this issue from the defendant within 30 days. Plaintiff will have 15 days to file a reply.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 28, 2014 Charleston, South Carolina

DAVID C. NORTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

 
 9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 02/27/14 Entry Number 46 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION

Lumumba Kenyatta Incumaa, #155651, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

Bryan P. Stirling, Director of the South )

Carolina Department of Corrections,

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 9:12-3493-DCN
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

By Order filed January 28, 2014, this Court has requested supplemental briefing on the Defendant's pending motion for summary judgment. Specifically, with respect to the Plaintiff's Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claim, the Court seeks supplemental briefing and, if needed, evidentiary support on the "least restrictive means" prong of the RLUIPA analysis. See, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). Under strict scrutiny, in addition to showing that a compelling governmental interest is furthered by the STG Policy, the Defendant is required to show that the policy is the least restrictive means of accomplishing those compelling governmental objectives. In the 2012 case of Couch v. Jabe, 679 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2012), the Fourth Circuit explained that the government is required to "acknowledge and give some consideration to less restrictive alternatives." 679 F.3d at 203.
For that purpose, the Defendant presents the affidavit of Robert E. Ward, who is the Deputy Director for Operations for SCDC. In that affidavit, Ward addresses several issues pertinent to the "least restrictive alternatives" prong.

1

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 02/27/14 Entry Number 46 Page 2 of 6
In his affidavit, Ward addresses the continued designation of the Five Percenters as a Security Threat Group (STG). While acknowledging that data reflects that the number of assaults committed by validated Five Percenters has declined since 2003, Ward testified that "the potential or even likelihood of assaultive behaviors by Five Percenters remains a reality and an issue that must be addressed by security operations." See, Ward Affidavit, para. 6. Ward indicates that there has been no basis for any SCDC Director to have removed the Five Percenters from the list of designated STGs. Ward attests that "[t]here have continued to be assaults, disturbances, and other criminal activities committed by Five Percenters since that time, and in my professional judgment, there has been no valid basis for removing the Five Percenters from the list of designated STGs at any time in the past or currently. See, Ward Affidavit, para. 5. Further, he rejects any suggestion that the downward trend in assaults means that the Five Percenters are no longer a threat. See, Ward Affidavit, para. 5. Ward further rejects any suggestion that the Five Percenters who are currently classified as Validated-STG-SD and in security detention could be released into the general population without dire consequences. In fact, he predicts, based on his professional judgment, that if that occurred, "the number of serious disciplinaries including assaults, riots, and similar behaviors would dramatically increase." See, Ward Affidavit, para. 6.
Consequently, to remove the designation of the Five Percenters as an STG, as requested by the Plaintiff, is not feasible. That would fail to address the fact that the Five Percenters remain a serious threat. Ward explains that the current policy is working, which accounts for the declining trend in the number of assaults. See, Ward Affidavit, para. 6. As he further explains, "[t]he designation of the Five Percenters as an STG, the continued intelligence techniques used to identify and validate Five Percenters, the monitoring of Five Percenters in the general population, and the re-classification to Security Detention for Five Percenters who commit
2

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 02/27/14 Entry Number 46 Page 3 of 6
serious disciplinary offenses are all facets of the program that have been working and remain effective." See, Ward Affidavit, para. 6.
Nonetheless, as Ward points out, SCDC has in the past made changes to the STG Policy and the classification process for STG members. Ward testified as follows:
Initially, after the Five Percenters were designated as an STG, validated members were all re-classified to Security Detention, regardless of their individual circumstances and disciplinary history. Since that time, SCDC developed two separate classifications, Validated-STG-GP and Validated-STG-SD, which taken into account the inmates' individual circumstances and are assessed on an individual basis. Therefore, an inmate who is validated as a member of an STG who has not committed serious disciplinary infractions may be classified as Validated-STG-GP and is allowed to remain in the general population. See, Ward Affidavit, para. 9. Thus, SCDC has considered and actually implemented procedures to make the application of the STG Policy less restrictive, particularly for those inmates whose prior conduct and individual circumstances did not necessarily warrant security detention. See, Ward Affidavit, para. 9. Admittedly, as Ward states, this was not done to accommodate religious beliefs because SCDC does not recognize the Five Percenters (or any other gang for that matter) as a religious faith group. See, Ward Affidavit, para. 9. Yet, it was implemented to make the policy less restrictive for those STG members, including Five Percenters, who are classified as Validated-STG-GP and may remain in the general population. As Ward explained, "security detention is used for those validated STG members whose past conduct, including participation in riots, hostage takings, aggravated assaults of staff and other inmates, and other gang-related activities, makes their classification to SD necessary to maintain and control the inmate and to provide safety and security for the staff and other inmates." See, Ward Affidavit, para. 9. The Plaintiff argues that SCDC should "only segregate its members after they have committed violent, disruptive and/or criminal acts with the SCDC." See, Plaintiff's Objections to Report and Recommendation, p. 7 of 14. (Dkt. #39). Yet, that is what is occurring in the STG
3

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 02/27/14 Entry Number 46 Page 4 of 6
classification process. Some STG members – while validated as such and subject to closer
monitoring – are allowed to remain in the general population because they do not have the prior
history of serious disciplinaries. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Marchant
recognized as follows:
Plaintiff's lone suggestion of a less restrictive means of implementing the policy at issue is a process that both he and Pearson in his affidavit state is already being used, i.e., identifying the validated Five Percenters who have engaged in assaultive and other criminal conduct within the general population, reclassifying them as Validated-SDs, and committing those inmates to security detention where they are subject to greater control and observation. This process is exactly the process that been applied to the Plaintiff.
See, Report and Recommendation, p. 24 of 26. (Dkt. #37).
As for other alternatives that have been considered and rejected, Robert Ward discussed
the placement of gang members in a close custody unit rather than the use of Special
Management Unit cells (which is the current policy). Ward noted that such an approach was
deemed "unworkable and dangerous," and he described the problems that would result:
Specifically, the use of a close custody unit would likely encourage gang participation. It would allow the gangs to be identified and would serve as identifiers much like "colors" do. Inmates could associate a particular gang with a particular housing unit. That would likely create the risk of targeting and increase the likelihood of inter-gang violence. The use of a close custody unit would also allow gang members easier access to one another and allow more opportunity for communication and planning. Finally, and most importantly, the use of a close custody unit would create a heightened level of danger for the correctional officers and other staff who would work in that unit.
See, Ward Affidavit, para. 8. In sum, Ward expressed concern "that such an approach would
result in more riots such as what occurred at BRCI with the Five Percenters and the Plaintiff in
1995." See, Ward Affidavit, para. 8.
As the affidavit of Robert Ward demonstrates, the Defendant has satisfied his burden of
4

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 02/27/14 Entry Number 46 Page 5 of 6
proof on the "least restrictive alternative" prong. Where SCDC determined that the STG Policy could be made less restrictive – at least for validated STG members without serious disciplinary histories – it took that action. Moreover, SCDC has considered other ways to address the problems posed by gangs or threat groups, including the Five Percenters. But such an approach as the use of close custody units for STG members was deemed "unworkable and dangerous." Ward is involved with the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), which is an agency within the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons. See, Ward Affidavit, para. 3. Based on discussions at NIC conferences and his discussions with other operations professionals in other states, Ward explained that "the general consensus in the field is that the best way to manage prison threat groups is to identify the persons most responsible for the criminal behaviors and place those inmates in security detention." See, Ward Affidavit, para. 7. This conclusively shows that SCDC's STG Policy and its approach to managing threat groups such as the Five Percenters have no less restrictive alternatives. Although not decided under the RLUIPA standard, it is significant that the Fourth Circuit has previously found with respect to the STG Policy that "there are no ready alternatives to the SCDC's course of action." In re Long Term Administrative Segregation of Inmates Designated as Five Percenters, 174 F.3d 464, 470 (4th Cir. 1999).
Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, in supplementation of the memoranda and affidavits previously submitted, the Defendant Bryan Stirling respectfully renews his request that this Court grant his motion for summary judgment and dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice on the merits.
5

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 02/27/14 Entry Number 46 Page 6 of 6

Columbia, South Carolina February 27, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A.
BY:___s/ Andrew F. Lindemann ____________ ANDREW F. LINDEMANN #5070 1611 Devonshire Drive Post Office Box 8568 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 TEL: (803) 806-8222 FAX: (803) 806-8855 E-MAIL: alindemann@dml-law.com
Counsel for Defendant Bryan Stirling

6

 
 9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 03/10/14 Entry Number 47 Page 1 of 8

IN TI-I£ vI/riEl) SrArEs DrsT/lIcT CW/lT
Foil. THE D.:rsT/l'cc.r OF SouTIl CAIlOL.r;VA

LUwturvthQ. k, II'ICUh1(~_q)
PlatY/flif l
V,
BP-yavl P. 5/-;n.hn!J) D'/2.ed7Jf1_
of: 5ov t"'- Cafl()llVtt.~ DeponJmevtf
()f {of21L ec·/I OHS (S L IJ c)I
De fenJa wi-.

-..., ", . ''''
) CIA i/o. 9: 12 -(v- 3493 - DC tv ; ! [) A 2: ?b
)
) PLAINTIFF'S !l.EPLY 7b '/)EFeNf)A}.I1~
) 5UPPLc/IA.E'tllTA L MEMORANDUM A,vl>
) AF;-II>AVIi OF /lOBEIlT Eo WA/2J>.

13y Of2dell cia leJ J co/vally 2'8> .;20/4 fit.. CoviLf J i;eecteti 14
to Defendant SUbWl;-/- .sufplewtewl-al b£ie fj a;tJ viti af{'da. J IF J1. ecesSattyJ
tk t5howl~j -IhcJ SC[)( ha..f aciznow/ed3eJ and !31V€¥\. cOVlsrJe;e&ff;7'JI\. 10 lesr

f?.J!5+/2i( live.. Q.lfeflYlufiwr) e>pee lal'7 //1\ h:;h.f of dl'C(,J-17Y1j nUr;1j,ef1- J

P Tk 'IVldJeYl1s 'iYlVo!vlVtj Five. erl(eVlfefl.5.

/)eFenc/oJ .hled h75.5up,leyvlevt faf

MeyVlol<.andv;'Vt Cly'ul a{FI'Jol/i} of j2(} heILt E. WOfli{ (5-1 Feb/tvony 2~ )01'1.

PltA,rt+/if Aeft.£'iv\. e J1ItClk f' hu R..ep'f l

h 1-4 Ii/! T; ..5'1P/eJ'Vlel1iol /fAen40f'laYl)VWl

tNI~ fft'H) wI, ,'('4 1-4

De (en./"w/- Aa.$' skied) whith waf n.,,1- s~/eJ ond/Otl- q!/uJ~J It. iA. h,5

p;<:.e viOvS FihV!j.> /i't fA';> c«SfL/ If' ff, em COY/5;Je~(;f1-7oil\. o.F fJl«clvtJ .Jan:J

ryUW' bel\?~ h\ C{ c/o5e cVSfody uhlt J f> f 1-,

fk Fllt;),1

.IlIttlf!-/{)/I\. IJ.f Gods QI1.! £Cla/it ~ <2VOG;e) Is )101 4 jt.lVlj Oli srG)

QYlJ non I> PlfAlj,t'f,-ff q 9al'!j meWfbenj ClJ1J 5eC(NtJ, Iu fJlCd e ?/c/mtiff In C{
C/I!>5..e.. cvshJ.y UYI,f as <4 30i1j memhen) ,.,..;hllh 7s jeJ1e~1 topvlal-rolA..)
Plc...tilJrff ltVOulJ Ylot- 0111/, 5'/-;/l b~ Jen~eJ ~ /l~.3h.J h t?l-el'_4::;tJJ... I-L IfonotL

f4 Ci+ol,) Jet¥> oJ' hi> Ge>J. (en/elle). {utI-Vile. 05 rs.IClrv. fj,cvf {S'

Alo (,:E)

to IZe;£Uil2eJ

1-0 f.,enovY/{_e kif Ga£ {entelZeJ.. Lullvlk- 0 f. IS(Qt<A )1"1 Op-det1-

~e

It Ae (le(eastNi .#-eM

C/ofe cv>foJ7 Un7f) bvf

IIvill a.lt'o 110 /orlyelL be.

i of 7

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 03/10/14 Entry Number 47 Page 2 of 8

h petZ-WI ;}Ied jZeLe"lif.. Oftr/. loSS eST I-~ lex+ al'1d hfe!2.tttLlflJ<- J ;"'IS G.oJ
(ettfe~eJ (ultVY1..rL o:F rS-IClWl fAullf.J.-Ae If/OGE) hec4us.e-Ae 7>0n/7 o;lowl'~l fo

f 055 eS5 5JC~ /.ex.+- altc/ It/ellutuk close )1"\ adfYliVl t'flLa five. 5 eJ /(t")crl-i-<JV\. A

-fk_ cus-h,cL, un~J It; ;1ot aJJr(tYl'SfP-af/I/f. Sc:Jf2tJal-tov'l'J ;) Is pa12f &£

3 €l1eIJ-,,(

pILI)(}¥\. fopuICl+'oV\.

; 4 TIre Jl/OG~ I? )10+ q ~ 0J1) Oft- C( 5TG.

AlOGe- is q God. (enfefieJ

Lultuf'Ul. oS Is/QI«) CfI'1J :FlJjL ~ fa,,! fhcA SCI>( c/oes flof fleco:.;nize fh. /l!OGE

I fk as >v( t..) c {!OI~L7 sh owf fAJ

De Fen Je1l1 I j,():J' /1 of QCkJlow/eJyeJ an.d (on

jiv~ a.n'( {oIl5/Jet2r.cf,0Y' 1-0 any In> f(.er!-ll7thve- alfe/2.J1al-ive~ whith. Mvl,R.

It. Ik !le,V1 ove

5:Ubffanf-)al bU;2.JelA beilllj ,rnfosetl tJl1 eie/lL iie.- of pICl'Ylf;.fF}

It.. Goj. [eYlfe;1.tJ II {v vJIlL of Is lellV\ fitJ 15 AID G; ~ • r/...p- M aytstJ'lak Ju£yf. ~

pajR.. .:21 oF his /2..efolLt and /2ecoWlIrV/. end fA h~ (/2.t /l) 51-aks :

fh. fC... cd- leas/- :Jolt pU12p05es i f Defe;tJanf'5 5uW/J1I\cm-y j'h1.:J i'YIeJ fYlol/Oi/t}

+k t~ uAJertsljYleJ (()I1c/vrier fAcJ-

Defen4C1l1f'r fO/;(, p-eJ!-12Tlf'iI1J

fk P1Ot'm.f..){f: ~W\ efljOjlVlj 11\

Hve. Pefl(eftie/l.s' hOI1Oi1.. day fLilv(..(h as 'VI/(t/

+-4 os fLe~U;kme~ !hcd Pla'lnti!!) '" e:!{e,t) ;2.enOvnce fijI ;<.el'.!FO.... ""

Ofl.Je{l ~ 9cf ovt- DF aJ n1111/ 'is fllCt IiI;f2.. ,,-ejllfjali-lJv\l/J Sv1flL'ieJ- h C/l(>",k

a jefluin£ TssV€ w: fttd a~ .f.o whefA.t.1L a Suh~/QYllt(Jf bu;e.Jev... has heelA

ph.cd 0.\ PfCl,Jrfi t €;(e,u.. i£Q.. oF A" l<.eh!JJovt; hehefr?1

rk beFenclowf Au.; not d€rVlt!h'/5heU/e, qnd/();'L s-kfeJ 0J17 /ea~f fiesf/Zit.five
k J'YleaVls wl-I'n'" hQ~ aCkhow/edyeJ Gln.l/Olt 91'Vevt con~/"t?/taI-T{)1A. -klwi",h I/f.-'Ovld
/LewIOlrf- Ikl< 5ubslanh,,( bUIlJev'l.) CfnJ 5{;-/I Ft/}'tfAej'L fk;n s-k-hl (OMIl?iI?YlJ

If! terte> .J- ,

fk. FUiZ-fhert) Ik c:tlc~nJe 1-0 Po/;-c'1 'v£" ,d/t

iJ<3:FencloYlt S"j)eOk-f c:F 1M hr•

!,3 .5ufp/emeY'Vfq{ /f/'lemDfl.CuljVWt

h,.; j CfJ1Ji )2ohe".f £: };1/aflci IVI.

aFFrdCl.0f

p.4)

parL«. q

)

\;vf!.fLq...

fie/-

Mack..

as C( if(feets! lleS:/f/!lclive

Cf/

I-

e/l.

1. na1-il.£.'

{

j
"to

1-4 /?-eyVlOtle.

5vbs-laY!-h~()( hU/ldev.. ht-o ..... Plct'iI',J,fF'f el-.e!2t:~ rJ A,s G.od.

:;l. of 7

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 03/10/14 Entry Number 47 Page 3 of 8

Cett-+elteJ (vltVtuL of ~/aVV\. -Htal Ii +-L. A/06E, A facl Whitt-.. It. DefpflJQJ

aJmib:.
rk lea s-f /2 eJ. f"z,chve.. f}'t€Q;ot!: wk;(4 P!C(,l1fifF bl(. OUjJl f ..f.o Ik- al-fel1/'rov-..

fk, tJ F I~ LOUt2-t-) Was n of jU) I fo tJ/'I'1 fe.jtee)a k. II1J; '-'1v1Val] a Flett.

have

Comt1ltif~eJ. v7ole~+) c17?tZvphve. OI1J/on ~!2lmln~1 ac.ft iMf-hlVl fk SLD( J bJ

14 0.150 1-0 {lemOve

S TG. (5ecufl71y Th£eut C!L{)~p) cIeS ;jna I--ro~ ~W'l I-k

/I/()GE CUtJ )1/<,+ hofJ lie. .AloGc: ;fS-eiF ac(ounfah~ !on. 1-4. achOi'1j J

IYl.JIvt~cJVtfLls If\l~ Clali1A 1-0 &. membe!2J' o:f IIv.. ItIOGE) wilie'" aJ(~ 4 -4. cOI/II-IL(I/ly

a,fv«1 fea.ch.tJll3s/ belie:fr an.J /)/lQch{~r o.r ft.. AloGF rf5ef:}, SVl- /ICflfl1 71Ft

D~.~e( IiOVl.:5 h !Z..l:. /l ,,7, -rk lJefei1c!Qw!- 01-117 UfeJ ,ottf oF Pia 1;1 t If:F:.r

5hx.kmewl f.o Wlah..e.. it QPpeaf{. that PJa/~hrf " 7n a.Jf!t-emervf J/I4\t"" I//hJ

+-/\l? befenJCtYl.f 7> a./t?.C't<J., JOinS I as ;1- /2.el,,/es 1-0 It AlIJG.E Jvt'fJ../v<.. fk. SCD(,

A /t'ac;/- jles!llitf-,ve. all-t?/l.nafi>ve wh>th. fk beFenlcotf ~arl 7J 1-0 /l.en1OI.'e

t~ STG./Jo.flJ c!.tt";Jl1.al-r()1!\ #.orvt P/Q,Ytfiff'> GoJ. Cev.J-eRe.J.. Lvll/.M.J!. ()F Isfa"",­

t~(N+ 'If t~iJDG. E) ottl h J i3dp hYte and/o{l.. 5eJ~ej a Ie I-hoirt- j>!2iJol/(ells :Jon

t~ i)tl. 6tN1A. 'v'iDlenf, J'jJjl..upfiK cOld/Ott C/L/}Yli'n"( ac b: ) s'Uc/A a.1" 7s beiVIJ do~

Vv1t~ ChfllS.J."ilrtf, (alho!,(:>; fi1L/S(/MS/ /tvitear) 'inti eve;t7 Ofkfl.. ~ec.o!jJ/lizeJ. :le./"/",

QI'lJ/OYL ~e{;!J1tM

tk Mfhfrl

S(j)(,

TJnJ

'iJ C/t'tiI'l7 q

/1'(;1(1 /2esl/C7chK )Nan}

wh,d1 lNrJvlJ l<erY/OK Ii svhsfoVl/;a{ bUitJei/\ beiYI3 IfVlj}OS<"-J 0>'\ Pla'YtfiFf:s
ex.e{lclk J kj} QotR {enf et2-eJ (fJ ti~ <F .rs.1o/1A. fJ/(Nf 7! tk J//oGC) O{: sl-okJ
bl ;L ;11{ Qj/S t~a Ie. J uJ~ 1M /Q)}.;L :2.1 tJf kif /2.t /Z) Cinol d VvtlvLJ sl-;l/ qt/ow
1-4 D<!fendovd fo Fv)tfMp. htl slC{kJ cOWffelhYlJ 'YlI-edesI. !2etYIorl:. I-ke 5TG.
Je;;"jYlahoY\ J:fLow.. Pia/rtf,Ff} Go£. Cew/etteJ (vt/t.11R- 6F Lla;""Jt:lnJ 1-4­
P-.ez u7f1Ln1. e~ i--hal Ita.. ;n u<;..J. ~ j(.eVlOtM ~~Q;u) 6"') his, G. Ot,t {ef/tte~eJ. (~IfUfLt.- oF

I5{(H'1I\ IV\. OfLcieVL fr, je.+ otA a.:f aJm'rvt71-htti4Vi:. seJf(eJafrolA. (jO(j. -1») Ctl1.d
feflwfJ Pla,Ylt,{f) wAef~~ m I()t..~-t-p OrL /1'1 f/£ jeYlt'Ilu{ p/l';s~A.

3 of 7

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 03/10/14 Entry Number 47 Page 4 of 8

POpulu+ibll\ I h eie/u',SJ<... his r;;(JJ. (eytfe~eJ (vltv;t.R.. ~ Is/ow.. fAat /r II/VtJG.5.

I f C{ fl!./foj,'Ie lL wA.f) 7.s. a mem bt'1'L I)'F ~ ;VoGE COfv1mi"k v;O/t'd, drJ.';cvpf-'1/e

h-lt QnJ/on. CIL7wtiV<a( acft) J7Scl;hNL and 10/1. 5ej£ejak fArd- fP-7fDJ,1efi- hu

etcftC,rH. Do ;to! oIe,S.)JYi,,!-e kiJ G.(}J (eYltt?/teJ (vlfv(lJL ~ ulaM. If/cd- lJ' ;-h..

I-k N'DG~ Cl 5TG.1 jaY!j ) wAelA

/t/oG.t ,'Jeff does f1(}1 kach/ (?;1(OV!'<.Ctje OK

CMJOt'lfL. ~iS a,fiOYlf J a> 7J, heM.j dof\.£- Wifh e'velly ()tktf- /lec()JJllileJ };,It..,
a "J. (()It /le h:/i()V' w.;-fhM f!~ 5'0) (,
rt God (@tIlfedt'J ('vlfVf?-tL oF r~/cu",- fActi 7? & ~G;e ;/u LF cJoeJ no+

T4 +eacfA onJ/Ofl CtJI1J()NL vitJ(evd)vli-s/-VjJhve. Ott CIOm7hai Cftlr.

A/e>GE A.a.)'

hcal. 4 lej;/iW1C)~ /ClW abiJ,'nj t>':JrI-t?I1~ i" .Jk uhd·~J S~le1 of Arne/Z,cct

SiYl ~ t Uo 4 ) Oi1J /-eactv.! )r rnef/Vlbe,tf -4 l,ve C{ daily /iii. or fJea'-e. J

IZiBhfeouHless 4nJ Civtfizaf.;oVl I evevt wkle in /fl7roY!. £v(:/tyciar Go-J) Or Vw>

UYlj,ellsICtItJ. )lfM) IJ !tns!- and centell,YY1()sf fvt ou!! Irk. I f tin 'ihc1;IA-Jv(((

wko clt)IM~ h k 4 meW/be;l oF Ik #06& ("'OoIe.} h J..o Qni hv(. ccPYlj;talfy

+4 ~ thTs) '7~ Tr YlO+

N"~~ ;+selF 1-0 bla~ and hold ac(ou..'tfcd,&' hf'L

ttze.e fh et;t.

fk vv,l( c hOlac and olf70)ltt;) e.sfeO~ III IE

Alo GE rise if drJeJ

Yto~ tea.ck aflJ/oVL concl.. O~ fJ,o~ ctlo/(e! anJ (ul,oKs,

Tk be fenJolt+ sfq.J.es fAc,.j- WallJ (n.ejectr ah7 ~UJjes ItOI/\. fACti Ik

d +k Hve. OWl!\. WCl.IlJ frtenJ In ossoulk fftRavtf f/',d

Pt'fl( eflffe,zs Q/ltL ho IOi[}ell

a. +hY<.eo.+~' ?/ulllfil'f SV~milr tA~f tk ;l/JGC ;lre iF j,a~ i/eyefL beeA ClnJ 5-!-;1/

n no~ tt fhf!ec<t, ;I II fAo5e IYlJ'''-1r}va/ 1J2'iroJ;'\e/lJ' who C./ClIM h ~ me/NI /'e/tf

4 ~.f.J.-L.... ;V()G.IE a Yl J 10 fhm35 wI. lelA ClI'~ Cf)/1,tliClI!( fk ac! u~ { ieaCk..'J/tljf,

J4 beheli artt! !Ilacfleer ():F ;t/DGc r/'elF) .5V('" eu v7otew/-1 dlT;zv,hve. cUld

f-h. C!4W1'1vta.( ac fs I w~ Olte +~ IhflfiNf whiclA

Deit?ndahi qhcl Watt,) 5/)eClkS, oF.

rk Sa~ Q.J Vvit"" JUda7sM; Cafho/it.'SM) (hfl,'"Jf7oYlli'1 ) ek~t

t of 7

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 03/10/14 Entry Number 47 Page 5 of 8

rAe De-feJ'lJahf sJ-afes jj,Q/{(WOtlJ iflJ/(a.ler fj1t~';" IAeA hus keeV'c no basI?
It.- tOft. ant SCve DI«ec to}( f.o Aove J(ervr oiled [,IV'- Pejecel1fe,t.,. f/toW'- I-~ Irs! oF

de$ijnaleJ 5rC,:/' .BelJ'lj Invo/ved 1/I4'!f.. fAe Naf7(MClf :£l1s/-;/-ule of

Au COIZ-tl-ec /-lo;u 0IJc)) aflend Con fe,zt?l1ce.s anJ ve. disc us.nOlfj vVitfr.. 0 I-Ae (L

0pef(Qflrr;ts fILe fen/Mall lit ofhe,t s"l-ales J Pla'infifF 7s Su~e fJl&d·· WaI<:'J, ahi

+) fh Uf. /-k De Fen J.an IS awafle 6-F..fk {g(..f .J},~f of-hell sluk [Oil It el: t-'Jono/

fk. )ep0/1.Jmentr In tk Un/fed. 5i-Ct1es no IOJ1je/f- oIes,/'jl1al-e:

;t/oG5 q 57C.j Clnd

Ik fk Qk now .!vll, eta orVlWtoJQ!tilJ tf(4cl JUz. J

Ce}. CenfeJleJ {(//l-v# if

Is IClv..' fAa/. 7S I-he /v'oG E JIt,1-f/,'IIVl fM.)}'L !J et1 ella ( J>/l~f etA.. f> 0pu/C{/i'lJYls) //Vif"'­
"0 (~/I<.~ (oVlfe/tue;1ce>.." SOJJNL i f fAefr Slafer c;leJ>o'lfme;d of cotettec!-loi1S

IYt-C/urJR. Jet-as, Dh,o, /Zho)e .£5/tln.dj C4h:FolZ. l1 / Q; ;tAQ>sachu.se/~ ;t/lkld,jt:IIAj

New 'Ioa£..) QIlJ. NevJJellsey) 1-4 Yel'ly 5/u1e wAt{h SCbC D';/'Le{ folt.. lLelit::J

14 ufoll'l. 1-0 Jes,!p'Iafe

NoG£ (HK pe,t(eJlI/et!s) q SiG In i ?95-, TAu~

14 fk Sho("'} ln 9 ~ bczs75 ~ /lerv1o~

AloGE (f;~ pef{('{'f'lte!l1) f,,-()ylt\..

Its I J

desiJhcri-eJ srGr) Of1J ;.fk {easib;liiy;

Tk ])e!' ;:~f1Ja/tt.f sbi-es fh(/.t Wa,eJ J!.ejec. -h IAcd- I-t. filA Pelle enfe/t! w~

QIlL cUJ1.r2.ew/-ly c)on;J;eel as ValidaleJ. - SrG- Sf) and IV\ 5 tJc.u/Z;ly c/efentioVl)
k +t- (ovlJ {leleaseJ 111 h, 3eYle~(;t ( fOfulatUM.. Y14'lh ov+ JI/l£. COf'lseJ uences, Tk ;f DeFenJanf IVlClh.es appEatt- fAal fhl;l2. alUL a jICeal- )1Vmhe)'l. t>F $(]>(

ffll~olAetl> m seevfl.;/-., oIel-en-holA tU Va/tJa/-ed FtK PetLceYlfe!2 f ) an,) ;F

!-eleQ)(!!J IY/fo fk.. jeM/La( fopvlaffbll\/14 5ebc wIll k ovt:t!-hk by vi'o/etJ-j

A d'ffL.Vpl-)\-f.. alld (Il-Im/nar Cic/r,

hll as ?la'J1hff 71 awa/i.e.; J-k al4!..

only two pB-lsov'le(?[ 'M S(f)C wh...", O{bL /111. s-ecul1-ily Jefel'lfloV\ aJ VailJaft:J
4 Hve.. pet2.-(en+e~s, Plalnl ifF If O}VL) an.cI ofAet'l has a/~t>ad,/ /ZeJ'1tJUYlCeJ
and Ii ntJw a. )11u51rn.., Pla/hl-ffr Aos fltri had a cllf'-'1I,nall! CI)Vl'vich-oi\.

1M e Ijh+eerA (18) 'W s yeaf2 S, J tl'j2 lZ.eje(..+~ OnJ. !/?eJ h.fJ{){A IS (.leo;1-17 o~

5 of '7

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 03/10/14 Entry Number 47 Page 6 of 8

P/a<,nl;{f has fI 01 ~aJ C( d7>'-IjJlinQH.'j ConvicflolA //1\ ei'jhleevt(l9J) yea{ls)

hut I-~ De:fend"vv/ 5411 clarsl-fy h,Yl'! as a sec.ul'ltly f~;t.eQI J bQsecf. {orel! (Ji/l

~)~ he';' th(A P/Ctin.hJf 7s q mernhe}'Z. ()F ~ A/DGE) a (;()J CeJ1tt2tle.i (vlfvi'tIL QF

rsl{AM) whit'" 1V1 no way +auJtJ.. (ka.c/"')) en(OlJn.Q~J. (}ft. CDflJ.OJ1eJ erny oF It)-f

pa >~ a, -hl'>vu; whtl4 \'\Ie flZ C'o.,."tllan 7 1-0 fk I 4.c Va ( /-eQ(t, iYtg$) behefi: QI1J

i k ptac hc..e.$ 6-'f -J..-k AloC. E i-fse I.{,

])efettcla;t/ 7J C clvtjJlel-el( iji1()nIYlj 1-J.1lJ:~_ {;,clr)

10 ani. Qtl.tl- -In ska.ti. Con /-In LlIr1j pe/If'e( vie Plalh +'1I I /N1~-fh -h C /}YlfiJVl-l11evJ--
-tt.. PVJ1.I-I-;\tf2. CfnJ. f!-er//licfive. conJ;fTlJvt) J /Olk.-t-p (ad!YI7Vl7li!2at,1te.

Sejllejaf1o"J :hn. h)s COvtS-Ciel1.ce ctL{)~Le- flof 1-0 /lenOUhQ (C-thtindtJYt) h7> God

c. (e III .j. e,e.eJ {U l-I-lJ~ tJ' :.r:sIa. M -f//{;J I> I-h.. AID 6.

Aas ~ DeFenJavJ

J1o! .5alij{teul j,7J bu~Je(l\ ()f /)(?jl.51../Ci.51tJV\. "'" I-k ('leas!­

ft. /lesf/l/lhve.. fV..eaJllS· CUla(y£'tS hF

!lelrjlbvs LaJllJ U~ and :.t;.sfr/-vtl7)1IltA./iuJ

PCr2SOl'S A-t- (J;:LUIPA). Tk afF,Jav;1 6F f2o~efl-+ £, Walld.) wh~tit It 12.e(75

Ufo-VI.) does )1 G+ 5ble ai'll Illes-s f(eSf/lil/iK a!l-e;tn~l-ivefu wh hit ~ hQ~

to) t--k Q,-khowleJjeJ anel/olL a)'vev\ S()~ COVls/7Jt?!?Cl-h'7:M

wkrc4. !;tA)vtJ /lew/ok

Subs.ta".t-,a( bU;t.JetA. helcl hy It MQ)/5f/lak 3uJ!jl. whitt, If beiVlj iMpOSed

bv'\ Plall1,JlfJ'5 (?'IJ?(t.c-/U<. i f hIS &.orJ Cel'l/-elteJ. Culf~ o:F ~(fl;v.. O.e, flehJT,n)

n...,.. J.lvJ-7r. +~ jl/OG.E.

/IIoGE IS ;1.,)- q 5T(; on. Q:JanJ)clltcl If shoul1 nof

k c/a>s{f,eJ (Jfl ff(eal-eJ as ONL I

CDfl/CLU5IO/V

Based (}JI1 It. .,hAe3 (91J1~ )Ze/'~ aJ1cl fUe-1r; Pla'lII/- i f:"F I<t;tue~ I:> Ik.

k Jelty COUiLf-

-I/-J£. })ei'endaflt's Mol/()J'\. hit- .5Un1WlCllly )uJj/'nfrv/-) and

~ Cr~k It 5e+- :!oft. -!-p.:;a() ()Il fAe !-t!Jueslecl /Ze/!ef G/(&lnteJ,

~ of 7

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 03/10/14 Entry Number 47 Page 7 of 8

fh. h PU;ZSUaM- c?8 U,S.C § 174" } y: dec/o)£'e unJefL

pe;1Qlly of

fk pe/l'jVtly tAd

{ofleJoli1j IS f/lue OJlrJ c()/lj!.ec/.

Maflt;t\ 7 ) .2014
!zuI~vdk,.5o(./f'" (ClI'l.O"YlQ

J?esfe(IFv!ly I AM)
k~lugd..~a.

k. he LUt'VIVMhCt

'51 UrYl(J 4. #j'556,

Tk al III a

oJoflq. HQ1lt1-~/5 £M) ")I'l.

L', e berl (OilfL ec!-r?JYu. t J; sIi I-V frrJ.....

p. O. 13 0)( )..0,>

/2Jr1~ Villc) 5.C. 2q472

7 of [

9:12-cv-03493-DCN Date Filed 03/10/14 Entry Number 47 Page 8 of 8

TN TilE UAJIrEf) srA-rEs j):r~r,l!..rcr COV/lT
Fo!? TilE J)IS7'~Icr OF S"Ovn-l CA..eOt..z:A.lA

LU;YIvl'l1b"l k. h(vmaa)
PID 'WI f.., r J;
v.
ERya Vt P, 5hlZ IIn)/ ]»)!2e,/o/Z
of SOUlh (elflo/'ir1u. /)epu/1..!-menl-
M {ofltLec {fortS rs-L DC))
DeFenJaVl'l-.

) cIANo,q:iA-Lv-34Q3 .. DCN ) )
) CEK..TI freAtE OF SEIl.VICE 

) 

) 

)

I ; LViYlurYlbll k. :J:I1U,NYlClA j f>ILo Se platitfjl"E At'f/!.Jl-by Ce,e/j{'y fACA.1 0«1.

fh.. I-k 7 fA day J AAC(~ch. ) :;2014 I f 5(?J2v&i

f:,/lOl-Vll1j =

i, P/a'lI1t,:Ff:s 12 ep'7 To DefenJ.awf3 5UJ>!/ef'VleJ1lo.t Mevvto!Z.Q/l1c/VYtA. Axel
A:Jf,davi+ of /Zokellf ,£, WO/ldil

Jill .J-/...e ah oW!-cap+7DJlleJ c',vil 10 CU-hfM) 14 ./)efendaJllfr At/o;tfley IE
/lecorU. ) by Jel()srhfl.J a cory of 50jX(L in fk US. Arfai~ p"SI-Cl~ fJA/Gl~d
Q;trl pflopef1-17 add /leslel aI' Follows ;

Dav;-J.S"a-vt &, L7nJewtanftj P.A.
r. AnJt<.ew L]f1Jemanvt 

If.o 11 Dev{)l'1.sirtiJee j)/l)ve) 5eUJJ1J. ~/()Qit 

Posf b:f{,CR.. go~ ~s-Co~ 

(oLJrYlb,C{ s.c ';2'/)..02­ I

~_j.ld,u..,(la

k. LUMV;'VIbq

Jl1.curvlaC(

p{l{) ~ Plo.lvIJ):ff

 
 Case: 9:12-cv-3493 As of: 11/02/2016 09:13 PM EDT 1 of 5

PRISONER,PROSE
U.S. District Court District of South Carolina (Beaufort) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:12−cv−03493−DCN

Incumaa v. Byars Assigned to: Honorable David C Norton Case in other court: USCA, 14−06411 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 555 Prison:Prison Condition Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Lumumba K Incumaa also known as Theodore Harrison, Jr

represented by Elizabeth Anne Franklin−Best Blume Norris and Franklin−Best 900 Elmwood Avenue Suite 200 Columbia, SC 29201 803−765−1044 Email: elizabeth.a.franklin@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erin Camille Johnston Kirkland and Ellis 655 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 202−879−5233 Fax: 202−879−5200 Email: ejohnston@kirkland.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Honorable William R Byars, Jr as Director of the SCDC TERMINATED: 03/11/2014
Defendant Bryan P Stirling Acting Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections

represented by Andrew F Lindemann Davidson Morrison and Lindemann PO Box 8568 Columbia, SC 29202−8568 803−806−8222 Fax: 803−806−8855 Email: alindemann@dml−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew F Lindemann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/12/2012
12/12/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against William R Byars, Jr, filed by Lumumba K Incumaa. (Attachments: # 1 Inmate Grievance Forms, # 2 Envelope)(cwhi, ) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Restricted Access) by Lumumba K Incumaa. Motions referred to Bristow Marchant.(cwhi, ) (Entered: 12/13/2012)

Case: 9:12-cv-3493 As of: 11/02/2016 09:13 PM EDT 2 of 5

12/13/2012 01/09/2013
01/09/2013 01/09/2013 01/09/2013 02/13/2013 02/21/2013
02/22/2013 02/22/2013 03/15/2013 04/23/2013
04/24/2013
04/24/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 06/26/2013
06/26/2013 07/16/2013

4 TRUE DIVISION FOR TRIAL: Charleston. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
8 ORDER authorizing service of process and collection of filing fee. Plaintiff has incurred a debt to the U.S.A. in the amount of $350. Plaintiff is also directed to notify the clerk in writing of any change of address. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 1/8/2013. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
9 REFERENCE 8 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 1/8/2013.(cwhi, ) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
10 Summons Issued as to William R Byars, Jr. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
11 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 8 Order 1983, placed in U.S. Mail to Lumumba K Incumaa. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lumumba K Incumaa. William R Byars, Jr served on 2/1/2013, answer due 2/22/2013. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
13 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint by William R Byars, Jr. Response to Motion due by 3/11/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Andrew F. Lindemann, # 2 Certificate of Service)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.Motions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
14 ORDER granting 13 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. William R Byars, Jr answer due 3/15/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 2/22/2013.(cwhi, ) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
15 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 14 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer placed in U.S. Mail to Lumumba K Incumaa. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
16 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by William R Byars, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 03/15/2013)
18 MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production by William R Byars, Jr. Response to Motion due by 5/13/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)No proposed order.Motions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
19 TEXT ORDER granting 18 Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Responses to Plaintiff's Interogatories and Requests for Production. Responses due by May 23, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 04/24/2013.(elac, ) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
20 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 19 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, placed in U.S. Mail to Lumumba Incumaa. (elac, ) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
21 DECLARATION by Lumumba K Incumaa. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit A−D, # 3 Envelope and Cover Letter)(cwhi, ) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
22 Letter from Lumumba K. Incumaa. Document referenced in this letter was received on the same date. Docketed copy of the document has been mailed to the plaintiff. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cwhi, ) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
23 ORDER that the parties shall have twenty (20) days from the entry date of this Order to file dispositive motions. In the event neither party files a dispositive motion, the file will be forwarded to a United States District Judge for trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 6/26/2013. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
24 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 23 Order, placed in U.S. Mail to Lumumba K Incumaa. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
25 MOTION for Summary Judgment by William R Byars, Jr. Response to Motion due by 8/2/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Affidavit of Elbert Pearson, # 3 Affidavit of Sandra Bowie, # 4 Affidavit of Michael Stobbe, # 5 Certificate of Service)No proposed order.Motions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 07/16/2013)

Case: 9:12-cv-3493 As of: 11/02/2016 09:13 PM EDT 3 of 5

07/18/2013
07/18/2013 08/05/2013 08/15/2013
08/19/2013
08/19/2013 08/22/2013 08/31/2013 09/11/2013 09/24/2013
09/24/2013 10/02/2013 10/09/2013 10/09/2013 01/28/2014 01/31/2014

26 ROSEBORO ORDER directing clerk to forward summary judgment explanation to the opposing party and directing that party to respond in 34 days. Response due to 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment by 8/22/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 7/18/2013. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
27 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 26 Roseboro Order, placed in U.S. Mail to Lumumba K Incumaa. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
28 RESPONSE in Opposition re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment Response filed by Lumumba K Incumaa.Reply to Response to Motion due by 8/15/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit 1 − 3, # 3 Certificate of Service, # 4 Envelope)(cwhi, ) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 28 Response in Opposition to Motion, by William R Byars, Jr. Response to Motion due by 9/3/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Andrew F. Lindemann, # 2 Certificate of Service)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.Motions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
31 ORDER granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The Defendant's deadline to file a Reply to the Plaintiffs Response to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is extended to August 30, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 8/19/2013.(cwhi, ) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
32 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 31 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, placed in U.S. Mail to Lumumba K Incumaa. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
33 Letter from Lumumba K Incumaa. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cwhi, ) (Entered: 08/22/2013)
34 REPLY to Response to Motion re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment Response filed by William R Byars, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Affidavit of Elbert Pearson, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 08/31/2013)
36 DECLARATION by Lumumba K Incumaa. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter and Envelope)(cwhi, ) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
37 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. It is recommended that the Defendants motion for summary judgment be granted, and that this case be dismissed. Objections to RRdue by 10/11/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 9/24/2013. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
38 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 37 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by William R Byars, Jr placed in U.S. Mail to Lumumba K Incumaa. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
39 OBJECTION to 37 Report and Recommendation by Lumumba K Incumaa. Reply to Objections due by 10/21/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cwhi, ) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
41 Case Reassigned to Judge Honorable David C Norton. Judge Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie no longer assigned to the case. (suro, ) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
42 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 41 Case Reassigned placed in U.S. Mail to Lumumba K Incumaa (suro, ) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
44 ORDER requesting additional briefing re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by William R Byars, Jr Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 1/28/2014. (cahe, ) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
45 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 44 Order placed in U.S. Mail to Lumumba K Incumaa. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 01/31/2014)

Case: 9:12-cv-3493 As of: 11/02/2016 09:13 PM EDT 4 of 5

02/27/2014
03/10/2014 03/11/2014
03/11/2014 03/11/2014 03/18/2014
03/18/2014
03/18/2014 03/18/2014 04/03/2014 10/20/2014 07/01/2015 07/07/2015 07/07/2015
07/23/2015 11/24/2015 11/24/2015

46 SUPPLEMENT by William R Byars, Jr to 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Supplemental Memorandum requested by Court Order). (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Robert E. Ward, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Lindemann, Andrew) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
47 REPLY by Lumumba K Incumaa to 46 Supplement. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope and Cover Letter)(cwhi, ) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
48 ORDER granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 37 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 3/11/2014.(cahe, ) (Main Document 48 replaced on 3/11/2014) (jbry, ). Modified on 3/11/2014 to replace with corrected document per chambers (jbry, ). (Entered: 03/11/2014)
49 JUDGMENT The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Marchant is accepted. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. (jbry, ) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
50 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 48 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Report and Recommendation,, 49 Judgment placed in U.S. Mail to Lumumba K Incumaa (jbry, ) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
51 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 48 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Report and Recommendation,, by Lumumba K Incumaa. − The Docketing Statement form, Transcript Order form and CJA 24 form may be obtained from the Fourth Circuit website at www.ca4.uscourts.gov (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter and Envelope)(cwhi, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
52 Transmittal Sheet for Notice of Appeal to USCA re 51 Notice of Appeal, The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
53 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 52 Transmittal Sheet for Notice of Appeal to USCA, placed in U.S. Mail to Lumumba K Incumaa. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
54 ASSEMBLED INITIAL ELECTRONIC RECORD TRANSMITTED TO FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS re 51 Notice of Appeal, Electronic record successfully transmitted. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
57 ORDER of USCA as to 51 Notice of Appeal, filed by Lumumba K Incumaa (jbry, ) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
58 ORDER of USCA re appoint of counsel as to 51 Notice of Appeal, filed by Lumumba K Incumaa. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
59 USCA OPINION for 51 Notice of Appeal, filed by Lumumba K Incumaa. Decision of Appeals Court Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding for further proceedings Decision of District Court. (jbry, ) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
60 ORDER of USCA as to 51 Notice of Appeal, filed by Lumumba K Incumaa. The Court amends its opinion filed July 1, 2015. The amended opinion, issued July 7, 2015, supersedes the opinion filed July 1, 2015. (jbry, ) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
61 AMENDED USCA OPINION for 51 Notice of Appeal, filed by Lumumba K Incumaa. Decision of Appeals Court affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding for further proceedings the Decision of District Court. (jbry, ) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
62 USCA MANDATE and Judgment as to 51 Notice of Appeal, filed by Lumumba K Incumaa (Attachments: # 1 Judgment)(jbry, ) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
63 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth Anne Franklin−Best on behalf of Lumumba K Incumaa (Franklin−Best, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
64 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Erin Camille Johnston ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0420−6277875) by Lumumba K Incumaa. Response to Motion due by 12/11/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Supporting Documents Motion in Support of Pro Hac, Erin Johnston)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to

Case: 9:12-cv-3493 As of: 11/02/2016 09:13 PM EDT 5 of 5

12/02/2015 12/03/2015

opposing counsel.(Franklin−Best, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
65 ORDER granting 64 Motion by Erin Camille Johnston to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 12/2/2015.(jbry, ) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
66 NOTICE of Change of Address by Lumumba K Incumaa. Address updated in ECF this date. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(cwhi, ) (Entered: 12/03/2015)