Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05010/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05010-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Defendants referred to their motion as one for directed verdict. Since December 1, 1991, a motion for directed 1

verdict has been entitled a motion for judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 (1991 amendment advisory

committee’s notes) . However, Rule 50 only applies to motions made in jury trials. “A motion to dismiss an action at the

end of the plaintiff’s case in a non-jury trial, however, is properly entitled a motion for judgment on partial findings.” 

Williams v. Mueller, 13 F.3d 1214, 1215 (8th Cir. 1994)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). 

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ZACHERY CURTIS DANIEL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5010

 

CORPORAL TRIMBERGER;

and SHERIFF TIM HELDER DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro

se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff maintains his First Amendment right to the free exercise of

religion was denied when he was prohibited from having his Bible while confined to the “padded

cell” at the Washington County Detention Center. 

On December 11, 2007, an evidentiary hearing was held. The court heard the testimony

of the following witnesses: Marshall Cole; Corporal Thomas Trimberger; Sheriff Tim Helder;

Captain Randy Osburn; and Lt. Lloyd Ellis Muggy, Jr. At the conclusion of the hearing, the

defendants moved for entry of judgment in their favor. The court announced its intention of 1

recommending that judgment be entered in defendants’ favor and the plaintiff’s case be

dismissed.

 

Case 5:06-cv-05010-JLH Document 36 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Background

Daniel was booked into the Washington County Detention Center (WCDC) on November

11, 2005. Defendants’ Exhibit 3. At issue here is Daniel’s stay in what is referred to as the

“padded cell” at the WCDC from January 2, 2006, to January 4, 2006. 

On January 2nd, Daniel complained that he was feeling very depressed about family

issues, his family did not love him, and his Mother had not written him in two months. Defts’

Ex. 4. He stated his situation seemed hopeless. Id. 

In response, at 2:00 p.m. Daniel was placed in a padded cell for his safety. Resp. at ¶ 20;

Defts’ Ex. 4. He was placed on fifteen minute checks. Defendants’ Exhibit 6. He remained in

the padded cell until January 4th at 8:45 a.m. Id. at page 3.

On January 3rd, Daniel submitted a grievance stating he had been denied his Bible on last

night’s shift by Corporal Matthews and today by Corporal Trimberger. Defts’ Ex. 5. He asked

if he was allowed to have his Bible in isolation. Id. He also asked to speak to the chaplain, the

nurse, and a sergeant. Id.

In response Daniel was told he was not allowed to have his Bible while in the padded

cell. Defts’ Ex. 5. He was told he was only allowed to have the smock he was wearing. Id. He

was told he would be given a request form to speak to the chaplain. Id.

The WCDC policy with respect to inmate religious services is that inmates are permitted

to worship or meditate at a reasonable time as prescribed by their faith; have access to clergy of

their faith, if available; and adhere to the dietary laws of their faith where possible. Plff’s Ex. 1.

The WCDC policy with respect to suicidal detainees is that they shall be confined to a

holding cell and placed on a fifteen minute watch. Defts’ Ex. 1. The detainee is to be put in a

Case 5:06-cv-05010-JLH Document 36 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

suicide smock and is not to have anything in the cell. Id. Water is turned off to the cell and the

detainee is fed on paper. Id. The detainee’s spoon, cup, and plate are removed immediately after

the detainee is done eating. Id. 

Corporal Trimberger testified he spoke with Daniel about his request to have a Bible in

the padded cell. Trimberger told Daniel he did not believe he would be allowed to have the

Bible because detainees were not allowed to have anything while in the padded cell. 

However, Trimberger consulted Sergeant Jeremy Parker about the request. Trimberger

consulted with Parker because the request was for a Bible and Trimberger wanted to make sure

he wasn’t infringing on someone’s rights. This was the first time someone had asked Trimberger

for a Bible in the padded cell. 

According to Trimberger, Parker reviewed the request and Daniel’s past history at the

facility. Because Daniel was suicidal and in the padded cell, for safety reasons Parker said

Daniel should not be allowed to have the Bible. Trimberger and Parker discussed the fact that

detainees could take a Bible and make a weapon out of it. Lt. Muggy was the supervisor over

Parker that day. 

Detainees are told they are only supposed to put one question per request form. Daniel

had two questions on his request form. Defts. Ex. 5. Trimberger testified this is why Daniel was

told he would be given a request form to request to speak to the chaplain. Id.

Trimberger testified he had no idea Daniel had a book in the padded cell. If Daniel had

a book, it would have been against the rules. 

Trimberger did not see anything in the cell except the smock. The smocks are a padded

outfit about an inch thick that are quilted and warm. They have velcro fasteners. There are two

Case 5:06-cv-05010-JLH Document 36 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

styles. One style is a dress and the other style has legs. The smock looks similar to a vest you

put on when you go to a dentist.

The door to the padded cell has a window approximately eighteen inches by four or five

inches. Trimberger stood at this window and looked in it when talking to Daniel. Trimberger

was not attempting to make a visual inspection of the cell. Trimberger never saw anything in the

cell. 

When detainees are assigned to the padded cell, they get an hour out. During the hour

out, they can shower, look at the paper, the Bible, use the phone, etc. 

Although Trimberger had never heard of a detainee hurting himself with a soft covered

Bible, he believed a detainee could hurt himself by shoving pages in his ears, nose, or mouth.

Detainees are placed in the padded cell for their safety and the reason no items are allowed is

because they do not want to take the chance.

Sheriff Helder, Captain Randy Osburn, and Lt. Lloyd Ellis Muggy, Jr., all testified that

if Daniel had a novel in the cell, it would have been a violation of the rules. They each testified

the rules for the padded cell prohibit detainees from having any items in the cell. They testified

there are no deviations from this rule allowed. They also indicated that detainees had harmed

themselves with paper.

Daniel elected not to testify himself. He indicated he wasn’t thinking about all of this

when he filed the lawsuit. He simply wanted to have his Bible while in the padded cell. 

Discussion

“Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the

Constitution.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987).

Case 5:06-cv-05010-JLH Document 36 Filed 12/12/07 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

“Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, including its directive that

no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.” O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342,

348, 107 S. Ct. 2400, 96 L. Ed. 2d 282 (1987). See also Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 92 S. Ct.

1079, 31 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1972). 

This right, however, is not without limitation. The Supreme Court has recognized that

“incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and

rights.” O’Lone, 482 U.S. at 348. “The free exercise right is limited insofar as a prisoner’s

adherence to religious practices may be regulated by prison authorities, so long as such

regulations are’ reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.’” Murphy v. Carroll, 202

F. Supp. 2d 421, 424 (D. Md. 2002)(quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 89; O’Lone v. Estate of

Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348-349, 107 S. Ct. 2400, 96 L. Ed. 2d 282 (1987); Cruz, 405 U.S. at

322). See also Thomas v. Gunter, 32 F.3d 1258, 1259-60 (8th Cir. 1994).

In analyzing a First Amendment free exercise claim, the court first addresses the

“threshold issue of whether the challenged governmental action ‘infringes upon a sincerely held

religious belief,’ and then appl[ies] the Turner factors to determine if the regulation restricting

the religious practice is ‘reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives.’” Murphy v.

Missouri Department of Corrections, 372 F.3d 979, 983 (8th Cir. 2004). “Prison regulations that

infringe on the constitutional rights of prisoners are judged by their reasonableness. Prison

officials are not required to choose the least restrictive means possible in furthering

administrative interests.” Salaam v. Lockhart, 905 F.2d 1168, 1171 (8th Cir. 1990).

In Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987), the

Court set forth a reasonableness test consisting of four factors used to balance an inmate’s free

Case 5:06-cv-05010-JLH Document 36 Filed 12/12/07 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

exercise right and the prison’slegitimate correctional goals and security concerns. Specifically,

the court considers: (1) whether there exists a rational connection between the prison policy or

regulation and a legitimate governmental interest advanced as its justification; (2) whether there

are alternative means of exercising the right notwithstanding the policy or regulation; (3) what

effect accommodating the exercise of the right would have on guards, other prisoners, and prison

resources generally; and (4) whether there are ready, easy-to-implement alternatives that would

accommodate the prisoner’s rights. Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-91.

In this case, Daniel’s claim is based on his confinement to a padded cell from January 2,

2006, at 2:00 p.m. until January 4, 2006, at 8:45 a.m. Defts’ Ex. 6. He was placed in this cell

on fifteen minute checks after he complained of feeling depressed. Defts’ Ex. 4. Daniel

indicated he believed his situation was hopeless. Id. 

During the time he was confined to the padded cell, Daniel was prohibited from

possessing his Bible. The WCDC policy prohibited the possession of any personal property by

detainees confined to the padded cell. Defts’ Ex. 1. The testimony of the witnesses was

undisputed that this policy was based on a prior history of detainees injuring themselves with

paper. The policy was designed to ensure the safety of the detainees. 

The testimony was also undisputed that if Daniel did somehow have a novel or other

papers in the padded cell neither Trimberger or Helder were aware of this fact and it was a

violation of the defendants’ policy. The undisputed testimonywas no deviations from the policy

were made. 

Case 5:06-cv-05010-JLH Document 36 Filed 12/12/07 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

When in the padded cell, Daniel was able to worship and pray. When he was released for

his hour out from the padded cell, he could read his Bible. When he was returned to his regular

cell, he could once again have his Bible. 

Conclusion

A noted at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, for the reasons stated, I believe

defendants have advanced legitimate reasons for their policy and recommend that the defendants’

be granted judgment in their favor. I further recommend that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed

with prejudice.

The parties have ten days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which

to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 12th day of December 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05010-JLH Document 36 Filed 12/12/07 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>