### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d O n B ri ef

Jul y 23, 200 4 LARRY ECHOL S EL v . FRED FIGUEROA, ET AL 

### . Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Hardem an Coun ty

No. 9397 Jon Ke rry Blackwood , Judge

No. W2004-00617-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Dece m ber 9, 2004

Th e Pla int if

f, a n inm a te , fi le d su it a lle g ing that he wa s un la wf ull y de prive d h is rig ht t o p ra c tic e his re lig ion a ndthat c e rt a in o f h is r e lig iou s ta pe s w e rec on fi sc a te d a ndhe wa s d e nie d th e ri g ht t o cong reg ate and worsh i p in acc ordanc e with his faith. Def endants filed a

motion for summary judg me n t s u p p o rte d b y a n a f f id a v it a n d Pl a in ti f

f r e s p o n d e d w ith h is o w n a f f id a v it

. Having determined that there are disputed issues of materia l fac t, we re verse . Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t R e ve r se d; and Rem anded
D AVI D R. F ARMER , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt, inw h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
L arry Echols El, Pr

o s e . J ames I . Pentecost and B randon O . Gibson, J ackson, Te nnes s ee, for the a ppellees, Fred F igue roa, Willi e Cle mmo ns a ndDann y Wilk e s. OP IN ION At the time of filing his complaint, the plaintiff , L ar ryEchols El, was an inmate in the Whit e vil le Cor

re c tio na l F a c ili ty

(WC F ) i n H ard e ma n Co un ty , T e nn e sse e . M r. El wa s a Wisc on sin inmate and the Wis consin Depa rtment of Corre ctions had contra cted with Corre ctions Corporation of America ( CCA) to house Wis consin inmates at C CA’s Whit eville fa cility . Def endant Fred F ig ue ro a is d e sc ri be d inthec omp la int a s th e wa

rd e n o f WC F . D e fe nd a nt Wi llie C le mon s is des cri bed as th e ass is tan t ward en of pro grams and Defen dan t Dan ny W il kes as C hap li n atth e W CF.
Th e g ravamen of

Mr . E l’ s c omp la int

is that hewa s u nla wf

ull y de prive d o f the ri g ht t o prac tice his relig ion while incar cer ated at WC F. It is alleg ed that this deprivation consisted of the confiscation of his relig ious tapes and the de nial of his rig ht to cong reg ate and worship in acc ordanc e with his faith. Mr. El is a member of the Moorish Scienc e Te mple of America, Inc. (MSTA). H eW i cca i s def i ned a s “ wi t chc r af

t , es p. bene vol ent , na t ur e- ori ent ed prac t i ces der i ved from p r e- C hr i s t i an 1

r el i gi ons . ” R a n d o m H o u se U n a b ri d g ed D i cti o n a ry 2 1 7 2 (2 n d e d .1 9 9 3 ). -2- states that he is a reg istered “ Moslem” and that his re ligion “w as founde d in 1913 A.D. by Prophet Noble Dr ew Ali.” T he member s of the temple a re know n as Moors. In early Sept em b er 2000, Warden F igue roa posted a memo advising inmates that casse tte tapes and ca ssette play ers we re no longe r allowe d in the corr ectional institution. I nmates we re a dvised that they had until September 15, 2000, to remove the se items from the f acility , either by having the i tems mailed out , donated, or destroy ed. On or

about September

20, 2000, fiftee n casse tte tapes wer e re moved from the Plaintiff’ s cell.
On or a

bout April 20, 2001, all WC F inmates w ere require d to complete a Re ligious P refere nce Fo rm if th ey des ir ed to part ici pat e in wor sh ip ser vi ces or reli giou s s tu dygroup s atW CF. Th e Re lig iou s Pr e fe re nc e F orm st a te s inpe rt ine nt p art a s f oll ow s: I f y ou want to participate in Congr eg ate W orship Service s or R elig ious St udy Groups or ac quire re ligious prope rty except books and literature y ou need to f ill out t his form a ndc he c k w hat r e lig iony ou pr e fe r. I f y ou c ha ng e y ou r m indlate r andwant t o participate in Congr eg ate Worship Service s or R el igious Study Groups or a cquire relig ious property

of a differ ent relig ion, y ou have to wait 6 months from the date y ou last filled out the form. I f y ou don’t have any relig ious prefe renc e at this time, y ou c a n c he c k “ No Pr e fe re nc e ” . I f y ou c he cked “N o Pr e fe re nc e ” y ou c a n f ill ou t th is form and c heck the re l i gi o n y o u pref er at any time. Participation in any relig ious a c t i v i t y i s v o l u n t ar y. CHECK ONE

__ _ Th is i s th e fi rs t ti me I ha ve fi lle d o ut this fo rm .

___ I filled out a form like this before, but I am choosing a diffe rent re ligion.
Che c k T he Re lig ionYo u Pr e fe r. I f Y ou Pr e fe r A Re lig ion Th a t is No t List e d, Wri te It I n After The Word, “Othe r”

___ Buddhist

___ Protestant

___ Catholic

___ Wicca 1

___ I slam

___ Other ________________________

___ J ewish

___ No Prefe renc e

___ Native Ame rica n“M o sle m ” is d e fine d a s a “[v a ria tio n ] o f M u slim

. W eb st er’s N i n t h N ew C o l l eg i a t e D i cti o n a ry 773 ( 9 e d. th 2 19 91 )

. “ M us l i m” i s def i ned a s “ an adher ent of I s l am. ” Id . at 7 8 2

. -3- Mr. E l d e s c r ib e s h im s e lf a s a M o s le m. T h e D e f

e n d a n ts f il e d a mo ti o n f

o r s u mm ary 2 judgme nt which the trial court g rante d. Mr. El appea led and the issue befor e this Court is whether thetria l c ou rt

e rr e d ing ranti ng themot ionfo r s umm ary jud g me nt. Stan dard of Revie w Our standa

rd of r eview is a s set forth in Staples v. CBL & Associates, Inc

. , a s f oll ow s: The standa

rds governing an appe llate court’s revie w of a motion for summary judgme nt are w e ll s e tt le d

. Si n c e o u r in q u iry in v o lv e s p u r e ly

a q u e s ti o n o f

la w , no pr e su mpt ionof

c or re c tne ss atta c he s to thelow e r c ou rt ’s jud g me nt, a ndou r t a sk is c on fi ne d to re vie wi ng there c or d to de te rm inewh e the r the re qu ir e me nts of Te nn . R. Civ. P. 56 have been met. Se e Hu nte r v . B ro wn , 955 S.W .2d 49, 50-51 (Te nn. 1997); Cow de n v . S ov ra n B an k /Ce ntr al S ou th , 816 S.W .2d 741, 744 (Tenn. 1991)

. Te nn e sse e Rul e of

Civ il Pr oc e du re 56 .0 4 p ro vid e s th a t su mma ry jud g me nt i s app ro priate wh e re : ( 1) the reis n o g e nu ineiss ue wi th r e g ardto the mate ri a l f a c ts rele v an t t o t h e claim or de fense contained in the motion, se e By rd v . H all , 847 S.W .2d 208, 210 (Tenn. 1993); and (2) the m oving party is entitled to a judg ment as a matter of law on the undisputed fa cts. See Anderson v. Standard Register Co. , 857 S.W. 2d55 5, 55 9 ( Te nn . 199 3)

. Th e mov ing pa rty ha s th e bu rd e n o f p ro vin g that it s motion satisfies these requir ements. S e e D o wn e n v . A ll s ta te I n s . Co. , 8 11 S.W .2d 52 3, 52 4 (T e nn . 1 99 1) . Wh e n th e pa rty se e kin g su mma

ry jud g me nt m ake s a

pr op e rl y su pp orte d mo tio n, the bu rd e n sh if ts to theno nmo vin g pa

rty to s e t f orth s pe c if

ic fa c ts establishing the exis tence of disputed, material fac ts which must be resolved by the trier of fac t. Se e By rd

v . H all , 847 S.W .2d at 215.
To pr op e rl y

su pp ort it s mo tio n, themov ing pa rty mus t e ith e r a ff

irmative ly ne g a te a n e sse nti a l e le me nt o f the no nmo vin g pa rty ’s c la im o r c on c lus ive ly e sta bli sh an af firmative de fense

. See M cCarley v . W

est Quality Food Serv. , 960 S.W .2d 585, 5 8 8 ( T e n n . 1 99 8) ; R obinson v. Ome r , 952 S.W .2d 423, 426 (Tenn. 1997) . I f the moving pa

rty fails to neg ate a claimed basis for the suit, the non-moving party ’s bu rd e n to pr od uc e e vid e nc e e sta bli sh ing thee xiste nc e of

a g e nu ineiss ue fo r t

ri a l is not trigg ere d and the motion for summary judgme nt must fail. Se e Mc Car ley v . W e st Quality Food Serv. , 9 60 S.W. 2da t 58 8; Robinson v . Omer , 952 S.W .2d at 426. I f the movin g party

succe ssfully

neg ates a

claimed ba sis for the ac tion, the non-moving partymay n o t s imp ly r e s t u p o n th e p le a d in g s , b u t mu s t o f f e r p r o o f to e s ta

b li s h the e xiste nc e of

thee sse nti a l e le me nts of thec la im.
The standards g overning the assessment of evidenc e in the s u m m ary judgme nt context are also we ll establis h ed

. C o urts must view the evidenc e in the-4-

lig ht m os t f

a vo ra bleto the no nmo vin g pa rty a ndmus t a ls o draw a ll r e a so na ble infere nces in the nonmoving party ’s fa vor. See R obins o n v. Ome r , 952 S.W .2d at 42 6; By rd v . H all , 847 S.W .2d at 210-11. Courts should gr ant a summary judgme nt on ly wh e n b oththefa c ts andtheinf e re nc e s to be dr awn from th e fa c ts p e rm it a rea sonable pe rson to rea ch only one conc lusion. See M

cCall v. W

ilder , 913 S.W .2d 15 0, 15 3 ( Te nn . 1 99 5) ; Carvell v. Bottoms , 900 S.W .2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995)

. Staples v. CBL & Associates, Inc

. , 15 S.W .3d 83, 88-89 (Te nn. 2000)(f ootnote omitted).
I n suppo rt o f t h e motion for summary judgme nt, Defe ndants filed the a ffidavit of Warde n F ig ue ro a wh ic h s tate s a s f

oll ow s: 1. I [] wa s e mpl oy e d a s Ward e n at Whi te vil le Cor rect io na l f

a c ili ty (“WCF”) in Whi teville, Har deman County , Tenne ssee during the time alleg ed in the Complaint . Inmate s f

ro m th e State of

Wisc on sin , in c lud ing inm a te L arry Ec ho ls E l, wer e housed at WC F during the time alleg ed in the Compliant, and eff orts wer e made to comply with policies mandated by the Wisconsin Department of Corr ections whe n p r a c t i c a l a n d i n t h e b e s ti n t e r e s to f t h e f a c i l i t y. 2. I n 1999, the Wisconsin Department of Corr ections ame n d e d it s p olicy to p ro hib it i nmate s f

ro m po sse ssi ng c a sse tte tape s a nd cass ett e play e rs . T his amendmen twa s d ee m ed n ec es s ar y fo r t h e s af

et y an d s ec u ri t y

o f c o rr ec t i o n al fa cilities op e rate d b y

theState of Wisc on sin or tho se c on tr a c tin g wi th the State of Wisc on sin to h ou se Wisc on sininm a te s. 3. Onor

abo ut A ug us t 17 , 2 00 0, I iss ueda Me mor a nd um t o a ll WCF inmates and staf

f ad v i s i ng that casse tte tapes a nd casse tte play ers would no long er be a llo we d a ft e r S e pte mbe r 1 5, 20 00

. A c op y of theMe mor a nd um i s atta c he d h e re to as Exhibi t “A”.
4. On or a

bout September 20, 2000, WCF staff confiscated approximately

fiftee n (15) c assette tape s from the Plaintiff. Ther e i s no indication that the casse tte tapes confiscated from the Plaintiff we re r elig ious in nature, but eve n if they wer e, they would still be considere d contra band. Furthermore , even i f t he cass e tt e ta

p e s w e r e r e li g io u s in n a tu r e , th e Pl a in ti f f h a d a lt e r n a ti v e me a n s , s u c h as wr itt e n li t e r a t u r e , t o o b t a i n a n d u t i l i z e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d o n t h e c a s s e tte tape s. 5. Be cause of an inc rea s e i n the WCF inmate population, limi ted available space and incr easing security needs it bec ame ne cessa ry to identify

the re lig iou s pre fe re nc e s of all i nmate s a ndto p la c e a ll s ub -g ro up s u nd e r a pr e do min a te de no min a tio n a s f

ar a s sc he du lin g tim e s f

or re lig iou s se rv ic e s.-5- 6. It is my

un de rs ta nd ing that th e Pla int if f i nd ic a te d th a t he was a member of

the Moorish Science Temple of America

. It is further my understanding that the Moorish Science Temple of A merica is a sub-g roup of the Muslim faith, and therefo re the Plaintiff would have be en allowe d to prac tice his relig ious beliefs during the times scheduled f or the Muslim faith.
7. Therewas ne ver any att empt on my part, or any

other WCF staff member that I

am awa re, to interfe re with the P laintiff’s right t o prac tice his relig ious beliefs. How ever , it wa s deeme d in the best interest of the fac ilityto prohibit inm ates fr om p os se ssi ng c a sse tte ta pe s a nd c a sse tte play e rs , a nd it wa s ne c e ssa ry to s c he du le rel ig io u s service s under a

predominate denomination for the r easons indicated above

. To the best of my

knowledg e and be lief, the Plain t i ff wa s fre e to eng ag e in the prac tice of his re ligious belief s, and t he chang es in policy did not unreasona

bly aff ect his abilityto prac tice his beliefs a s he so chose

. 8. F urthe r, Af

fi a nt s a ithno t. Mr. El filed an a ffidavit in re sponse which state s, in essence , that the fiftee n casse tte tapes that wer e destroy ed we re r elig ious tapes of the Moorish Scie nce T emple of A merica relig ious service and Sunday

school lessons and we re de stro y ed wi t h out his permission. He asserts that he was allowed to pra ctice his re ligion fr om 1998 until 2001 w h en the Moorish Scienc e service wa s re m o v ed fr o m t h e sche dule and that he was not allowe d to cong reg ate in the c hapel with other Moorish members for

worship servic es. He fu rt h er states that the Moorish serviceis conducted d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n o t h e r Is l a m i c s e r v i c e s a n d t h a th e f o l l o w s t h e t e a c h i n g s o f

P r o p h e tD r e w A l i o n l y. He fu rthe r as se rt s tha t WCF wa s buil t to ho us e 1, 53 6 inmate s a ndthat Wis c on sinc on tr a c te d w ith C C A t o h o u s e 1 , 5 3 6 i n m a t e s a tt h e W h i t e v i l l e C o rr e c t i o n F a c i l i t y. It is ob vio us that the re are dis pu te d mat e ri a l fa c ts. F or e xamp le , Wa

rd e n F ig ue ro a

state s in his affida vit that lim ited space and incr ea s i ng security needs ma de it nece ssary to place a ll the inmates in various subg roups under predominant de nominations. He does notaddre ss why MSTA was not included in the va rious relig ious service s. Mr. El states in his affida vit that he was a llowed to prac tice his relig ion f

rom 1998 until 2001 when the Moorish Science servicewas re moved from the sche dule and, ther efor e, he was not allowed to cong reg ate in the chapel wit h other membe rs of his faithfo r w or sh ip s e rv ic e s. War de n F ig ue ro a ’s a ff ida vit do e s n ot a dd res s whytheMo orish Sc ie nc e se rv ic e wa s r e mov e d f ro m th e sc he du le fo r c ha

pe l se rv ic e s. War de n F ig ue ro a ’s a ff ida vit states that it is his understanding that MSTA is a subg roup of the Muslim faith and the ref ore Mr . El wo uldha ve be e n a llo we d to pr a c tic e his re lig iou s b e lie fs du ri ng thetim e s sc he du le d f or theMu sli m faith. To the c ontrary , Mr. El’s af fidavit states that the MS TA service is conduc ted diffe rently than other I slamic servic es and f ollows onlythe teac hings of Prophet Dre w Ali.( 4) G over nme nt 3 T h e t er m “ g ov er n men t ” –

(A ) m ea ns – ( i ) a S t a t e , c ou n t y , mu n i c i pa l i t y , or ot h e r g ov e r n me n t a l e n t i t y c r e at ed
u n d e r th e a u tho rity o f a S ta te ;

(i i ) any branch, dep art m ent , agency, i nst rume nt al i t y , or o f f i ci al of any en t i t y l i s t ed i n c l au s e ( i ) ; a n d

(iii) a n y o the r p e rs o n a c ting un d e r c o lo r o f S ta te law ;
4 2 U

. S.C

. § 2 0 0 0 cc- 5 (4)(20 0 3 ).

-6- Mr. El contends that this ca se is g overne d by the Relig ious L and Use and Institut ionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc - 2000cc- 5 (the Act). The Act prohibits gove rnmental imposit ion 3 of a “ su bs ta nti a l bu rd e n o n there lig iou s e xer c ise ” of a priso ne r u nle ss the bu rd e n “ (1 ) i s in further ance of a compelling g overnme ntal interest; and (2) is the l east re strictive means of furthering that c omp e lli ng g ov e rn me nta l inte re st. ” 42 U. S.C. § 200 0c c -1 (a )( 1) (2 )( 20 03 ). Th e ru le app lie s in case s in which –

(1) the substantial bur den is imposed in a prog ram or a ctivity that rec eives Fe dera l financia l assistance; or (2 ) the su bs ta nti a l bu rd e n a ff e c ts, or re mov a l of that su bs ta nti a l bu rd e n w ou ld a ff e c t, c omm e rc e wi th f

or e ig n n a tio ns , a mon g these ve ra l State s o r w ithI nd ia n tribe s. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1( b)(1) (2)( 2003).
Th e App ell e e s d id n ot a dd re ss the Ac t in the ir brie f b ut a

rg ue that th e reis n oth ing in this re c or d to ind ic a te that th e po lic ie s a ndre g ulatio ns imp osed on theAp pe llant w e reno t r a tio na lly re late d to a

le g iti mate pe na l log ic a l int e re st. Ea c h of thec a se s r e lie d u po n b y theAp pe lle e s p re date the Act, whi ch was enac ted September 22, 2000. Sufficient evide nce is not found in the r ecor d befor e us to make a

deter m i n at i o n as to whethe r the Ac t applies to the ca se at ba r. This will be determined by

the trial court on remand. Having determined that there are disputed issues of materia l f act whic h prec lude summary judgme nt, the trial court’ s g rant of summary judgmen t i s reversed and this cause r emande d to the trial court f

or further proc eeding s consistent with this opinion. Costs of t his appea l are taxed to the Ap pe lle e s, F re d F ig ue ro a , Wil lie Cle mon s, a ndDann y Wilk e s.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE