•

•

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., PETER VIVIANO, ERNIE IIIRSHMAN, SABINA HIRSHMAN, PAUL WEINBAUM, MARTIN 1. BOYD. M.D., and JESSE V. CHAVEZ.

O 7 h.? ',,[~;,~:;;-1i!.i...-., '"'1.'".11 ~_ ): _
. '" ,,-.-, -, .
:~~._.;',', _.····_: . . ::_:.~·:/ :·)C

I'laintilTs,

v.
GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON, SECRETARY JOER. WILLIAMS, HOMER GONZALES, BILL SNODGRASS, in their ofticial capacities, and CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, NC.,

- elvCIV No.
0 5 -

". .

("..\';.:

QnLI.Ii) \\3M

Defendants.

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.c. § 1983

The plaintitls, by and through their attorneys Adam S. Bakcr and Richard L. Bolton, bring

this complaint against the defendants for violations of the Establishment Clause of the First

Amendmcnt to the United States Constitution and 42 V.S.c.· § 1983.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

I. The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2. ;' Venue is appropriate in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1391, hecause one or

more ofthe derendants resides within thisjudicial district and the acts forming the basis of Plaintiffs

claims occurred in New Mexico.

PARTIES

3. Plaintirf Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.. is a Wisconsin non-stock

corporation with its principal o11icc in Madison. Wisconsin..
1-

• •
4. Freedom From Religion Foundation has morc than 5,500 members, who are opposed to government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
5. Freedom From Religion Foundation has membership that includes New Mexico residents who pay taxes to the State of Nt:w Mexico.
6. Freedom From Religion Foundation has the organizational purpose to protect the fundamen1al constitutional principle prohibiting government endorsement ofrcligion by representing and advocating on behalf of its members.
7. Freedom From Religion Foundation in its representational capacity, and including its resident New Mexico taxpayers. are opposed to the use of state taxpayt:r appropriations to advance and promote religion.
8. Plaintiff. Peter Viviano is an adult individual residing in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, and he is a New Mexico state taxpayer who is opposed to the use of state taxpayer appropriations to advance, endorse and/or promote religion.
9. Plaintiffs Ernie and Sabina Hirshman are adult individuals residing in Deming, New Mexico, and they are New Mexico state taxpayers who are opposed to use of state taxpayer appropriations to advance, endorse and/or promote religion.
10. Plaintiff Paul Weinbaum is an adult individual residing in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and he is a New Mexico state taxpayer who is opposed to use of state taxpayer appropriations to advance, endorse and/or promote religion.
2

•

•

II. PlaintilT Martin J. Boyd, M.D., is an adult individual residing in Las Cruces, New

Mexico, and he is a Ncw Mexico state taxpayer who is opposcd to use of state taxpayer

appropriations to advance, endorse and/or promote religion.

12. PlaintiffJesse V. Chavez is an adult individual residing in Las Cruces, New Mexico,

and he is a New Mexico state taxpayer who is opposed to use of state taxpayer appropriations to

advance. endorse and/or promote religion.

13. Each of the individual plaintiffs arc members of the plaintiff organization, Freedom

From Religion Foundation.

14. Defendant BiJI Richardson is the Governor of the State of New Mexico.

15. Defendant Richardson is sued in his official capacity as the Governor ofthc State of

New Mexico.

16. Defendant Joe R. Williams is the Secretary of the New Mexico Corrections

Department.

17. Defendant Williams is sued in his oOicial capacity as the Secretary of thc New

Mexico Corrections Department.

18. Defendant Homer Gonzales is the Coordinator of Faith-Based Programs for the New

Mexico Corrections Department

19. Defendant Gonzales is sued in his ollicial capacity as the Coordinator of Faith-Based

Programs for the New Mexico Corrections Department.

20. Defendant Bill Snodgrass is the Warden at the New Mexico Women's Correctional

Facility ("the NMWCF") in Grants, New Mexico.

21. Defendant Snodgrass is sued in his official capacity as the Warden at the NMWCF.

3

•

•

22. Defendant Corrections Corporation of America, Inc., ("Defendant CCA"), has

contractcd with thc State ofNcw Mexico to operate the NMWCF, at 1700 East Old Highway 66,

Grants, New Mexico.

23. Defendant CCA exerciscs powers traditionally exclusively reserved to thc state, and

New Mexico has delegated a state function to Ddcndant CC/\ pursuant to contract.

24. The New Mexico Corrections Department is a duly organized state governmental

entity that is funded Irom New Mexico state taxpayer appropriations.

25. Defendants Richardson, Williams, Gonzales, and Snodgrass are state actors whose

actions have been, and continue to be, taken under color ofstate law. Further, each of the defendants

are responsible for disbursing and spending New Mexico state taxpayer appropriations as alleged

herein.

NATURE OF THE CASE

26. The New Mexico Corrections Department provides faith-based progranlming to

inmates which is designed to encourage the inmates involved to establish or strengthen a relationship

with God.

27. Defendant Gonzales is responsible for overseeing the New Mexico Corrections

Department's lilith-based programming.

28. Defendant Gonzales' activities are funded by appropriations oftax revenues received

by the State of New Mexico from state taxpayers.

29. The goal of the New Mexico Corrections Department's faith-based programming is

to teach and model a Christian Ii fcstyle that will help the inmates accomplish goals identified by thc

New Mexico Corrections Department, including (I) to learn to live in a faith community; (2) to help

4

- - - - - - - _.." ..---' ---
• •
inmates overcome hurts, addictive habits and hang-ups: (3) to strengthen family relationships; and (4) to form new relationships within the Christian community.
30. The goal of faith-based programming provided by the New Mexico Corrections Department further is to encourage inmates to become involved in faith-based programming in their local community upon release from prison.
31. The underlying premise of faith-based programming provided by the New Mexico Corrections Department is that a relationship with God, and involvement in a Christian faith community, is necessary to prevent criminal recidivism.
32. The most intensive faith-based programming provided by the New Mexico Corrections Department is presently conducted at the NMWCF.
33. Defendant CCA operates the NMWCF with appropriations authorized to be made by Defendants Richardson. Williams, Gonzales. and Snodgrass.
3( Defendant CCA provides an exclusively faith-based segregation pod at the NMWCF, which program has been and continues to be enthusiastically supported by the defendants.
35. Defendant CCA has provided intense faith-based programming at the NMWCF previously through the Life Principles Community/Crossings Program and has recently begun providing religious programming in partnership with a fundamentalist Christian ministry, i.e., the Institute in Basic Li fe Principles.
36. Defendant CCA is the nation's largest provider of corrections management services to government and it is the nation's largest owner and operator of correctional and detention facilities, after the federal government and four states, operating at least 63 facilities with a total design capacity of approximately 67,000 beds in 19 states and the District of Columbia. The faith-
5

• •
based programming provided by Defendant CCA atthl! NMWCF, in partnership with the Institute in Basic Life Principles, is intended to facilitate a "franchise-like" approach to providing faith-based programming in all prisons operated by Defendant CCA.
37. The content of the faith-based programming provided by Defendant CCA at the NMWCF is intended to convert people to a fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity.
38. The written materials used in the faith-based programming by Defendant CCA at the NMWCF include statements such as "Have you received Jesus Christ as your Personal Savior?," "The first function offaith is to believe in Christ for salvation," "The Holy Spirit takes up residence in your Spirit and confirms that you are a Christian...Disobeying the promptings of the Holy Spirit will cause Him to be grieved and will quench His power in your life."
39. The faith-based programming provided by Defendant CCA based on its partnership with the Institute in Basic Life Principles, makes no claim of secularism or respect for other world religions or world views; the Institute in Basic Life Principles was officially established "for the purpose of introducing people to the Lord Jesus Christ," which it does by providing "training on how to find success by following God's principles found in Scripture."
40. The interpretation of Scripture underlying the faith-based programming of the Institute in Basic Life Principles, provided at the NMWCF represents a very literal, overtly patriarchal, and highly authoritarian understanding of the proper relationship with Jesus Christ.
41. The faith-based programming material provided by the Institute in Basic Life Prineipft:s considers that all social institutions, ineluding church and government, exist solely because of God's will.
6

•

•

42. The present partnership between Defendant CCA and tht: Institute in Basic Life

Principles is not the first partnership between Defendant CCA and Christian Evangelical groups.

43: Defendant CCA in fact, has taken a leadership role lmd extended a commitment in .

its mission to bring raith-based programs to prisons.

44. Defendant CCA has previously partnered with groups such as Good News Jail and

Prison Ministry, School ofChrist International, Child Evangelism I'ellowship, Champions for Life,

Kairos Horizon, and Theotherapy.

45. Defendant CCA is avowedly convinced of the value of raith-based programs such as

that otTered by the Institute in Basic Life Principles, to the extent that it plans to institute such faith-

based segn:gation pods in every one of the prisons that it operates: Defendant CCA considers faith-

based progrmns to be the preferred tool to change inmate behavior and to attain a higher quality of

life.

46: Detendant CCA is committed to faith-based programming because of its bcliefthat

such programming is necessary to prevent criminal recidivism, and it has therefore partnered'

exclusively with Christian Evangelical and Fundamentalist groups to provide faith-based

,

-

programming: cultures of respect, responsibility and accountability, bowevcr, can be achieved

without pri,)moting religious indoctrination, contrary to' -the belief held by Defendant CCA. 47.' The lilith-based segregation pod at the NMWCI' is kno\';TI as the "God Pod" by some

oflhe inmates; the pod includes Scripture-based books and movies, and an intimate living room area

offers inmates the comfort of couches, a microwave and a peaceful ambiance that is not available

to other inmates.

7

•
48. The environment ofthe faith-based pod at the NMWCr provides an environment that is more nicely furnished and less noisy and hectic than other prison pods. in part because fewer women reside in the "God Pod" than in other pods.
49. The faith-based segregation unitat the NMWCF is explicitly and rigorously religious with a program involving spiritual counseling and religious meetings, prayer walks, meditation, memorization of the New Testament, and a mandate that the inmates stay involved in a faith community after their release from prison.
50. Inmates in the faith-based segregation unit atthe NMWCF arc encouraged to dedicate themselves exclusively to their relationships with God and family.
51. The defendants believe that faith-based programming tilr prison inmates is a superior approach to reducing criminal recidivism, which effect thc defendants believe is caused by the transfonnative belief"in a higher power, i. c., hecause the inmates allegedly realize that there is a God, and that the inmates are helpless, and that God is in control if they allow Him to be.
52. The defendants intend to increase the faith-based programming at the NMWCF to the extent that at least 245 women will be involved in faith-based programming at anyone time.
53. The faith-based programming at the NMWCF is premised on God always coming first, and family second, and all else being secondary.
54. The goal of state-wide faith-based programming provided by the New Mexico Corrections Department is to instill beliefs by inmates that there is a Creator and Higher Power able to help them turn their lives around, and that inmates do not have to be locked into the lifestyle that led them to prison.
8

• •
55. The faith-based programming procured by the New Mexico Corrections Department, and authorized by these defendants, is funded by New Mexico taxpayer appropriations.
56. Planning, development and implementation offaith-based programming by the New Mexico Corrections Department are accomplished by these defendants.
57. The activities of the defendants are subsidized through state taxpayer supported efforts and are undertaken at the direction ofthc defendants, including Defendant Gonzales whose only job is to promote and coordinate faith-based programming.
58. Faith-based programming provided hy the New Mexico Corrections Department touts thc alleged. importance and power of Christian faith as being necessary to lead a crime-free life.
59. The actions oCthe defendants arc integral to the faith-based programming ofthc New Mexico Corrections Department, including the mission ofrcligious indoctrination.
60. The defendants engage in and authorize activities that promote religious spirituality and faith.
61. The faith-based programming provided by thc New Mexico Corrections Department, under the authorization and supervision of the deJendants, considers that inmate values, resulting in lifestyle choices, must be changed through the integration offaith, religion and spirituality into their lives.
62. The defendants, through their actions. seek to promote the integration of Christian religious spirituality and faith, as inherent components, into the New Mexico Corrections Department's rehabilitativc dclivery model of services.
9

• •
COUNT I: SECTION 1983 CLAIM AGAINST DEFENI>ANTS FOR VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENI>MENT TO THE UNITEI>
STATRS CONSTITUTION 63. The plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs I through 62 as though fully set forth herein. 64. The defendants' actions as set forth above violate the fundamental principle prohibiting government endorsement of religion by using state taxpayer funds for the provision of prison faith-based programming and activities that promote the integration of religion into thc lives of inmates. such that the religious objective is indivisible from any possible secular objective. 65. The use ofNew Mexico taxpayer funds, to promote faith-based programming by the New Mexico Corrections Department. violates the Establishment Clause to the First Amendmcnt to the United States Constitution because taxpayer funds are used to support activities whose mission is to integrate rcligious indoctrination as an indivisible componcnt of the programming provided to prison inmates. 66. Religious indoctrination is an integral component of the faith-based programs provided by the New Mexico Corrections Department. which indoctrination is supported by taxpayer appropriations from the State of New Mexico, through the actions of the defendants. 67. New Mexico state taxpayer appropriations are disbursed to fund the organization and procurement offaith-based programming by the New Mexico Corrections Department, including the faith-based programming at the NMWCF, as a result of decisions made under color of state law by state actors including the defendants herein. 68. Patently religious principles dominate the approach to faith-based programming advocated and procured by the defendants. which faith dominated approach includes explicitly
10

"".

•

•

religious content designed to be integrated into the programming offered by the New Mexico

Corrections Department.

69. The involvement and actions of the defendants constitute governmental approval of

the religious content of the faith-bast:d programming being integrated into the New Mexico prison

system.

70. The defendants' actions give the public appearance, to reasonable observers, ofstate

endorsement of religion.

71. The defendants' actions convey a message that religion is favored, preferred and

promoted, In contrast to non-belief; and the faith-based programming of the New Mexico

Corrections Department is clothed in traditional indicia of government endorsement.

72. The funds appropriated by the defendants to apply to faith-based programming by the

New Mexico Corrections Department arc derived Ii'om taxes paid by residents of the State of New

Mexico, including resident New Mexico taxpayers who are members of the plaintiff organization,

Freedom From Religion Foundation.

73. In sum, the defendants' activities as sctJorth above impermissibly advance, endorse

and promote the establishment of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First

Amendmerit to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

74.' The actions taken by the defendants in violation of the Establishment Clause of the

First Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are injurious to the

plaintiffs' interests because the defendants' actions compel the plaintiffs to support the

establishment, endorsement and advancement of religion through state taxpayer funding of

programmatic religious indoctrination, to which the plaintiffs object.

I 1

..

•

•

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

(a) For a declaration that the actions ofthe defendants violate the Establishment Clause

of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.c. § 1983;

(b) For an order enjoining the defendants from continuing to promote, operate, manage,

fund and direct activities in furtherance ofany filith-based programming by the New

Mexico Corrections Department:

(c) For an order enjoining the defendants from continuing to provide faith-based

programming by the New Mexico Corrections Department, including at the

NMWCF, which programming impermissibly endorses and promotes religion;

(d) For an order enjoining the defendants from using state funds to promote, advance

and/or endorse the establishment of religion. including funding for the faith-based

segregation unit at the NMWCF;

(e) For judgment awarding such further relief as the Court deems just and equitable; and

(f) For judgment awarding the plaintiffs their reasonable costs, disbursements and

attorneys fees as allowed by law, including 42 U.S.c. § 1988.

12

, .

•

•

Respectfully submitted,

ADAM S. BAKER ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 1847 Taos, NM 87571-1847 Telephone/Facsimile: (505) 758-3099
and
RICHARD L. BOLTON BOARDMAN, SUHR,CIJRRY & FIELD LLP I South Pinckney Street, 4th Floor
P. O. Box 927
Madison, WI 53701-0927 Telephone: (608) 257-9521 Facsimile: (608) 283-1709
AllomeysjiJr PlainlifJ.i·

\3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., PAUL WEINBAUM, MARTIN J. BOYD, M.D. AND JESSE V.CHAVEZ,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Civil No. CIV-05-1168 RLP/KBM

SECRETARY JOE R. WILLIAMS, HOMER GONZALES, BILL SNODGRASS, in their official capacities, and CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE CLAIMS

The following Motions are before the court:

1) Plaintiffs’Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 63), to declare the Life

Principles/Crossing Residential Faith-based Program as the New Mexico Women’s

Correctional facility in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

2) Defendants Williams’ and Gonzalez’ (“State Defendants” herein) Motion for

Summary Judgment for Failure to State A Claim addressing Plaintiffs’Establishment

Clause claims (Docket No. 57), and

3) Defendants Correction Corporation of America’s and Snodgrass’s Motion for

Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’Claims of Establishment Clause Violation. (Docket

No. 55).

It is axiomatic that before summary judgment can be granted, the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any must show that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986). The parties have submitted numerous “undisputed” facts which are in dispute, and many of the “disputes” have been disputed. On this basis alone the Motions should be denied.
The first clause in the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Fourteenth Amendment imposes those substantive limitations on the legislative power of the states and their political subdivisions. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 49-50, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 24852486 (1985).
The parameters of the Establishment Clause may appear concrete. For example, in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16, 67 S.Ct. 504, 511 (1947) the Court stated that “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt, to teach or practice religion.” In Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 2275 (2000) (citations omitted), the Court stated that the requirement that government accommodate the free exercise of religion does not trump the limitation that it may not establish religion. In Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist.66) v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250, 110 S.Ct. 2356 (1990) (opinion of O'Connor, J.), Justice O’Connor stated that “ [t]here is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”
2

Despite these seemingly black and white pronouncements, there are recognized areas where government funds may benefit religion.
In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111 (1971), the Court set out a three- part test for evaluating the constitutionality of a state statute challenged on Establishment Clause grounds:
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.” The Lemon test was modified in Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 117 S.Ct. 1997(1997), at least as applied to school aid cases. In Agostini, only the first and second Lemon factors were considered, with entanglement issues folded into consideration of a statute’s effect. The first Lemon prong requires asking “whether government’s actual purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion.” Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 585, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 2578 (1987), quoted in Altman v. Bedford Cent. School Dist., 245 F.3d 49, 75 (2nd Cir. 2001). In this case, Plaintiffs contend, and provide evidence to support their view, that the actual purpose of the faithbased program to facilitate spiritual growth as a mechanism for behavior modification by inculcating a specific religion, Christianity. Defendants contend, and provide evidence to support their view, that they have a legitimate penological purpose: to reduce violent incidents and criminal activity while inmates are in prison, so that prisons are easier to administer; to permit inmates to gain better perspective in life, handle responsibility, be accountable for actions, and be able to work through conflicts. Accordingly, there remain questions of fact that can not be resolved through summary judgment. The second Lemon prong was discussed in Mitchell v. Helms, where the Court stated that
3

whether government action would be found to constitute impermissible indoctrination (advancement
of religion) depended upon the principle of neutrality.
In distinguishing between indoctrination that is attributable to the State and indoctrination that is not, we have consistently turned to the principle of neutrality, upholding aid that is offered to a broad range of groups or persons without regard to their religion. If the religious, irreligious, and areligious are all alike eligible for governmental aid, no one would conclude that any indoctrination that any particular recipient conducts has been done at the behest of the government. For attribution of indoctrination is a relative question. If the government is offering assistance to recipients who provide, so to speak, a broad range of indoctrination, the government itself is not thought responsible for any particular indoctrination. To put the point differently, if the government, seeking to further some legitimate secular purpose, offers aid on the same terms, without regard to religion, to all who adequately further that purpose, see Allen, 392 U.S., at 245-247, 88 S.Ct. 1923 (discussing dual secular and religious purposes of religious schools), then it is fair to say that any aid going to a religious recipient only has the effect of furthering that secular purpose. The government, in crafting such an aid program, has had to conclude that a given level of aid is necessary to further that purpose among secular recipients and has provided no more than that same level to religious recipients.
Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 809-810, 120 S.Ct. 2530, 2541 (2000).
In this case, Defendants have demonstrated that they offer inmates a variety of rehabilitative
programs1, that no inmate is required to participate in a faith based program, and no special incentives
1Non-residential programs include: --Educational programs (GED, Adult Basic Education Programs through a two-year associates degree and additional college courses taken on-line). The education department at NMWCF employs nine teachers and has approximately 329 inmate participants at a time. -- Moral Recognition Therapy, a once weekly secular course directed to altering criminogenic thinking. --SOAR (Success Outside After Release) which teaches post-release life skills; --A twelve week carpentry-certification program serving approximately 12 inmates at a time offered four times per year. One instructor is employed by CCA to teach this program, and CCA purchases the tools and materials used in the program; --Work programs in telemarketing, tourism information and document scanning; --Mental Health services provided by a third-party provider offering classes in stress and mood management, anger management, medication relaxation techniques. The mental health program has eight clinicians, a mental health director and a clinical supervisor who provide therapy and counseling, clinical assessments, group treatment, individual treatment, crisis intervention and outpatient substance abuse treatment, and coordinates group addiction treatment utilizing a cognitive based treatment approach.
4

such as parole consideration is offered for participation in the program. However, choices for residential programming within the prison setting are limited. Whether the menu of programs offered at NMWCF results in neutrality is a question of fact.
There remain genuine issues of material fact, and no party is entitled to Judgment as a matter of Law. It is hereby ORDERED that the following motions are Denied:
1) Plaintiffs’Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 63); 2) Defendants Williams’ and Gonzalez’ (“State Defendants” herein) Motion for
Summary Judgment for Failure to State A Claim addressing Plaintiffs’Establishment Clause claims (Docket No. 57), and 3) Defendants Correction Corporation of America’s and Snodgrass’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’Claims of Establishment Clause Violation. (Docket No. 55).
______________________________ Richard L. Puglisi
United States Magistrate Judge (sitting by designation)
In addition, the prison offers one other residential program the “Therapeutic Community Unit” serving approximately 80 inmates at a time, which addresses addictions, provides counseling, parenting classes and addiction treatment including the Twelve Step programs of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous.
5

 
 Case 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM Document 93 Filed 01/31/07 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., PAUL WEINBAUM, MARTIN J. BOYD, M.D. AND JESSE V.CHAVEZ,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Civil No. CIV-05-1168 RLP/KBM

SECRETARY JOE R. WILLIAMS, HOMER GONZALES, BILL SNODGRASS, in their official capacities, and CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF STANDING

THIS MATTER comes before the court on Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment

for lack of standing. [Doc. Nos. 57, 59]. Also pending are cross motions for Summary Judgment

on the merits of Plaintiff’sClaimsthat Defendants have Violated the Establishment Clause of the First

Amendment. [Doc. Nos. 55, 57, 59, 63]. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 (“The

district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws,

or treaties of the United States.).

I. Undisputed Facts

The following facts are not disputed:

The individual plaintiffs are taxpayers of the State of New Mexico and members of the

organizationalPlaintiff, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. [FFR herein]. Plaintiffs are opposed

to the use of state taxpayer appropriations to advance, endorse and/or promote religion, and on this

Case 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM Document 93 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 7

basis seek to have a residential faith-based program offered at the New Mexico Women

’s

Correctional Facility [NMWCF herein] declared in violation of the First Amendment tothe United

States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants from promoting,

operating, managing, funding and directing any faith based programs within the correctional system.

The sole basis for federal jurisdiction is the status of the individual plaintiffs as state taxpayers.

Defendants are officials of the New Mexico Department of Corrections [Williams and

Gonzales], the former warden of the NMWCF [Snodgrass] and Corrections Corporation of America,

[“CCA” herein] a corporation which owns the NMWCF, and operates it under a contract with the

State of New Mexico.

The NMWCF houses between 595-600 female inmates. The facility is owned by CCA which

has contracted with the State of New Mexico to feed, house and provide educational and vocational

programming for the inmates. CCA receives a flat per diem payment for each inmate housed at

NMWCF. Inmate participation in any program, or lack thereof, does not affect the per diem

payment. No other payments are received by CCA from the State of New Mexico or its Department

of Corrections.

The NMWCF offers numerous programs to inmates1, but only two “residential” programs.

1 Non-residential programs include: --Educational programs (GED, Adult Basic Education Programs through a two-year associates degree and additional college courses taken on-line). The education department at NMWCF employs nine teachers and has approximately 329 inmate participants at a time. -- Moral Recognition Therapy, a once weekly secular course directed to altering criminogenic thinking. --SOAR (Success Outside After Release) which teaches post-release life skills; --A twelve week carpentry-certification program serving approximately 12 inmates at a time offered four times per year. One instructor is employed by CCA to teach this program, and CCA purchases the tools and materials used in the program; --Work programs in telemarketing, tourism information and document scanning;
2

Case 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM Document 93 Filed 01/31/07 Page 3 of 7

The residential programs are

•

“Therapeutic Community Unit” serving approximately 80 inmates at a time, which addresses

addictions, provides counseling, parenting classes and addiction treatment including the

Twelve Step programs of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. This program

employs a program coordinator, a full-time addictions treatment counselor, and a counselor-

trainee, and

•

“Life Principles Community/Crossings”, a Bible-based program which serves approximately

38 inmates at a time.

The Life Principles Community/Crossing Program is the focus of Plaintiff’scomplaint.2

The living unit dedicated to housing the inmates enrolled in the Life Principles

Community/Crossingsprogram is identical to all other living units of equivalent security level in terms

of furnishings and amenities.

Although Plaintiffs contend that this unit differs from others by providing a protective, insular

and secure environment distinct from the general prison living un3i,tsno evidence has been presented

that this “environment” comes at any additional cost to the taxpayer.

The Life Principles Community/Crossing Program is overseen by the NMWCF Chaplain, who

--Mental Health services provided by a third-party provider offering classes in stress and mood management, anger management, medication relaxation techniques. The mental health program has eight clinicians,a mental health director and a clinical supervisor who provide therapy and counseling, clinical assessments, group treatment, individual treatment, crisis intervention and outpatient substance abuse treatment, and coordinates group addiction treatment utilizing a cognitive-based treatment approach
2Plaintiffs inferentially challenge the Therapeutic Community Unit to the extent it incorporates the twelve step programs of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. The validity or invalidity of that program has not been addressed directly by the parties and is not considered in this opinion.
3(Docket No. No. 58, ¶ 39; (Docket No. 73. p. 12).
3

Case 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM Document 93 Filed 01/31/07 Page 4 of 7
is employed by CCA to administer to the religious and/or spiritual needs of the entire inmate population.
Program materials, purchased with funds from the prison operating budget, are provided to the participants in the Life Principles Community/Crossing Program. (See Docket No. 63, ¶109). Defendants do not dispute that some portion of the program materials are purchased from the prison operating budget4, but object to this statement of fact only on the grounds that it is incomplete because some (program) materials can be purchased by inmates on their own”. (Docket No. 69, p. 9, ¶109; Docket No. 70, p. 19, ¶ 109).
II. Requirements for Taxpayer Standing.
Standing is “the threshold question in every federal case. ” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)). Defendants contend that Plaintiffs do not have standing as taxpayers to bring this action, because they have not and can not demonstrate that a measurable state expenditure has been disbursed to fund the faith-based living unit at NMWCF, apart from other, non-challenged expenditures. Plaintiffs contend that all funds used by CCA to run the NMWCF can be traced to funds received from the state and therefore they have standing.
The Supreme Court's decision in Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 429, 72 S.Ct.
4Exhibit 1 to the Bolson Affidavit (Docket No. 65) is the CCA Life Principles Community Manual. On page 47, it gives the address from which to order the faith-based program curriculum and describes other supplies that are necessary. Regarding supplies, it states “Funds for these supplies are normally provided by the correctional institution. However, there may be churches near the correctional facility that would be willing to contribute to the chaplaincy fund in order to provide these program supplies.” The supplies listed include a Bible for each participant, composition notebooks for a specific program course, pencils, a dictionary, a Concordance, and a thesaurus. In addition, the unit must have a television and VCR or video projector, a TV cart with power strip, a videocassette recorder, a compact disc player, chairs, tables a teaching podium, a writing board, a pencil sharpener and extension cord. Id. at 4748. The exhibit states the costs of the program : $250/inmate for training seminars; $35/inmate for ongoing curriculum; $295/facility for Resource Library. Id. at 49.
4

Case 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM Document 93 Filed 01/31/07 Page 5 of 7
394, 96 L.Ed. 475 (1952) controls the issue of standing presented here. Doremus requires that a state taxpayer bringing an Establishment Clause challenge must allege a“good-faith pocketbook” injury, i.e., that there was a “financial interest that is, or is threatened to be, injured by the unconstitutionalconduct.” Id. at 433-35, 72 S.Ct. 394. Therefore, the question now before this Court is whether Plaintiffs have presented evidence of the requisite financial interest. III. Analysis.
In running the NMWCF, CCA is providing a function traditionally and exclusively reserved to the state. As such, it is a state actor. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54-55 (1988).
[T]he government function doctrine applies in New Mexico when the state delegates the running of a prison to a private contractor. If a state government must satisfy certain constitutional obligations when carrying out its functions, it cannot avoid those obligations and deprive individuals of their constitutionally protected rights by delegating governmental functions to the private sector. See Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 73 S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152 (1953). The delegation of the function must carry with it a delegation of constitutional responsibilities. Giron v. Corrections Corporation of America, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1250 (D.N.M. 1998). Accordingly, CCA must use the per diem payments received from the state/Department of Corrections in a manner which does not offend the Constitution. Defendants’ contention that the money expended is not state money must be rejected. In Doremus, New Jersey taxpayers challenged a state law authorizing the reading of Old Testament verses at the opening of each public school day. The case came up to the Supreme Court on virtually no record. The plaintiffs’ sole status was as taxpayers5. The Supreme Court noted that there was
5One plaintiff had a daughter in the schools who had graduated, thus mooting non-taxpayer standing. The sole basis for standing of the other plaintiff was as a taxpayer.
5

Case 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM Document 93 Filed 01/31/07 Page 6 of 7
“no allegation that [Bible reading was] supported by any separate tax or paid for from any particular appropriation or that it adds any sum whatever to the costs of conducting the school.. . . there is no averment that the Bible reading increases any tax [plaintiffs] do pay or that as taxpayers they are, will, or possibly can be out of pocket because of it.” Doremus, 342 U.S. at 433. Citing to and distinguishingEverson v. Board of Education,330 U.S. 1 (1947)6, the Supreme Court indicated that standing would be found if there was“a measurable appropriation or disbursement of [funds] occasioned solely by the activities complained o”f. Id. 434. The Court termed this a“goodfaith pocketbook action.” Id. at 434-435. The parties in the instant case spend the bulk of their efforts arguing the relevance of the separate living unit utilized by inmates enrolled in the Life Principles Community/Crossing Program, and the role of the Prison Chaplain in administering that program. All inmates at NMWCF must be housed, and no evidence has been presented that housing provided in the separate living unit results in the appropriation or disbursement of any funds solely because the participants are enrolled in the activity to which Plaintiffs object, the Life Principles Community/Crossing Program.See Altman v. Bedford Central School Dist., 245 F.3d 49, 73 (2nd Cir. 2001),cert. denied 534 U.S. 827 (2001) (Parent-taxpayers seeking to enjoin certain activities at elementary and middle schools, which were allegedly inimical to their religious beliefs, could not establish standing because they could not demonstrate that school supplies used in connection with challenged activities were purchased solely for use in those activities). Likewise, no evidence has been presented that any additional taxpayer
6In Everson, the Court permitted a district taxpayer to challenge, on Establishment grounds, a state statute which authorized district boards of education to reimburse parents for fares paid to transport their children to both public and Catholic schools. The Court ultimately held that no Establishment Clause violation was involved.
6

Case 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM Document 93 Filed 01/31/07 Page 7 of 7
dollars are spent by virtue of the fact that the Prison Chaplain oversees the Life Principles Community/Crossing Program in addition to her other duties and responsibilities.
Undisputed evidence has been presented, however, that discrete and measurable taxpayer funds are spent to pay for religious program materials (see n. 4, supra), which would not be spent but for that program. Minnesota Fed’n of Teachers v. Randall, 891 F.2d 1354, 1356-1357 (8th Cir. 1989); Doe v. Madison School Dist. No. 321, 177 F.3d 789, 793-796 (9th Cir. 1999) e(n banc). Use of taxpayer funds to purchase these materials is a concrete, imminent andparticularized injury that can be redressed through court-ordered remedies. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have taxpayer standing to challenge the Faith-based residential program offered at NMWCF. IV. Conclusion
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment to Dismiss for Lack of Taxpayer Standing [Docket No. 59, and Standing issues contained in Docket No. 57] are Denied.
_____________________________________ Richard L. Puglisi
United States Magistrate Judge (sitting by designation)
7

 
 Case: 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM As of: 08/05/2013 09:56 AM MDT 1 of 9
CLOSED,REFER
U.S. District Court District of New Mexico − Version 6.0 (Albuquerque) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05−cv−01168−RLP−KBM

Freedom Religion, et al v. Richardson, et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi Referred to: Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/07/2005 Date Terminated: 07/06/2007 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc.

represented by Adam S Baker P.O. Box 3572 Taos, NM 87571 505−231−8984 Fax: 505−751−0704 Email: abaker@bakerlawoffice.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard L. Bolton Boardman Suhr Curry &Field LLP 1 South Pinckney Street, 4th Floor P.O. Box 927 Madison, WI 53701−0927 (608) 257−9521 Fax: 283−1709 Email: rbolton@boardmanlawfirm.com (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Peter Viviano TERMINATED: 05/09/2006

represented by Adam S Baker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard L. Bolton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ernie Hirshman TERMINATED: 05/09/2006

represented by Adam S Baker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard L. Bolton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM As of: 08/05/2013 09:56 AM MDT 2 of 9

Sabina Hirshman TERMINATED: 05/09/2006

Adam S Baker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard L. Bolton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Paul Weinbaum

represented by Adam S Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard L. Bolton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Martin J Boyd Dr.

represented by Adam S Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard L. Bolton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jesse V Chavez

represented by Adam S Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard L. Bolton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Bill Richardson Governor TERMINATED: 05/09/2006

represented by David K Thomson Thomson Law Office, LLC 303 Paseo De Peralta Santa Fe, NM 87501 505−982−1873 Email: david@thomsonlawfirm.net TERMINATED: 05/09/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David J. Tourek City of Albuquerque Legal Department Civil Litigation Division 1 Civic Plaza NW Fl 4 #4015

Case: 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM As of: 08/05/2013 09:56 AM MDT 3 of 9

Albuquerque, NM 87102 505−768−4500 Fax: 505−786−4525 Email: dtourek@cabq.gov TERMINATED: 05/09/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Joe R Williams Secretary

represented by David K Thomson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David J. Tourek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Homer Gonzales

represented by David K Thomson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David J. Tourek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Bill Snodgrass in their official capacities

represented by Benjamin E Thomas Sutin Thayer &Browne P.O. Box 1945 Albuquerque, NM 87103 505−883−2500 Fax: 505−888−6565 Email: bet@sutinfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gail Gottlieb Sutin, Thayer &Browne P.O. Box 1945 Albuquerque, NM 878103 505−883−2500 Fax: 505−888−6565 Email: gottlieb@sutinfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Corrections Corporation of America

represented by Benjamin E Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gail Gottlieb (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM As of: 08/05/2013 09:56 AM MDT 4 of 9

Date Filed 11/07/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005 11/28/2005 12/12/2005
12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/20/2005 12/29/2005 12/30/2005
01/05/2006
01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/19/2006
02/07/2006 02/07/2006 02/21/2006 03/08/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Civil Rights (5 Summons(es) issued) (referred to Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen) (pr) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
FILING FEE PAID: on 11/7/05 in the amount of $250.00, receipt #: 88353. (pr) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
LETTER to counsel re consent to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge (pr) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
2 NOTICE of consent to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by pltfs (jm) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
3 CERTIFICATE of service on copy of civil rights complaint by pltfs to defts Richardson, Williams &Gonzales on 12/5/05 (jm) Modified on 12/13/2005 (Entered: 12/12/2005)
4 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon deft Bill Richardson on 12/5/05 (jm) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
5 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon deft Joe R Williams on 12/5/05 (jm) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
6 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon deft Homer Gonzales on 12/5/05 (jm) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
7 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Corrections Corp on 12/5/05 (jm) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
8 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for defendants Bill Snodgrass and Corrections Corp by Gail Gottlieb, Benjamin E Thomas * (vv) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
9 NOTICE of consent to proceed before a US Magistrate Judge by defts Bill Snodgrass &Corrections Corp (jm) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
10 NOTICE by defts Gov. Bill Richardson, Joe R. Williams and Homer Gonzales of consent to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge (bap) Modified on 01/04/2006 (Entered: 01/03/2006)
11 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for defts Bill Richardson, Joe R Williams, Homer Gonzales &Bill Snodgrass by attorney Patricia A. Madrid (jm) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
12 ANSWER by defts Bill Snodgrass &Corrections Corp [1−1]; jury demand* (jm) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
13 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE for defts Bill Richardson, Joe R Williams &Homer Gonzales by Patricia A. Madrid (jm) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
14 ANSWER by defts Bill Richardson, Joe R Williams &Homer Gonzales [1−1] (jm) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
15 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen setting telephonic Rule 16 scheduling conference on 3/15/06 @ 1:30 pm; IPTR and provisional discovery plan due 3/8/06 (cc: all counsel)* (jm) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
16 NOTICE (withdrawal) of entry of appearance by deft Bill Snodgrass of attorneys Thomson and Tourek (ln) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
17 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE by attorney Gottlieb for deft Bill Snodgrass on 1/6/06 (ln) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
18 NOTICE by defts Bill Richardson, Joe R Williams and Homer Gonzales of change of address &fax number of attorneys (bap) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
19 PROVISIONAL DISCOVERY PLAN submitted by parties* (jm) (Entered: 03/08/2006)

Case: 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM As of: 08/05/2013 09:56 AM MDT 5 of 9

03/13/2006 03/15/2006 03/15/2006 03/22/2006 03/22/2006 03/23/2006 03/23/2006
04/25/2006 04/26/2006
04/28/2006 05/09/2006 05/18/2006 05/19/2006 05/22/2006
05/26/2006 05/26/2006
06/06/2006 06/12/2006
06/14/2006 06/15/2006
06/16/2006

20 NOTICE of change of address and law firm affiliation by co−counsel for pltfs* (jm) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
21 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen adopting attorney's provisional discovery plan [19−1] (cc: all counsel)* (jm) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
22 CLERK'S MINUTES before Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen telephonic Rule 16 scheduling conference held on 3/15/06 * (jm) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
23 CERTIFICATE of service on interrogs and request for production by deft Corrections Corp to counsel on 3/22/06* (jm) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
24 CERTIFICATE of service on initial disclosures by defts to counsel on 3/22/06* (jm) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
25 NOTICE of hearing Pretrial conference set for 1/17/07 at 2:00 pm; Jury trial set for 2/12/07 at 9:30 am (cc: all counsel) * (vv) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
26 INITIAL PRE−TRIAL REPORT by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi &Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen; Discovery set for 8/14/06; mtn filing ddl set for 9/15/06; proposed pretrial order due 11/28/06; pretrial conference set for 2:00 pm on 1/17/07; jury trial set for 9:30 am on 2/12/07; Estimated # of Trial Days: 3 to 4; Chances of Settlement: low (cc: all counsel) (jm) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
27 CERTIFICATE of service on initial disclosures by defts Bill Snodgrass and Corrections Corp to counsel on 4/25/06* (jm) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defts Corrections Corporation and Snodgrass of responses to first request to produce to counsel on 04/26/06* (ln) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
29 CERTIFICATE of service on responses to pltfs' 1st request to produce by defts* (jm) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
30 NOTICE of Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal as to party Bill Richardson (yc) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
31 NOTICE of change of address by counsel for pltfs* (jm) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
32 UNOPPOSED MOTION by pltfs to extend time to file mtn to compel * (jm) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
33 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen granting pltf's unopposed motion to extend time to file mtn to compel until 5/26/06; [32−1] (cc: all counsel) (yc) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
34 MOTION by plaintiffs to compel Snodgrass &Corrections Corp to respond to first request for produce * (dmw) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
35 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion to compel Snodgrass &Corrections Corp to respond to first request for produce [34−1]* (dmw) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
36 CERTIFICATE of service on 1st supplemental disclosures by defts to counsel on 6/6/06* (jm) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
39 EXHIBITS 1−3 filed by plaintiff in support of motion to compel Snodgrass &Corrections Corp to respond to first request for produce [34−1] (dmw) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
37 UNOPPOSED MOTION by pltfs to extend discovery deadlines * (jm) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
38 RESPONSE by defts Bill Snodgrass &Corrections Corp to motion to compel Snodgrass &Corrections Corp to respond to first request for produce [34−1]* (jm) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
40 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen granting motion to extend discovery deadlines [37−1] Discovery cutoff 9/13/06; Motion Filing cutoff 10/2/06; see order for further information (cc: all counsel) (rlc) (Entered:

Case: 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM As of: 08/05/2013 09:56 AM MDT 6 of 9

06/21/2006 07/03/2006 07/05/2006 07/31/2006 08/04/2006
08/04/2006
08/04/2006
08/07/2006 08/10/2006
09/06/2006 09/13/2006 09/14/2006
10/16/2006 10/16/2006 10/17/2006 10/17/2006
10/18/2006 10/18/2006 10/18/2006 10/18/2006

06/20/2006)
41 STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen (cc: all counsel) (rlc) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
42 REPLY by pltfs in support of motion to compel Snodgrass &Corrections Corp to respond to first request for produce [34−1] (*) (bap) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
43 NOTICE by plaintiffs of completion of briefing on motion to compel [34−1] (*) (bap) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
44 CERTIFICATE of service on ntc to take deposition of Dan Barker by deft Corrections Corp to counsel on 7/31/06* (jm) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
45 CERTIFICATE of service on copy of expert furnished by Elizabeth Dinsmore report by deft Corrections Corp to counsel on 8/4/06* (jm) Modified on 08/09/2006 (Entered: 08/04/2006)
46 CERTIFICATE of service on copy of expert report furnished by Victor Lofgreen by deft Corrections Corp to counsel on 8/4/06* (jm) Modified on 08/09/2006 (Entered: 08/04/2006)
47 CERTIFICATE of service on statement of compensation paid to experts by defts Corrections Corp &Bill Snodgrass it counsel on 8/4/06* (jm) Modified on 08/09/2006 (Entered: 08/04/2006)
48 CERTIFICATE of service on Expert Witness Disclosures by defts to counsel on 8/7/06* (jm) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
49 MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen granting and denying in part pltf's mtn to compel Snodgrass &Corrections Corp to respond to first request for production [34−1] as further described herein (cc: all counsel)* (jm) Modified on 08/14/2006 (Entered: 08/10/2006)
50 CERTIFICATE of service on amended notice to take deposition of Dan Barker by defts Corrections Corp &Bill Snodgrass* (jm) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
51 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen extending discovery deadlines as further described herein (cc: all counsel)* (jm) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
52 CERTIFICATE of service on response to 2nd request to produce by deft Corrections Corp to counsel on 9/14/06* (jm) Modified on 09/27/2006 (Entered: 09/15/2006)
53 MOTION by defts Corrections Corp &Bill Snodgrass for order baring testimony of Daniel Barker (jm) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
54 MEMORANDUM by defts Corrections Corp &Bill Snodgrass in support of mtn for order baring testimony of Daniel Barker (jm) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
59 MOTION by defts Corrections Corp &Bill Snodgrass for summary judgment on alleged taxpayer standing (jm) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
60 MEMORANDUM by defts Corrections Corp &Bill Snodgrass in support of mtn for summary judgment on alleged taxpayer standing [59−1]* (jm) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
55 MOTION by defts Corrections Corp &Bill Snodgrass for summary judgment on pltfs' Claims of Establishment Clause Violation * (jm) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
56 STIPULATION of the parties to exceed page limit for sum/jgm exhibits* (jm) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
57 MOTION by defts Homer Gonzales &Joe R Williams for summary judgment for failure to state a claim and lack of standing * (jm) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
58 MEMORANDUM by defts Homer Gonzales &Joe R Williams in support of mtn for summary judgment for failure to state a claim lack of standing [57−1]* (jm) (Entered: 10/18/2006)

Case: 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM As of: 08/05/2013 09:56 AM MDT 7 of 9

10/18/2006 10/18/2006
10/19/2006 10/19/2006 10/19/2006 10/19/2006 10/19/2006 10/26/2006
11/03/2006 11/03/2006 11/03/2006 11/06/2006
11/06/2006 11/06/2006 11/07/2006 11/07/2006 11/07/2006 11/20/2006 11/20/2006
11/21/2006
11/21/2006 11/21/2006

61 APPENDIX of Exhibits filed by State defts re memorandum [58−1] in support of mtn for sum/jgm (td) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
62 MEMORANDUM by defts Corrections Corp &Bill Snodgrass in support of motion for summary judgment on Claims of Establishment Clause Violation [55−1] (dmw) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
63 MOTION by plaintiffs for partial summary judgment (dmw) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
64 AFFIDAVIT of Annie Laurie Gaylor regarding pltfs' motion for partial summary judgment [63−1] (dmw) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
65 AFFIDAVIT of Richard L. Bolton regarding pltfs' motion for partial summary judgment [63−1] (dmw) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
66 EXHIBITS filed by plaintiffs in support of motion for partial summary judgment [63−1] (dmw) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
67 APPENDIX of exhibits filed by defts Corrections Corp &Bill Snodgrass re: motion for summary judgment on alleged standing [59−1] (jrm) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
68 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen setting settlement conference on 12/7/06 @ 1:30 pm in Las Cruces, NM (cc: all counsel)* (jm) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
69 RESPONSE by defts Corrections Corp. &Bill Snodgrass to mtn for partial summary judgment [63−1] (jm) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
70 RESPONSE by defts Homer Gonzales &Joe R Williams to mtn by pltfs for partial sum/jgm [63−1] (td) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
71 APPENDIX of Exhibits filed by defts Homer Gonzales &Joe R Williams re response to mtn by pltfs for partial sum/jgm [70−1] (td) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
77 RESPONSE (BRIEF) in opposition by pltf to mtn for summary judgment on alleged taxpayer standing [59−1] (jm) Modified on 11/09/2006 (Entered: 11/06/2006)
72 RESPONSE by pltfs to mtn for summary judgment on pltfs' Claims of Establishment Clause Violation [55−1]* (jm) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
73 RESPONSE (BRIEF) by pltf to mtn for summary judgment for failure to state a claim and lack of standing [57−1]* (jm) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
74 RESPONSE (BRIEF) by pltfs to mtn for summary judgment for failure to state a claim and lack of standing [57−1] (jm) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
75 MEMORANDUM (BRIEF) by pltf in support of mtn response [74−1] (jm) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
76 AFFIDAVIT of Richard L. Bolton (jm) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
78 REPLY brief in support by plaintiffs to response to motion for partial summary judgment [63−1] * (jrm) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
79 REPLY brief in support by defts Corrections Corp, and Bill Snodgrass to response to motion for summary judgment on pltfs' Claims of Establishment Clause Violation [55−1] (jrm) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
80 MINUTE ORDER: by direction of the Honorable Karen B Molzen vacating the settlement conference set for 12/7/06 @ 1:30 PM (cc: all counsel*) (jrm) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
81 NOTICE by defendant Corrections Corporation of briefing on motion for summary judgment [59−]* (sl) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
84 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi granting deft's mtn for order baring testimony of Daniel Barker [53−1] (cc: all counsel) (jm) (Entered: 11/24/2006)

Case: 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM As of: 08/05/2013 09:56 AM MDT 8 of 9

11/22/2006 11/22/2006 11/27/2006 11/27/2006 11/30/2006 12/01/2006 01/05/2007
01/05/2007
01/12/2007 01/18/2007 01/31/2007 01/31/2007 02/02/2007
03/23/2007 04/05/2007 05/18/2007 05/18/2007 05/24/2007

82 REPLY by defts Homer Gonzales &Joe R Williams to mtn for sum/jgm for failure to state a claim and lack of standing [57−1] (td) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
83 REPLY by defendants Corrections Corp &Bill Snodgrass in support of motion for summary judgment on Claims of Establishment Clause Violation [55−1] (dmw) (Entered: 11/24/2006)
85 NOTICE of completion of briefing on mtn [55−1] by defts Corrections Corp &Bill Snodgrass* (jm) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
86 STIPULATED ORDER by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi extending deadline for submission of pre−trial order until 12/1/06 (cc: all counsel) (jm) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
87 NOTICE of completion of briefing on mtn for partial summary judgment [63−1] by pltfs* (jm) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
88 NOTICE of completion of briefing on mtn for sum/jgm [57−1] by State defts* (jm) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
89 MINUTE ORDER resetting Jury Selection/Trial for Monday, 7/16/07 @ 9:30 a.m.; Pretrial Conference for Wednesday, 6/6/07 @ 3:00 p.m.; Jury Instructions/ Objections due at Pretrial Conference by Judge Richard L. Puglisi (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Jury Instructions# 2 Supplement Prep for Trial)(dds) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Pretrial Order due by 5/7/2007. Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/6/2007 03:00 PM in Albuquerque − 730 Judge Richard L. Puglisi Chambers before Richard L. Puglisi. Jury Selection/Trial set for 7/16/2007 09:30 AM in Albuquerque − 560 Cimarron Courtroom before Richard L. Puglisi. (dds) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
90 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw Motion Jury Demand by Joe R Williams. (Thomson, David) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
91 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi granting 90 deft's Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Jury Demand; Jury Demand is withdrawn (dds) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
92 ORDER by Judge Richard L. Puglisi denying 55 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 57 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 63 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (jc) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
93 ORDER by Judge Richard L. Puglisi denying 59 and 57 Motion for Summary Judgment for Lack of Standing (jc) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
94 MINUTE ORDER resetting Non−Jury Trial before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi for 7/30/07 @ 9:00 a.m. in Albuquerque − 560 Cimarron Courtroom; Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/6/2007 @ 3:00 p.m. Ste. 730 Judge Richard L. Puglisi Chambers; Pretrial Order due: Pltf to Deft: 5/15/07 and Deft to Court: 5/25/07; Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Trial Briefs and Motions in Limine due 7/16/07; Witness Lists and Responses to Motions in Limine due 7/23/07; Exhibit List due by 7/20/2007. (dds) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
95 NOTICE by Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., Paul Weinbaum, Martin J Boyd, Jesse V Chavez of Unavailability of Counsel 4/25/07−4/30/07 (Baker, Adam) Modified re: docket text on 3/28/2007 (jm). (Entered: 03/23/2007)
96 NOTICE of Change of Address by Adam S Baker (Baker, Adam) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
97 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Proposed Pre−Trial Order by Homer Gonzales, Joe R Williams. (Tourek, David) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
98 FILED IN ERROR (Entered: 05/18/2007)
99 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY sent to Attorney David Tourek re 98 Proposed Pretrial Order (jm) (Entered: 05/24/2007)

Case: 1:05-cv-01168-RLP-KBM As of: 08/05/2013 09:56 AM MDT 9 of 9

05/28/2007 05/30/2007 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/26/2007
07/06/2007
07/06/2007

100 STIPULATED ORDER by Judge Richard L. Puglisi granting 97 Motion for Extension of Time to File until 6/1/07 (jm) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
101 NOTICE by Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., Paul Weinbaum, Martin J Boyd, Jesse V Chavez of Non−Availability of Counsel 7/16/07−7/23/07 (Baker, Adam) Modified re: add dates on 6/6/2007 (jm). (Entered: 05/30/2007)
102 PRETRIAL ORDER by Judge Richard L. Puglisi (jm) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
103 Clerk's Minutes for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi : Pretrial Conference − held on 6/6/2007. (Tape #FTR Cimarron @ 3:00 p.m.) (dds) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
104 NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Puglisi of Proposed Withdrawal of Memorandum Opinions and Orders [Docket Nos. 92 and 93], and proposed dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, or in the alternative, entry of Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants on the issue taxpayer standing. (mjm) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
105 Unopposed MOTION to Dismiss Complaint by Homer Gonzales, Bill Snodgrass, Corrections Corporation of America, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., Peter Viviano, Ernie Hirshman, Sabina Hirshman, Paul Weinbaum, Martin J Boyd, Jesse V Chavez, Bill Richardson, Joe R Williams. (Thomson, David) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
106 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi granting 105 defts' Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Complaint; all claims that were or could have been brought are dismissed w/prejudice; all parties to bear their own attorney fees and costs. (dds) (Entered: 07/06/2007)