Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03149/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03149-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United Sta~ C()prt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TEN'l'B CIRCUIT 

NOV 15 1QSO 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

REV. HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR., ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

EDWIN MEESE; NORMAN A. CARLSON; CLAIRE ) 

E. CRIPE; GEORGE C. WILKINSON; CHARLES ) 

RIGGS; JERRY O'BRIEN; J.S. DUNCAN; R. ) 

ROMAINE; E.G. HALLINS; MANFORD CRAIG; · ) 

E.B. GALLEOS, and PAUL KENNEDY, ) 

individually and in their official ) 

capacities, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-3149 

(D.C. No. 87-3242-R) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

· three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3149 Document: 010110051293 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 1 
Reverend Williams appeals the grant of summary judgment in 

favor of appellees. 

Reverend Williams filed a prose complaint asserting numerous 

claims. Eventually defendants filed a motion for summary 

judgment. The district court, in an eight page memorandum and 

order dated May 1, 1990, granted defendants' motion for summary 

judgment. 

Reverend Williams appeals asserting: 

1) That this Court does not have jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 u.s.c., Section 1291, because the district court 

did not resolve all of the multiple claims or parties 

and make findings of fact and conclusions of law 

pursuant to Rules 52(a) and 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.; 2) That 

the district court are in granting defendants' motion 

for summary judgment where there are material issues of 

fact in dispute; 3) That the district court erred in 

failing to liberally construed the prose complaint; 4) 

That the district court erred in denying the request for 

the appointment of counsel without considering the 

factors as outlined in McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 

836, 839 (10th Cir. 1985); 5) That the district court 

erred in denying class action certification. 

Reverend Williams requests permission to appeal in forma 

pauperis. We grant this right. 

"We review the district court's grant of summary 

judgment de novo applying the same legal standard used 

by the district court under Rule 56(c) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Osgood v. State Farm Mut. 

Auto. Ins. Co., 848 F.2d 141, 143 (10th cir. 1988). 

Summary Judgment should be granted only if 'there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact and ..• the moving 

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(c). When applying this standard, we are 

to examine the factual record and reasonable inferences 

therefrom in the light most favorable to the party 

opposing summary judgment. Gray v. Phillips Petroleum 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3149 Document: 010110051293 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 2 
.. Co., 858 F.2d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1988)." 

Anderson v. HHS, 907 F.2d 936, 946 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Having considered Appellant's arguments, we are not 

persuaded. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED for 

substantially the same reasons as is set forth in the district 

court's memorandum and order, a copy thereof being attached 

hereto. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3149 Document: 010110051293 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 3 
72A 

' · 8/821 

- " . . ._ t. i: 

U.S. C 1: .. : :-:.1 ;:T ;.~OURT 

Ql :31:~1c: .< :-' .\~!SAS 

I ~3 t~ 'SO ' I . 

t',AY i 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .. ::-!.,_ 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANS~C:~1⁄4.s..-!"~~~-

HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR., 

v. 

EDWIN MEESE, et al., 

Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

_______________________ ) 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

; ·1 

CASE NO. 87-3242 

This matter is before the court on defendants• motion for 

summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition to 

this motion and motions for the appointment of counsel and for the 

certification of this action as a class action. The defendants have 

filed a response in opposition to plaintiff's motion for class 

certification. 

Plaintiff filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 

28 u.s.c. § 1331 in 1987 while an inmate at the United States 

Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, (USPL), alleging the defendants 

have violated his rights guaranteed by the United States 

Constitution. Plaintiff specifically alleges the defendants ( 1) 

have interfered with his rights by refusing to allow him to preach 

in religiuus services at USPL; (2) have engaged in a practice of 

encouraging other religious faiths and thereby have established a 

religion; (3) have interfered with his theological studies; (4) have 

refused to hire black chaplains or employees in the chaplaincy 

I , 

I I,.., :,;-:; \,.;,.,: 

Appellate Case: 90-3149 Document: 010110051293 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 4 
72A 

'· 8/821 

office at USPL; (5) have denied him access to the courts by 

requiring the use of administrative remedies; and (6) have 

interfered with his ministry by requiring him to submit to urine 

tests. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and actual 

and punitive damages. 

Having reviewed the materials filed in this case, the 

court finds the arguments advanced by plaintiff are without merit 

and concludes the relief sought by plaintiff must be denied. 

Because the court concludes that no constitutional claim is stated 

by plaintiff's allegations, this order does not address th 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 "c 0 

of qualified immunity raised by the dafendants. 

Motion for Class Certification 

Plaintiff's motion for certification of this action as a 

class action is denied. Pursuant to Local Rule 209(b), a motion for 

class action determination shall be filed within 90 days after the 

filing of a complaint. Plaintiff's complaint was filed in August 

1987, yet his motion for class certification was not filed until 

April 17, 1989. The motion is therefore out of time. 

Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel was 

denied by the court in its Pretrial Order issued on August 18, 1988. 

Plaintiff filed a second motion for the appointment of counsel on 

March 6, 1989. The allegations set forth by plaintiff are 

generalities which do not support the existence of genuine issues 

of fact. Because plaintiff has provided few details to substantiate 

his claims, the court is not persuaded that the appointment of 

counsel is warranted in this case. The motion is therefore denied. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3149 Document: 010110051293 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 5 
• 

72A 

"· 8/82) 

Motion for Summary Judcnnent 

A moving party is entitled to summary judgment only when 

the evidence indicates that no genuine issue of material fact 

exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Mauahan v. SW Servicina. Inc., 758 

F . 2 d 13 8 1 , 13 8 7 ( 10th Cir . 19 8 5 ) . The requirement of a "genuine" 

issue of fact means that the evidence is such that a reasonable jury 

could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Libertv 

Lobbv, Inc., 477 U.S. 244, 248 (1986). The moving party has the 

burden of showing the absence of :::Ii r"fO'M1i i l""\O - -:,-•·--··-

This burden "may be discharged by 'showing' -- that is, pointir.g out 

to the district court -- that there is an absence of evidence to 

support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 

U.S. 317, 325 (1986). 11 [A] party opposing a properly supported 

motion for summary judgment may not rest on mere allegations or 

denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing 

that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 474 U.S. at 

256. Thus, the mere existence of some alleged factt:.al dispute 

between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported 

moticn for summary judgment. Id. The court must consider factual 

inferences tending to show triable issues in the light most 

favorable to the existence of those issues. United States v. 

O'Block, 788 F.2d 1433, 1435 (10th Cir. 1986). The court wust also 

consider the record in the light most favorable to the party 

opposing t~e motion. Bee v. Greaves, 744 F.2d 1387, 1396 (10th Cir. 

1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1214 (1985). 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-3149 Document: 010110051293 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 6 
,_ 

72A 

.,, 8/821 

Factual Background 

Plaintiff is a black federal inmate serving a life 

sentence for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise and 

possession of heroin with intent to distribute. During his 

incarceration at USPL, plaintiff was affiliated with the Interfaith 

Protestant Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The specific facts upon 

which this court's conclusions rest are incorporated into the 

discussion of plaintiff's claims. 

Discussion 

In determining ,-1hether .,..,, ::, i '1"1-t-i -r-r t'---··---- has stated ::ii,.,,, -··.i 

constitutional claim upon which he is entitled to relief in this 

action, this court must first examine the regulations upon which the 

institutional actions are premised. When a prison regulation 

impinges on an inmate's constitutional rights, the regulation is 

valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological 

interests. O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 (1987), 

citina Turner v. Saflev, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). Factors relevant to 

the analysis of whether a regulation is reasonable include ( 1) 

whether there is a logical connection to the governmental interest 

invoked to justify it; (2) whether alternative means of exercising 

the constitutional right remain open to inmates; (3) the impact of 

accomodating the constitutional right on staff and other inmates and 

the allocation of prison resources; and (4) whether the regulation 

represents an exaggerated response to institutional concerns. 

Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90. 

For the reasons set forth herein, the court finds 

plaintiff has presented no viable challenge to any regulation or 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-3149 Document: 010110051293 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 7 
'2A 

. 8/82) 

policy cited by the defendants in support of the motion for summary 

judgment. 

Participation in Religious Services 

Plaintiff alleges his rights under the First Amendment 

were violated by the defendants' refusal to allow him to conduct 

services or preach. The policy at USPL is to place no inmate in 

a position of leadership, including leadership of religious 

activities. The rare exception to this policy permits an inmate who 

has demonstrated his sincerity and participated in religious 

activities for a significant period of time to preach during a 

service near the time of his scheduled release. (Affidavit of 

Manford R. Craig, Regional Chaplain Administrator, Paragraphs 6-7.) 

Due to his life sentence, plaintiff obviously was not within this 

exception, and the refusal of authorities to allow plaintiff to 

conduct services was in consonance with institution policy. 

Moreover, while plaintiff appears to base his claim on his 

assertion that he is an ordained minister, an inmate has no right 

to practice his profession while incarcerated. 28 C.F.R. § 540.45. 

Therefore, even assuming arguendo that plaintiff could establish his 

status as an ordained me~~er of the clergy, plaintiff would have no 

right to exercise a role of leadership in institutional religious 

activities. The court finds no valid constitutional claim is stated 

by plaintiff's allegations. 

Establishment of Religion 

Plaintiff alleges defendants have encouraged other 

religious faiths and have thereby improperly engaged in the 

establishment of a religion. At the time this action was commenced, 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-3149 Document: 010110051293 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 8 
.. 

72A 

. 81821 

the USPL Chaplain's office used approximately 25% of its annual 

budget for supplies, equipment and religious program support. The 

funds in question were used primarily to develop non-Christian 

programs since Christian groups within the prison received free 

materials and services from outside sources. (Craig Affidavit, 

Paragraph 5 . ) Even viewing these circumstances in the light most 

favorable to plaintiff, the court finds no cognizable constitutional 

claim is presented by plaintiff's allegations that defendants have 

established a religion in violation of plaintiff's First Amendment 

rights. 

Interference with Religious Studies 

Plaintiff alleges defendants have interfered with his 

theological studies. He specifically asserts that defendants have 

not established a written schedule for access to tape recorders for 

use with recorded sermons and lectures. The materials filed in this 

action reveal that plaintiff has been accorded the same opportunity 

as other inmates to use cassette players and recordings available 

through the Religious Department and that plaintiff has also sought 

access to equipment through the Education Department. (Craig 

Affidavit, Paragraph 21.) The court finds plaintiff's claim 

regarding interference with his studies to be vague and without 

merit and concludes that no constitutional claim is stated. 

Chaplaincy Personnel 

Plaintiff alleges defendants have refused to hire black 

chaplains or other black employees in the Chaplain's office. The 

documents filed in this action demonstrate that at the time 

plaintiff filed his complaint, USPL employed a black minister on a 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-3149 Document: 010110051293 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 9 
1 

2A 

81821 

contract basis who was available to inmates and that the Bureau of 

Prisons has recruited both black and white clergy for positions in 

the chaplaincy. (Affidavit of Paul Kennedy, Chaplain, Paragraph 7; 

Craig Affidavit, Paragraphs 14 and 15.) The court finds this claim 

to be without merit. 

Use of Administrative Remedies 

Plaintiff alleges the requirement that he exhaust 

available administrative remedies violates his right of access to 

the courts. It is well settled in this circuit that in the context 

of pro se pleadings filed by p.,..; c::n-no.,..c::, the development of an 

administrative record "is not to unduly interfere with or to place 

unreasonable conditions on the exercise of constitutional rights. 

It is instead the use of preliminary proceedings to accommodate the 

usual remedies to the fact that the plaintiff is imprisoned." Brice· 

v. Day. 604 F.2d 664, 667 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 

1086 (1980). 

claim. 

The court therefore finds no merit to plaintiff's 

Urine Testing 

Plaintiff alleges defendants have violated his rights 

under the First and Eighth Amendments by subjecting him to urine 

testing in the presence of institutional personnel. Plaintiff 

asserts this testing is intended to harass members of his religious 

community. Pursuant to Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 6060.3, 

defendants conduct a urine surveillance program in order to detect 

illegal drug use within USPL. The policy permits the testing of 

inmates considered high risk for drug usage, those suspected of drug 

use, and a random sample of the population. (Affidavit of Torris 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-3149 Document: 010110051293 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 10 
1 

,CR:RL 

72A 

'· 8/821 

Germany, Paragraphs 2 and 3.) 

It is well settled that due to the need for security in 

a penal institution, authorities may conduct such procedures as body 

cavity searches without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. 

See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546 {1979). It follows logically 

from this conclusion that the mere taking of a urine sample from an 

inmate . in the presence of those charged with administering a 

surveillance program does not impact upon any constitutionally 

protected interest. Plaintiff's bald allegations that urine 

surveillance constitutes c~~el and unusual punishment or otherwise 

constitutes harassment do not establish a claim of constitutional 

dimension. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT defendants' motion for 

summary judgment is hereby granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this action is hereby dismissed 

and all relief denied. The clerk of the court shall transmit copies 

of this Memorandum and Order to plaintiff and to the office of the 

United States Attorney. 

DATED: This /~ day of May, 1990, at Topeka, Kansas. 

United States District Judge 

8 

Appellate Case: 90-3149 Document: 010110051293 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 11 
t AO 450 (Rev. 5/851 Judgment In • Civil Case e 

HA~D WILLIAMS, JR., 

EDWIN MEESE, 

et al., 

V. 

Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 

CASE NUMBER: 87-3242 

0 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury_ The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered 

its verdict. 

~ Decision by Court. This action came ~ before the Court. XUBKU~X~ and a 

decision has been rendered. 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendants' motion for sumnary judgment is 

. _hereby granted. 

IT IS ORDERED AND AnJUDGED that the plaintiff take nothing, that the action 

be dismissed on the merits and all relief be denied. 

ENTERED ON THE OC::X::KET May 1, 1990. 

May 1, 1990 RALPH L. DeLOACH 

Date Clerk 

(By/ Deputy Clerk 

G? I 

Appellate Case: 90-3149 Document: 010110051293 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 12