These de fenda nts include: Patricia L . Caruso, Dire ctor of the MDOC; Unknown Straub, 1 D e p u ty D ir e c to r o f th e M D O C; D a v e J. B u r n e tt , M D O C Sp e c ia l A c ti v it ie s Co o r d in a to r ; Robert Mulvaney , MDOC Security Threat Group Coordinator; J er i -Ann S herr y , Warden of Chippew a Correc tio n al Fa cility

(“Chippewa ”); Gr egMcQuig g in, Deputy Warden of Chippew a; Michae l Br own, Security Threat G roup Coordinator at Chippewa ; Steven Therr ian, a lieutena nt at Chippewa; NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0614n.06 Nos. 08-1710/1779/1820 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

L AMONT B ERNARD HEARD, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. PATRI CI A CARUSO, named as Direc tor of the Michig an De partment of Corre ctions, in her individual capa city , et al., De fend ant s- App e lle e s, RA ND A L L M A S KE R , n a

m e d a s Ma il Room S upervisor, in his individual c a p a c i t y. Defendan t-Appellee.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

O P I N I O N

Be for e : M OORE, C LA Y, and K ETHL ED G E, C ir c uitJudg e s. KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circ uit Jud ge. L amont Be rnar d Hea rd (“ Hea rd”) , a Michig an prisoner

proce eding pro se, appeals the district c ourt’s g rant of summar y judgme nt in favor

o f D e f e n d a nts
- A p p e ll e e s , s e v e r a l e mp lo yees of the Michig an De partment of Corr ections (“ MDOC”), in this civil -rig hts action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Additionally , Hea rd appe als the judg ment 1Sandy Shaw, a chapla in at Chippew a; Daniel Ezrow, an inspector at Ba rag a Maximum Correc tional Fa cility (“B ara g a”) ; and D. Huhta, a resident unit offic er at Ba rag a. Th e reco rd indic ate s th a t H e ard ha s b e e n c on fi ne d to a t le a st t hr e e dif fe re nt m a ximum

2 secur ity fac iliti es, including the Standish Maxi mum Correc tional Fac ility in Standish, Mi chig an, the B ara g a Ma ximumCor

re c tio na l F a c ili ty

in B ara g a , M ic hig an, and the Ma rq ue tte Branc h Pr iso n in Marque tte, Michig an. 2 in f a vo r of MD OC e mpl oy e e Rand a ll Ma sk e r ( “ Ma sk e r” ) f oll ow inga

be nc h tr ia l on

He ard ’s c la im that Masker

opened Hea

rd’s leg al mail outside Hea rd’s pre sence . These c ases have bee n ref err ed to a pa ne l of the c ourt purs ua

nt to Rul e 34 (j )( 1) , Rul e s o f t he Sixth C ir c uit . U

po n e xami natio n, thi s panel una nimously ag ree s that oral ar g ument is not ne eded. B eca use there rema ins a g enuine issue of ma te ri a l f

a c t a s to wh e the r H e ard ’s pla c e me nt i n a ma ximum -s e c ur ity

pr iso n im pl ica tes a protec ted liberty

interest, we VA CA TE that part of the district c ourt’s summary -judg ment order and REMAND fo r f

ur the r cons ide ratio n o f w he the r H e ard ’s c on fi ne me nt i mpl ic a te s a lib e rt y int e re st and, if so, whe ther the state has g iven Hea rd t he process t o which he is due. W e also VA CA TE that part of the summary -judg ment order dismiss ing H ear d’s equa l-protec tion and RL UI PA claims for prison officia ls’ failure to a ccommodate his request for a Nation-of-I slam diet, and REMAND for further proce eding s. We AF F IRM the re maining pa rts of the district cour

t’s summary -j u d gment order , AF F IRM th e ju d g me n t in f a v o r o f M a s ker, a nd AFFIRM the var ious other ruling s by the dis tr ic t c ourt

that H e ard

c ha lle ng e s o n a

pp e a l. I. BACKG ROUND He ard is a n inma te in t

he c us tod y of the MD OC wh o h a s b e e n c on fi ne d to va ri ou s maximum

secur ity fac iliti es s ince Oc tober 21, 2004. Previously , Hea rd wa s confined at Chippewa 2 Correc tional Fac ility

(“Chippewa ”), a

low- to medium-sec urity fac ility in Kincheloe, Mic higa n. On Sep te mb e r

1 8 , 2 0 0 4 , p r is o no f

f ic ia ls p la c e d

H e ar d in s e g r e g a ti o nan d

c h ar g e d h im w it h major-3

misconduct (“I

ncite to Riot or Strike: Ri oting or Striking”) beca

use of s t at em en t s Heard made during a Nation-of- I slam relig ious se rvice

. R. 78 Ex

. E-B (Major Misconduct Report 9/18/04 at 2). During a spee ch g ener ally discussing the Nation of I slam and the hist ory of oppre ssion of black people in the United States, Hea rd stated, among other things, that “a resur rec ted man will not put up wi th m istre a tme nt a

nd wi ll str ike ba c k, ” “ me nti on [ed ] the

. . . F ru its of I sla m—[the ] [s]ec ur ity For ce of [t he Nation of I slam],” “ state[d] that

. . . the only way to establish peac e wa s throug h war ,” and “stated that the off

icer s do not want pea ce a s that disharmony is the ‘cr ux of their e x istence’ and maintains their jobs and li velihood.” R. 78 Ex

. E-A (Therr ian M emo 9/18/04). Hea rd also stated that “we have a re al problem he re.” Id. Whe n lat e r a sk e d b y a pr iso n o ff

ic ia l w hat he me ant b y

thi s, “He ard r esponded [that] he meant at [Chi ppewa ] . . . t he off icer s . . . do not respec t the black ma n, but they will.” Id. He ar d re qu es t ed a h ea ri n g an d ac ce s s t o re l ev an t d o cu m en t s an d wi t n es s es . At t h e h ea ri n g, Hea rd did not deny making these statements, but argued that prison officia ls had taken his words out of c on te xt fr om a

sp e e c h th a t ge ne ra lly c on c e rn e d the his tor y of bla c k p e op le in t

he Un ite d St a te s, wi th r e fe re nc e s to the fi lm ThePa ssi on of t he Chr ist and var ious Bible ver ses. R. 78 Ex . E-B (M i s co n d u ct He ar i n g R ep o rt 9 / 2 3 / 0 4 at 1 ). He ar d co n t en d edt h at h i s s p ee ch wa s n o tt h r e a t e n i n g, did not show disrespect towa rd cor rec tional office rs or disrupt the prison, a nd was prote cted by

the First Amendment. At the conclusion of the he aring , the hea ring office r upheld He ard’ s majormisconduct cha

rg e and pl ac em en t in seg reg ation, finding that Hea rd’s spee ch wa s “in a prison setting” and was “not protec ted spee ch bec ause he is advocating more than mere speec h but conduct b y i n s t i g a t i n g a c t i o n s w h i c h ar e i n t e n d e d t o s e r i o u s l y e n d an g e r

t h e p h ys i c a l s a f

e t y o f t h e f a c i l i t y, persons or pr operty .” Id.4

On Octobe r 7, 2004, Heard’ s major-misconduc t citation led prison officia ls to identify Hea rd as a “ rec ruiter,” classify

him as an adhe rent of “ I ntolerant/S u b v er s ive Groups,” and, following an interview w ith Hear d, design at e h i m a Secur ity Threa t Group (“ STG”) I Iunder the MDOC’s

secur ity -threat classification sy stem. R. 78 Ex . I(B rown Af f. ¶¶ 6-8). Unde r MDOC policy , Hea rd’s S T G II d e s i g n a t i o na

u t o m a t i c a l l y r e s u l t e d

i nh i s t r an s f

e r t o a L e v e l V m a x i m u m - s e c u r i t y f a c i l i t y. He ard fi le d in te rn a l g ri e va

nc e s c ha lle ng ingbo th h is i nit ia l ma jor -m isc on du c t c itatio n a

nd his STG I Ide sig natio n; a ll w e re de nie d b y pr iso n o ff

ic ia ls. He ard a lso fi le d a

re qu e st f or re mov a l of

his STG I I d es i gn ation, arguing that his designation as a “r ecr uiter” unde r the “ I ntolerant/Subversive Groups” c ateg ory

targ eted his me mbership in the Nation of I slam. On Octobe r 21, 2004, def endant Br own, Chippewa’ s STG Coordinator, denied H ear d’s re quest f o r r e mo v a l o f

th e ST GI Idesig nation,

e xpla ini ngthat H e ard ’s de sig natio n a s a “ re c ru ite r” and a dh e re nt of “ I nto le ra nt/ Sub ve rs ive Gr ou

ps ”

wa s n ot b a se d u

po n H e ard ’s me mbe rs hip in t he Natio n o f I sla

m but in ste a d w a s b a se d u po n h is actions and state ments, which “were a call to arms, a ca ll to others to rise up with y ou and join y our

cause .” R. 78 Ex. I -A (B rown Memo 10/21 / 04 at 2). Since be ing de signated STG I Iin October 20 04 , H e ard

ha s b e e n c on fi ne d a

t ma ximum -s e c ur ity faciliti e s in the Mic hig an p ri so n s y ste m. Hea rd’s c onfinement in maxim um-secur i t y fac iliti es evide ntly continues indefinitely

until prison of fi c ia ls d e c ide to r e mov e his STG I Ide sig natio n. Un de r M DO C po lic y , p ri so n o ff ic ia ls mus t

re vie w a pr iso ne r’ s ST G d e sig natio n at le a st o nc e e ve ry six mo nth s. On September

23, 2005, Hea

rd, proc eedingpro se, f

iled this § 1983 action, cha lleng ing on

sever al constitutional gr ounds the disciplinary actions take n ag ainst him and h is placeme nt and continued conf

inement in maxi mum-secur ity fac iliti es. He ard a l l eged that his procedur al-due

pr oc e ss r ig hts we re vio la te d w he n h e wa s d e sig nate d a se c ur ity thr e a t ( i.e ., S TG I I ) a

nd pla c e d in5

ma ximum -s e c ur ity

fa c ili tie s w ith ou t th e pr oc e dura l pr ote c tions to whi c h h e wa s d ue . H e ard

a lso

a lle g e d th a t pr is on of

fi c ia ls i nit ia te d th e se dis c ipl ina ry a c tio ns a g a ins t hi m in

re ta liatio n f

or his exercise of his First Amendment rig hts in his S eptember 18, 2004 speec h. Hea

rd asse rted that prison of fi c ia ls f ur the r r e ta liate d a g a ins t hi m f or fi lin g g ri e va

nc e s c hal leng ingthe se dis c ipl ina ry a c tio ns . Hea rd’s c omplaint also challeng ed the r efusa l of prison officia ls to acc ommodate hi s reque st for a dietary reg imen rec ommended by the Nation of I slam, assertingboth an equa l-protec tion claim and

a c la im und e r t

he Re lig iou s L and

Us e and I ns tit uti on a lize d Pe rs on s A c t ( “ RLUI PA” ), 42 U. S.C. § 2000cc- 1 et seq. Hea

rd additio n al l y

asser ted a r etaliation claim ag ainst defe ndant Huhta, a

corr ections off

ic e r a t B a r a g a Maximum Correc tional Fac ility (“B ara g a”) , alleg ing that Huhta planted

a bu lle t sh e ll in He ard ’s c e ll in re ta liatio n fo r H e ard ’s thr e a t to fi le a laws uit a g a ins t pr iso n o ff

ic ia ls. Finally , Hea

rd alleg ed that defe ndant Masker opened a nd rea d Hea

rd’s leg al mail outside of Hea rd’s pr e se nc e , d e sp ite He ard ’s re qu e st t o h a ve his le g a l ma il o pe ne d o nly wh e n h e is p re se nt. On Se pte mbe r 2 8, 20 05 , the dis tr ic t court g ra nte d He ard le a ve to p ro c e e d in fo rm a pa up e ri s. On December 21, 2005, the Defenda nts filed a motion to stay

discovery

on the g round that they

soon would be filing motion to di smiss Heard’ s complaint for failure to state a c laim upon which re lief can be g rante d. The district cour t gr anted a

stay o f d i s cover

y on Dec ember

23, 2005. After ob ta ini ngtw o e xten sio ns of tim e to f ile a re sp on siv e ple a din g , th e de fe nd ants fi le d a mot ion to dismiss on Fe bruar

y 13, 2006, arguing that Hear d’s complaint mis-joined parties in v i o l at i o n of F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure 20 and 21 by a sse rt ingc la ims a g a ins t va ri ou s d e fe nd ants that di d

no t ari se ou t of

the sam e tr ans a c tio n o r o c c ur re nc e or pr e se nt c omm on

qu e sti on s o f l aw a

nd fa c t. On April 3, 2006, a mag istrate judge issued a re port and re commendation (“ R&R”) rec ommendingThe R& R also rec ommended denia l of Hea rd’s motion for a

prelimi n ar y i njunction and 3 motion for summary judgme nt, both of which had be en filed be fore the def endants filed the ir motion to d ism iss

. 6 denial of the defe ndants’ motion to dism iss. The district cour t approve d the R&R on Aug ust 22, 3 2006. On J une 5, 2006—while defe n d an ts’ motion to di smiss was pending befor e the district court—the de fenda

nts filed a motion for summary judgme nt seeking dismis s al o f all of Hear d’s claims. On Jul y 5, 2006, Hea rd serve d defe ndants with a number of disc overy

reque sts, including interrog atories a

nd reque sts for admissions

. On J uly 21, 2006, the defendants filed a second motion to s tay dis c ov e ry , a

rguin g tha

t th e burd e n a

nd e xpe ns e of re sp on din g to H e ard ’s dis c ov e ry re qu e sts would outweig h the likely benef its and reque sting that discove ry n o t be per mitted pending the dispositi on of the de fenda nts’ motion for summary judgme nt. Hear d filed an opposition to the defe ndants’ motion to st ay discovery , arguing that the defe ndants possessed infor mation essential to establishing f

act issues for his various claims and that it would be im proper for the district court to r ule on the de fe nd ants ’ s umm ary -j ud g me nt m oti on wi tho ut f

ir st g ivi nghim

an opp or tun ity to

c o n d u c td i s c o v e r

y. On Au g us t 8, 20 06 , th e ma g istrate jud g e iss ue d anor de r g ra nti ngthe de fe nd ants ’ m oti on to sta y d i s c o v e r

y . T h e o r d e r s t a t e d t h a t i f H e ar d b e l i e v e d h e n e e d e d d i s c o v e r y t o d e f e n d a g a ins t defe ndants’ summary -judg ment motion, he could “file a supplemental response, indicating as sp e c if ic a lly a s p os sib le wh a t f

a c ts h e be lie ve s mi g ht b e re ve a le d in dis c ov e ry

wh ic h w ill su

pp or t hi s

cause .” R. 109 (Orde r Gra nting Mot. to Stay Discover y 8/8/06). On Aug ust 15, 2006, Hear d filed

a su pp le me nta l r e sp on se , w hic h in c lud e d a n a ff ida vit sw or n by He ard ide nti fy

ingva ri ou s d oc ume nts and information that Hear d believed w ere possessed by defe ndants and stating how Hea rd believe d7

this material could def

eat de fenda

nts’ summary -judg ment motion. See R.113 (Hea rd Supplement 8/15/06). The district cour t did not rule on or otherw ise respond to He ard’ s supplemental re sponse. On Novembe r 21, 2006, t he mag istrate judg e issued an R& R recommendingthat summary judgme nt be g rante d in favor of defe ndants on all of He ard’ s claims. On Fe bruar y 6 , 2 0 0 7 , afte r revie wing Hea

rd’s objec tions, the district court issued an opinion and orde r modifying the R&R and dismiss ing the case except as t o Hea rd’s claim ag ainst defe ndant M asker for ope ning H ear d’s leg al mail outside of Hea

rd’s pre sence . The district cour t subsequently denied He ard’ s motion t o alter or amend the summar

y -judg ment order

and He ard’ s motion for relief from that orde r. The district c ourt also denied H ear d’s Fe bruar y 28, 2008 motion to appeal a n o rder of the mag istrate judg e that allowed He ard to take the deposit ion of defendant Masker but disallowed He ard the use of a came ra

rec order or tape rec order

to make a rec ord of the deposition. Hea rd filed a notice of appea l f rom that order on May 23, 2008 (appe al No. 08-1710)

. On May 20 , 2 00 8, the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld a be nc h tr ia l on

He ard ’s re ma ini ngc la im a g a ins t defe n d an t M a s k e r an d o n M ay 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 , e n te r e d ju d g me n t f o r M a s k e r . O n Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , Hea rd filed a notice of appea l f

rom the judgme nt f

or Masker and the district c ourt’s prior order d eny ing relief from the summary -judg ment order (appe al No. 08-1779) . Hea rd also filed a

supplemental notice of a

ppeal on June 18, 2008 (appe al No. 08-1820) . The district court denied He ard’ s motion for a new tria l on November

18, 2008. On a pp e a l, H e ard

c ha lle ng e s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s grant of su mma ry jud g me nt f

or a ll defe ndants ex ce p t M as k er, the district court’s de nial of his discovery reque sts, the judgment fo llo wi nga

be nc h tr ia l in

fa vo r o f M a sk e r, and

se ve ra l ot

he r r uli ng s b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

.8 II. AN AL YSI S A. Summ ary-Judgm ent Order 1. Stand ard of Review We reviewa district cour t’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt de novo. Miller v. Admin. Office of t he Cou rts , 448 F.3d 887, 893 (6th Cir. 2006). The moving party is entitled to summ ary

judgme nt “if the ple ading s, the discover y and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavits show that there is no ge nuine issue as to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6( c ); see also Ande rson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). 2. P r oc e dur al- Due -P r oc e ss C lai m He ard argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt erred in d ism iss inghis pr oc e dura l- du e -p ro c e ss c la im beca use he ha s a cog nizable “liberty ” intere s t i n av o i ding STG I Idesig nation and the attendant

c on fi ne me nt t o maximum- se c ur ity fa c ili tie s. I n o rd e r t o p re va il o n a pr oc e dura l- du e -p ro c e ss c la im, an inmate must fir st de monstrate that he was de prived of “ life, liberty , or prope rty ” by g overnme nt action. W ilk ins on v . A us tin , 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). Prisoners reta in a liberty interest with re spect to s ta te -i mpo se d p ri so n d isc ipl ine that “ imp os e s aty pic a l and sig nif ic ant h ard sh ip o n th e inm a te in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). I f a prisoner establishes a liberty interest, the ne x t question is what proce ss the state must affor d befor e imposing the discipline in question. Au sti n , 545 U.S. at 224. Th e ini ti a l qu e s t i o ni nt h i s c a s e i s w h e t h e r H e ar d ’ s a l l e g e d l y

i n d e f i n i t e c o n f i n e m e n tto maxi mum-secur ity

fac i l ities beca

use of his STG I Idesig nation constitutes an “aty pical and signific ant hardship on [hi m] in r elation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sa nd in , 515 U.S. at 484. I n Sa nd

in , the S upreme Court held t hat an inmate’s assig nment to disciplinary seg reg ation for9

thi rt y da y s d id n ot i mpo se an “ a ty pic a l, s ig nif

ic ant de pr ivatio n” that im pli c a te d a n inma te ’s lib e rt

y interest. Id. at 486. I n rea ching this conclusion, the Court explained that disciplinary seg reg ation at the prison g ener ally

“mirror ed those c onditions i mposed upon inmates in ad m i n i s trative seg reg ation and prote ctive custody ,” the inmate’ s confineme nt in seg regat i on “did not exceed simil ar, but total ly

discretionar

y , confine ment in either duration or deg ree of re striction,” and the inmate’s seg reg ation would not “inevitably aff ect the dur ation of his sentence.” Id. a t4 8 6

- 8 7

. In Au sti n , h ow e ve r, the Sup re me Court he ld t hat pl acem e nt i n O hio ’s ma ximum -s e c ur ity pr iso n d id imp lic a te an inma te ’s lib e rt y int e re st. Th e Court

c on c lud e d th a t a ssi g nme nt t o th e ma ximum

secur ity prison “impose[d] an aty pical and sig nificant ha

rdship under a

ny plausible baseline,” and listed sever al factors t hat di stinguished such confine ment from the disciplinary seg reg ation at issue in Sa nd in : F or an inmate pla c e d in [the ma ximum -s e c ur ity pr iso n], a lmo st a ll huma n c on ta c t is prohibited, eve n to the point that conversation is not permitted fr om cell to cell; the light, thoug h it may

be dimmed, is on for 24 hours; e x erc ise is for 1 hour per day , but only in a small indoor room. Save pe rhaps f or the e specia lly

s ev ere limit ations on all human contac t, these conditions likely would apply

to most solitary

confine ment fac iliti es, but here there are two added components. First is the duration. Unlike the 30-day p l ac em ent i n Sa nd

in , p la c e me nt at [th e ma ximum -s e c ur ity pr iso n] is ind e fi nit e and , a ft e r a

n in iti a l 30 -d ay

re vie w, is r e vie we d ju st a nnua lly . Se c on d is that place ment disqualifies an other wise elig ible i nmate for

parole consideration. Whil e any

of these c onditions st anding alone mig ht no t b e s u fficient to create a lib e r t y i nt e r e s t , take n to g e the r t

he y imp os e an aty

pic a l and sig nif ic ant h ard sh ip w ith in the c or re c tio na l c on te xt. I t f

oll ow s th a t r e sp on de nts have a li berty int e re st i n a v o id in g a s s ig n me n t t o [th e maxim u m- s e c u r it

y p r is o n ]. Au sti n , 545 U.S. at 223-24 (c itations omi tted). Th e dis tr ic t c ou

rt —w ith ou t e x pl anat ion—f

ou nd tha t H e a rd ’s pla c e me nt i n ma

ximum -s e c ur ity fa c ili tie s in

Mic hig an wa s not an “ a ty pic a l and sig nif

ic ant h ard sh ip” that im

pli c a te d a lib e rt y int e re st. Howeve r, the limited rec ord bef ore us sugges t s that there is a fac t question as to whetherHea rd sty led the motion an “a ffidavit,” but it was unswor n. 4 10 confine ment to Michig an’s max imum-security fac iliti es—like t he Ohio max imum-security prison at issue in Au sti n —implicates a prote cted liberty interest. On August 30, 2006, Hea rd filed a motion to supplement, adding the following para g raph to a sworn decla ration that he ha d previously filed 4 on J anuar y 10, 2006: Security Threat Group desig nat i o n s t o s t atus I Iresult in plaintiff beingplace d in a maxi mum security

prison, which is the most secure d of all Michig an De partment of Correc tions prisons; but plaintiff does not challeng e the incr ease in classification as a re sult of the STG desi gn at i o n . The c halleng e is to the aty pical and sig nificant ha rd sh ips pla c e [d] on

pla int if f a s a re su lt o f the de sig natio n th a t tr ig g e r d ue pr oc e ss. Th e de sig natio ns are ind e fi nit e and pa ro le s are a

uto ma tic a lly

de nie d, the re are on ly fi ve min ute sh ow e rs (w hic h in c lud e wa sh ing and dr y ingof f) ; vi sit s are re str ic te d to two one hour non- contac ts visit s per month; and all human contac t is limit ed to y ard, dining ha ll, library and relig ious se rvice which culminate to a potential maxi mum of 21 hours out [of] the ce ll per we ek. Cell to cell communication is prohibit ed, the lig hts , th ou g h [th e y ] m ay be dim me d at ni g ht, [ar e ] on 2 4 h ours a da y . T he se conditions are not ordinary conditions in the l ife of a prisoner in lower leve ls (1-4) in M DO C. R. 117 (Mot. to S upplement 8/30/2006). Hea rd also submitted a “Par ole B oard N otice of D ecision,” indicating that Hea

rd wa s denied pa

role on June 19, 2006, in part beca use of his desig nation as STG I Iand his place ment in a m axim um-secur ity fac ility

. R. 100 (Mot. for L eave to File Exhibi t 7/14/06 at 2). I t i s n o t clea

r fr om this document whether, a s in Au sti n , H e ard ’s ma ximum -s e c ur ity de sig natio n a

uto ma tic a lly

dis qu a lif ie s h im f or pa ro le . F ina lly , th e re c or d s ho ws tha t pr iso n o ff

ic ia ls

are require d to reviewa prisoner ’s STG I Istatus only once ever y six months. R. 88 (Ezrow Aff. ¶ 8). B e c a us e the dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t e xpla in t he bas is fo r i ts f ind ingthat H e ard ’s pla c e me nt i n maxi mum-secur ity

fac iliti es did not impli cate a liberty interest, it is unclear whether the district court

c on sid e re d th e se ma te ri a ls.11

We conclude that there a

re material issues of fa ct that pre vent summary judgme nt on Hear d’s

c la im that hi s c on fi ne me nt t o a ma ximum -s e c ur ity

fa c ili ty impli cat e s a

pr ote c te d li be rt

y int e re st. Unlike the prisoner

in Harbin-Bey

v. Rutter , 420 F.3d 571, 576-77 (6th C ir. 2005), who c halleng ed

on ly his de sig natio n b y MD OC of fi c ia ls a s a

n ST G m e mbe r, He ard

c ha lle ng e s h is p la c e me nt i n maxi mum-secur i t y fa ci l i ties, coupled with the indef inite nature of

this placement a

nd the

c on se qu e nc e s f

or his e lig ib il it y

fo r p aro le . I t a

pp e ars that th e re ha s b e e n n o d isc ov e ry on the se iss ue s. On

re mand , th e dis tr ic t court sh ou ld pe rm it H e ard dis c ov e ry

re g ard ingma te ri a ls r e le va nt t o showing the conditions of hi s confine ment in maxi mum-secur ity fac iliti es, the nature a nd timing of

re vie w o f h is m a ximum -s e c ur ity placem ent , a

nd the c on se qu e nc e s o f h is p la c e me nt f or pa ro le elig ibilit y . Def

endants will, of course , have a n opportunity

to introduce e vidence showing that the

c on dit ion s o f c on fi ne me nt i n M i c h i g a n ’ s maximum -s e c ur ity

fa c ili tie s are dis tin g uis ha

ble fr om t ho se of the maximum -sec urity prison in Au sti n . I f a pr iso ne r e sta

bli sh e s a pr ote c te d lib e rt

y int e re st, the ne xt q

ue sti on is wh e the r the s tate aff orded t h e i n m at e suff

icient proc ess. See Au sti n , 545 U.S. at 224. The district cour t sugg ested that, even if

Hea rd had a liberty interest, he rec eived sufficie nt pr ocess when he “wa s called into the Captain’s off

ice and his actions we re discusse d” and w hen he “ rec eived a misconduct hea

ring and was found guilty ” bef

ore be ing de signated STG I I . R. 143 (Dist. Ct. Op. 2/6/ 07 at 3). However , on the bar e-bone s rec ord before us, we cannot s ay whether Hea rd receive d the proc ess that may be due if he ha s a protec ted liberty intere s t

. T h er ef

o re, if the district court finds on re mand that Hea rd’s place ment in max imu m -s ec u ri t y fac iliti es implicates a pr otected liber ty interest, it should then consider w hether

prison officia ls have g iven Hea rd the proc ess to which he is due under the framework se t forth by

the Supreme Court in Au sti n and , if s o, wh e the r H e ard a c tua lly re c e ive d th e se12

proce dural prote ctions. Se e Au sti n , 5 45 U. S. at 22 4-3 0 (a pp lyingthe thr e e fa c tor s se t f or th i n Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 (1976)). 3. F irst-A m endm ent-Re taliation Claim—He ard’s Septem ber 18, 2004 Speech Hea rd ar g ues that the district court e rre d in gr anting summary judgme nt in favor of de fe nd ants on

his c la im that pr iso n o ff ic ia ls i nit ia ted th e di sci pli na ry a c tio ns a g a ins t hi m in reta liation for his exercise of his F irst Amendment rig hts in his S eptember 1 8 , 2 0 0 4 s p eec h. To

e sta bli sha F ir st A me ndme nt r e ta liatio n c la im, an in ma te mus t sh owthat ( 1) he wa s e ng a g e d in protec ted conduc t, (2) an adver se action was taken ag ainst him “that would deter a person of ordinary firmness fr om continuing to eng ag e in that conduc t,” and ( 3) there is a ca usal conne ction betwee n t h e fi rs t t wo elements. Siggers-El v. Barlow , 4 12 F .3 d 6 93 , 6 99 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; Th a d d e u s - X v. Blatter , 1 7 5 F

. 3 d 3 7 8 , 3 9 4 ( 6 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( e n b an c )

. I t is c le ar th a t an a d v e r s e a c ti o n was take n ag ainst Hea

rd—seve re d i s cipline re sulting in maxi mum-secur ity confine ment—and that He ard’ s speec h was the c ause of

this adverse action. The only rema ining que stion therefor e is whethe r Hea rd’s stateme nts during a

Nation-of- I slam pray er se rvice constitute speec h that is protected by the F ir st A me nd

me nt. The Supreme Court has explained that althoug h “inca rce ration does not divest prisoners of

a ll c on sti tut ion a l pr ote c tio ns ,” the “ c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts that pr iso ne rs po sse ss a re mor e lim ite d in scope tha n the constitutional rights he ld by individuals in s o ciety

at larg e.” Shaw v. Murphy , 532 U.S. 223, 228-29 (2001). I n the specific context of the First Amendment, the Court ha s stated that “some rig hts are simply

inconsistent with the status of a prisoner or ‘with the leg itimate penolog ical

o b j ec t i v es of the corre ctions sy stem.’” Id. at 2 2 9 (q u o t i n g Pell v. Proc unier , 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974)) . Under

the “unitar

y , defe rential standa rd ” for reviewingthe constitutional claims of13

pr iso ne rs a do pte d b y

the Court , a

pr iso n re g ulatio n that imp ing e s on a pr iso ne r’ s c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts “‘is valid if it i s re asonably related to leg itimate penolog ical intere sts.’” Id. (q u o t i n g Turner v. Safley , 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). He ard wa s d isc ipl ine d f

or a sp e e c h to oth e r i nmate s in wh ic h h e , amon g ot her thing s, sug g ested that those who w ere mistreated would “ strike bac k,” re fer red to the F ruit s o f I slam, the p ar am i l i t ary

wi n g o f t h e N at i o no f Isl am , s t at edt h at “t h e o n l y wa y t o es t ab l i s h p ea ce wa s t h ro u gh

war ,” and sa id that “the off icer s do not want pea ce.” R. 78 Ex . E-A ( Therr ian Memo 9/18/04). Al tho ug h H e ard ’s sp e e c h w a s d ir e c te d at ot he r p ri so ne rs , it c on ta ine d th inl y ve ile d thre a ts a g a ins t prison g uards, sug g esting that conflict be tween guards a nd prisoners wa s inevitable and that mis tr e a te d p ri so ne rs wo uld ri se up a g a ins t th e g ua

rd s. I n li ght of

the na rr ow e d s c op e of

the F ir st Amendment in the prison conte x t, we conc lude th at d i s ci p lining He ard f or this speec h was

rea sonably related to the leg itimate inter ests of prison officia ls in maintaining order and e n s uring stability in the prison. Th e d is tric t c o u

r t d is mi s s e d

d e f e n d a nts Ca r u s o , Sh e r r y , McQuig g in, and Straub—super visory prison officia ls—from Hea rd’s F irst Amendment

r e ta li a ti o n c la im b e c ause H ear d failed to a lleg e that these de fenda

nts participated dir ectly

or were involved in authorizing policies w hich violated H e ar d ’ s F ir s t A me n d me n t r ig h ts

. S ee B ell amy v . Bradley , 729 F.2d 416, 421 ( 6th Cir. 1984) (e xpla ini ng that the do c tr ine of re sp on de a t su pe ri or do e s no t a

pp ly in § 19 83 a c tio ns to im pu te lia bil ity on to s up e rv iso ry

pe rs on ne l, u

nle ss t he su pe rv iso ry pe rs onne l “ e nc oura g e d th e sp e c if ic incident of misconduct or in some other wa

y direc tly part i cipated in it”) . Be cause we a ffirm the dismiss al of this reta liation claim as to all defe ndants, we ne ed not addr ess this issue.14

4 . F ir s t - A m e nd m e nt - R e t a li a t io n C la im A g a in s t Br o wn Hea rd sepa rate ly argues t hat defendant Michael Brown (“Br own”) , a cor rec tions officer

at Chippewa, re taliated ag ainst him for fil i n g an int erna l gr ievanc e cha lleng ing his initial majormis c on du c t c itatio n. Ac c or ding to He ard , B ro wn de sig nate d H e ard

a s a “ re c ru ite r” —r e su lti ngin Hea rd’s STG I Idesig nation—beca use He ard f

iled this grie vance . The district court gr anted

s u m m a r y j u d g m e n tf

o r B r o w n , f

i n d i n g t h a t d e f

e n d an t s h a d

e s t a b l i s h e d t h a tH e ar d ’ s S T G II desig nation “ w a s th e r e s u lt o f h is c o n d u c t an d n o t b a s e d u

p o n th e f il in g o f a g r ie v an c e . ” R. 143 (D ist . Ct . O p. 2/6 /07 at 3) . In h is affi dav it , Brown s ta te d th a t, at th e tim e he pa rt ic ipate d in desig nating Hea

rd as STG I I , he was unawa re of Hea rd’s grie vance . Br own further st ated that the de c isi on to d e sig nate He ard

a s ST G I Iwa s b a se d u

po n an in tervie w that B ro wn c on du c te d w ith He ar d and the r eport B rown re ceive d from the misconduc t hear ing, w hich detailed H ear d’s statements in the Sept ember 18, 2004 speec h. Hea

rd did not come for

war d with any

evidenc e disputing B rown’s a ccount, nor did Hear d sug g est how mater ial uncover ed through discove ry might support this claim. Acc ording ly , we conclude that the di strict court did not err in gr anting summary judgme nt for B rown. 5. F irst-A m endm ent-Re taliation Claim A gainst Hu hta Hea rd also asserted a

reta liation claim ag ainst defe ndant D. Huhta, a corr ections off

icer at Ba rag a, alleg ing that Huhta place d a .40-c aliber she ll casing in Hear d’s ce ll in re taliation for He ard’ s threat to bring a

lawsuit ag ainst prison officia ls. The district c ourt g rante d summary judgme nt for Huhta, finding that Hea

rd suffe red no adver se action bec ause of this incident and that there was no evidenc e that Huhta int entionally place d the s hell casing in Hear d’s ce ll. Sum mary judgme nt was pr op e rl y awa rd e d to Huhta . E ve n a ssumin g that the sh e ll ca n be tr a c e d to Huhta , H e ard po int e d to15

absolutely

no evidence t h at Hu h ta intentionally place d the shell in Hea

rd’s c ell or that Huhta w as

even awa re of Hea rd’s plan to f

ile a lawsuit. Fur

ther, the discover

y reque sted by

Hea rd with respe ct to this claim—testing of the shell casing in or der to tr ace it to Huhta’s gun—could not cre ate a fac t issue as to whethe r Huhta intentionally place d the s hell in Hear d’s ce ll or whether Huhta had kn ow le dg e of

He ard ’s int e nt t o e ng a g e in p ro te c te d c on du c t. 6. Equ al-P rote ction Claim —STG Designation Hea rd ar gues that his equal- protec tion rights were violated by his designation as STG I Iand his a tte nd ant p la c e me nt i n maximum -s e c ur ity fa c ili tie s. Ac c or ding t o H e ard , p ri so n o ff ic ia ls targ e te d h im f

or STG I I des ignat ion be c a us e he is M us limand

a me mbe r o f t

he Natio n o f I sla

m. He ard c on te nd s th a t pr iso ne rs of oth e r r e lig ion s w ho a

re fo un d guil ty

of the same of

fe ns e (“ I nc ite to Riot or Strike”) have not r ece ived STG I I desig nation. We c onclude that district c ourt did not err in g r an ti n g s u mm ar

y ju d g me n t f

o r d e f e n d an ts b e c a

u s e H e ar d

h a s n o t i d e n ti f

ie d s im il ar ly s it uated

n o n -N at i o n -of- I slam prisoners who w ere treated diffe rently

. See B uchanan v. City of Bolivar , 99 F .3 d 1 35 2, 13 60 (6 th C ir . 1 99 6) (“ I n o pp os it ion to a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt [o n a

n e qu a lpr ote c tio n c la im], it i s p la int if f w ho po sse sse s th e burd e n o f d e mon str a tin g that th e defe nd a nts treated similarly

situated individuals in a disparate manner .”). Ag ain, Hea rd fa iled to specify

what

ma te ri a l he ho pe d to un c ov e r t hr ou g h d isc ov e ry

to s up po rt

thi s c la im. 7. Equ al-P rote ction Claim —Diet Hea rd ar g ues that the district court er red in g ranting summary

judgme nt for def

endants on his claim that his equal- protec tion rig hts were violated by prison officia ls’ ref

usal to (1) provide a diet rec ommended by the Nation of I slam as set forth in How to Eat to L ive by Elijah Muhammad,

or (2 ) t o p ro vid e him

wi th m e a ls und e r t

he ko sh e r m e a l pr og ra

m. H e ard a lle g e d th a t pr iso n o ff

ic ia ls16

a c c omm od a te d th e re lig iou s d ie ts o f Je wi shand B ud dh ist pr iso ne rs bu t di d n ot a c c omm odate hi s reque st f or a relig ious die t. The district court g rante d summary judgme nt for the de fenda nts, finding that “ MD OC ha d a lr e a dy ma de a de te rm inat io n reje c tin g a Natio n o f I sla

m me nu y e ars pr ior

to [Heard’ s] request for a relig ious die t, be cause the menu failed to mee t dietary require ments.” R. 143 (Dist. Ct. Op. 2/6/07 at 5). Acc ording to defe ndant Dave Bur nett, MDOC previously

had dete rmined that “ the c omb inatio n o f fo od s not al low e d [by the Natio n- of -I sla m die t] wo uld

make it i mpo ssi ble to meet nutritional standards.” R. 78 Ex . H (Burne tt Aff. ¶ 4). B urnett fur ther stated that Hear d was de nie d a ko sh e r d ie t be c a

us e , “ a lth ou g h th e pr oh ibi tio n o f b loo d a nd the p ro hib iti on

of sw ine is common to Musli m s , t h e Na t i o n of I slam and Jews; Musl ims and the Nation of I slam are not require d to keep [ k]osher,” and “[k] osher requireme nts g o far bey ond the denial of bl ood and pork.” Id. ¶ 7. Acc ording to B urnett, “Muslims a nd members of the Nation of I slam can a void both blood and pork by

selec ting the non- meat entr ee f rom the main mea l line.” Id.

“ [W]he n a

pr iso n r e g ulatio n im

pin g e s o n in

m a t e s ’ c o n s t i t

ut i o n a l r i gh t s , t

he re g ulatio n is va lid if it is r e a s o n a

b ly r e late d to le g it im a te p e n o lo g ic a l in te r e s ts.” T u rner v. Safley , 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). We have explained that in the prison context “policies infring ing on r elig ious rights may be found unre asonable wher e ac commodations are made f or others.” Turner v. Bolden , 8 F. App’ x 453, 456 (6th Cir. 2001) (unpublis hed order). I f t he def endants c an show that the N ation-of- I slam diet reque sted by

Hea rd fa ils to m eet nutritional standar ds, we believe t hat the re fusal to provide this diet would be “r easona

bly related to leg itimate penolog ical intere sts.” Tu rner , 482 U.S. at 89. The de fe nd ants have c ome fo rw ard wi th s ome e vid e nc e that th e Natio n- of -I sla m di e t is nu tr iti on a lly ina de qu a te —th e a ff

ida vit of de fe nd ant B ur

ne tt, wh o e vid e ntl y

c on su lte d th e MD OC do c ume nts in which it was de termined that the N ation-of- I slam diet was inade quate. How ever, it appea rs that17

He ard has be e n d e nie d d isc ov e ry of the MD OC do c ume nts and , th e re fo re , d e nie d th e op po rt un ity to dispute defenda

nts’ evidenc e. I n h is Augus t 15 , 2 00 6 s up pl eme nta l r e sp on se and a tta c he d a ff

ida vit , H e ard

sp e c if ic a lly soug ht discovery

of “the document the [MDOC] relied on to de termine an I slamic reg imen could not meet MDOC required nutritional standar ds.” R. 113 (He ard Supplementa l Response 8/15/06 at 5). Ac c or din g to H e ard , d isc ov e ry of thi s d oc ume nt w ou ld s ho w th a t th e Natio n- of -I sla m di e t c ou ld meet MDOC nutri t i o n al standards a nd that prison officia ls were “fa voring dietary

reg iments of [B]uddhi st and [J ]ewish prisoners over [Heard’ s ] I s la

mi c r e g im e n , b e c a

use of [f]inancial rea sons and for a detrimenta l ef

fe ct o n . . . I slamic prac tice.” Id. The re quested doc ument evidently was not produce d and is not in the rec ord, and the district court di d n o t re s p o n d to Hear d’s re quest for dis c ov e ry of thi s d oc ume nt. Be cause Hea

rd wa s denied discovery of specific MDOC rec ords that may cre ate a materia l iss ue of fa c t a s to wh e the r o r n ot t he Nat ion -o f- I sla m di e t me e ts M DO C nutr iti on a l st and a rd s,

rema nd for discove ry

and fur ther fa ctual finding s is appropriate

. Acc ording ly , we va cate this part of the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s su mma ry -j ud g me nt o rd e r a

nd re mand fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. Hea rd also claims that prison officials should, in the alternative, provide him with kosher meals whe n I slamic meals ar e not ava ilable. Hea rd cites to sec tions of Is lam ic Di e tar yCon c e pts & Practices by

The I slamic Food & Nutrition Council of America in support of the prop o s i t i o n that Muslims are require d to eat kosher meals when I slamic meals are unavailable

. See R. 1 63 (E xhibi t 4/9 /07 ). Ho we ve r, no thi ng in the pa g e s c ite d b y He ard su pp or ts h is c on te nti on

tha t Mu sli ms mus t be g iven kosher me als when I slamic meals are unavailable, and Hea rd poi nts to no other e vidence that his relig ion mandates kosher m eals. As defe ndant Burnett ex plained, kosher require ments far18

e xce e d th e pr oh ibi tio n

o f b l oo d a nd po rk , a nd Mu sli m and

Natio n- of

-I sla m pr iso ne rs “ c an avo id b oth blood and pork by

selec ting the non- meat entree from the m ain meal line.” R. 78 Ex . H (B urnett Aff

. ¶ 7 ). Ac c or din g ly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t e rr in g ra nti ngsu mma

ry jud g me nt f

or de fe nd ants a s to He ard ’s c la im that he sh ou ld b e a c c omm od a te d w ith ko sh e r m e a ls. 8. RLUIP A Claim—Diet Hea rd also claims that defenda nts St raub, B urnett, Sherr y , and Shaw—a ll of whom Hea rd

su e d in bo th t he ir ind ivi du a l and

of fi c ia l c a pa c ities— vi ol a te d RL

UI PA b y fa ili ngto p ro vid e him wi th a Natio n- of

-I sla m di e t or by fa ili ngto p ro vid e him

wi th a ko sh e r d ie t. R L UI PA p ro vid e s: [n] o g overnme nt shall impose a substantial burden on the r elig i o u s ex ercise of a pe rs on re sid ingin or c on fi ne d to an ins tit uti on . . . ev e n if the burd e n r e su lts fr om a rule of g ener al applica

bility , unless the g overnme nt demonstrates that im position of the burde n on that person— (1) is in furthera

nce of a compe lling g overnme ntal interest; and (2) is the least restric tive means of further ing that co m p ell ing g ov e rnme nta l in te re st. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1( a). I f He ard’ s relig ion requir es ad h erence to a Nation-of -I slam diet, prison officia ls’ ref

usal to acc ommodate this diet would impose a substantial burden. See, e .g. , Al-A mi n v. Shear , No. 08-7681, 2009 WL971454, at *2-3 (4th Cir. Apr . 10, 2009) (unpublished) ( finding that denying koshe r (“ Common F ar e”) food to observa nt Sunni M uslim during Ramada n would be a substa n t i al b u rd en). The defe ndants would then have the burde n of showing that denial of the Natio n- of -I sla m die t wa s the le a st re str ic tiv e me ans of fu rt he ri ng a c omp e lli ngg ov e rnme nt i nte re st. As explained above w ith respec t to Hear d’s equal- protec tion c laim, the re r emains a material issue of fa ct as to whe ther He ard’ s proposed Nation-of-I slam diet does or doe s not meet MDOC nutritionalWit h respe ct t o Hea rd’s RL UI PA claim ag ainst defe ndants in their official capa cities, Hea

rd 5 may seek only decla ratory or injunctive relief and not moneta ry relief

. Se e Car din al v . M e tri sh , 564 F.3d 794, 798- 801 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that the doctrine of sover eig n immunit y bars the re cover y of mon e tary dama g e s und e r R L UI PA w he n s ta te of fi c ia ls ar e su e d in th e ir

of fi c ia l c a pa c iti e s) . T his c ourt has n ot r

ule d, ho we ve r, on

wh e the r R L UI PA a

uth or ize s su its fo r m on e tary dama g e s a g a ins t state off icials in their in dividual ca p acities. See Ne lson v. Miller , 570 F.3d 868, 885- 89 (7th Cir. 20 09 ) ( dis c us sin gsp lit

of a uth or ity on iss ue ; ho ldi ngthat RLUI PA do e s no t su bje c t st a te of

fi c ia ls to suit i n their individual capa cities). B eca use the pa rties have not briefe d this iss ue and be cause we are re mand ingto t

he dis tr ic t court fo r furt

he r co ns ide ra

tio n of wh e the r a

Natio n- of

-I sla m di e t me e ts MDOC nutritional standards, we decline to de cide this issue at this time. 19 standards. A ccor dingly , we a lso vacate the district c ourt’s dismiss al of He ard’ s RL UI PA claim and

re mand fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. 5 B. Jud gm ent for Masker F ollow ing B ench Trial Hea rd argues that the weig ht of the evidenc e does not support the district c ourt’s judg ment for Ma sker on He ard’ s claim that Masker opened H ear d’s l ega l mail outside Hear d’s pre sence . Although H ear d proper ly

prese rved the issue for appeal by moving for a ne w trial, see U nited States v. L.E. Cooke Co. , 991 F.2d 336, 343 ( 6th Cir. 1993), a party may not challeng e the we ight of the

e v id e n c e to s u

p p o rt a tr ia l c o u rt’ s ju d g me n t i nth e a b s e n c e o f a tr anscr ipt, see F ED . R. A PP . P. 10 (b )( 2) ; Hawley v . City of Cl eve land , 2 4 F .3 d 814 , 82 0-2 2 (6thCir . 1 99 4) . Apa rt y in a c ivi l proce eding may

obtain a tra

nscript at the g overnme nt’s expense if (1) he is grante d leave to proce ed in forma pa

uperis on appe al and ( 2) “the trial judge or a circ uit judg e cer tifies that the appe al is not fr ivo lou s (but pres ents a su bs tanti a l qu e sti on ). ” 28 U. S.C. § 7 53 (f ). He ard satis fi e s th e fi rs t

re qu ir e me nt a s th e dis tr ic t c ou rt gr ante d H e ard

le a ve to p ro c e e d in

fo rm a pa up e ri s o n a

pp e a l. Howeve r, He ard did not ask the district court or t his court to cer tify under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) that an appe al of the judg ment for Ma sker would not be frivolous. I nstead, on October 27, 2008, Hea rd

su bmi tte d t o t h i s c o u rt

a t r a n s c r i p to r d e r

f o r m o nw h i c h h e i n d i c a t e d t h a ta “ [t ]r an s c r i p tisRul e 56 (f ) p ro vid e s: 6 I f a pa rty opposing the motion shows by aff idavit that, f

or spec ified re asons, it cannot p r e s e n tf a c t s e s s e n t i a l t o j u s t i f

y i t s o p p o s i t i o n , t h e c o u rtm ay: (1) deny the motion; (2) order a continuanc e to ena

ble af fidavits to be obtained, de positions t o be take n, or other disc overy

to be under

taken; or (3) issue any

other just order

. F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(f). 20 unnece ssary

for a ppeal pur poses.” Unde r these c ircumstance s, we do not conside r whe ther He ard can de monstrate a substantial que stion for appe al. Without a trial transcript, we a re una ble to revie w the evidenc e bef

ore the district court. Acc ording ly , we must a cce pt the fac tual finding s of the district court a s corr ect a

nd there fore aff

irm the judg ment for Ma sker. Additionally , the district court did not abuse its discre tion by denying H ear d’s motion f or a new tria l beca

use He ard did not come forwa rd with newly discovere d evidenc e or prese nt any other g rounds justify ing the g rant of a new tria l. See D avis ex

rel. Davis v. Jellico Cmty. Hosp. Inc. , 912 F.2d 129, 132 ( 6th Cir. 1990). C. Other R ulin gs by District Court 1. Discover y Requests Hea rd argues that the district c ourt abused its discr etion in de ny ing any discovery

and then proce eding to gr ant summary judgme nt in f

avor of defe ndants. We a ssume that Hea rd’s Aug ust 15, 2006 supplemental re sponse and attached a ffidavit qual i fi es as a r equest for additional discovery pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 56(f ). We have expl ained that “[t ]y pically , when the 6 parties have no opportunity for discovery , denying the Rule 56(f) motion and r uling on a summary judgme nt motion i s likely to be an a

buse of discr etion.” Ce nTra, In c . v . E str in , 538 F.3d 402, 420 (6th Cir. 2008). Howe ver, w e have al s o “u p h el d the denial of Rule 56(f) motions when the court21

deems a s too va g ue the aff idavits submitted in support of the motion,” and w e have done so “e ven when the part i es we re given no opportunity for discove ry .” Id. Fur ther, “ we have af

firmed the denial of Rule 56( f) motions when the pa rties wer e g iven insufficie nt time for discovery if furthe r discovery would not ha

ve chang ed the leg al and f actua l deficie ncies.” Id. (interna l quotation marks omi tte d) . In th e ins tant c a se , the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d He ard any dis c ov e ry , e xce pt wi th r e sp e c t to Hea rd’s c laim ag ainst Masker, a nd did not rule on Hea

rd’s August 15, 2006 Rule 56(f ) motion for d i s c o v e r y. As explained above in our disc ussion of Hea rd’s va rious claims ag ainst defe ndants, Hea rd failed—e x cept a s noted above —to specify in his discovery

reque sts and Rule 56(f) motion what he ho pe d to un c ov e r thr ou g h disc ov e ry that wou ld have c re a te d g e nu ine iss ue s o f m a te ri a l f a c t a s to his various cla ims. Bec ause “ further discovery

woul d n o t h av e chang ed the leg al and f actua l de fi c ie nc ie s” of

He ard ’s va

ri ou s c la im s, we c on c lud e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t a bu se its discretion in de ny ing discovery except as we have pr eviously noted. Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted). 2. M ot ion to Re c use The district cour

t did not ab use its discretion by denying H ear d’s motion to recuse. See United States v. J

amieson , 427 F.3d 394, 405 ( 6th Cir. 2005), cert. de nied , 547 U.S. 1218 (2006). Hea rd’s m o t i o n for recusa l was without merit beca use he pr esente d no evidenc e that either the mag istrate judge or the district judg e had any persona l bia s or prejudice ag ainst Hea rd or in favor

of

an y o f th e d e f

e n d ants. See 28 U.S.C. § 14 4. F ur the r, He ard

did no t sh owthat th e jud g e s’ impartiality

could re asonably

be questioned. See 28 U.S.C. § 455.22

3. Appoin tm ent of Coun sel The district cour

t d i d n o t er r in deny

ing H ear d’s motion for appointment of c ounsel. The appointment of counse l in a civil proce eding is justified only by exceptional circ umstances, whic h

are absent in this case

. See Lavado v . Keohane , 992 F.2d 601, 606 ( 6th Cir. 1993). 4. Class Cert if

ication The district cour

t did not abuse its discretion in declini n g t o ce rt ify the class a

nd appoint He ard a s c la ss r e pr e se ntativ e . H e ard is an inc arc e ra

te d pr o se lit ig ant wi tho ut le g a l tr a ini ng wh o is repr esenting himself and is not able a dequate ly to repre sent the propose d class. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 23 ; Oxe ndine v. W

illiams , 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 ( 4th Cir. 1975) (“Ability to protec t the intere sts of the clas s d e p e n d s in

p art o nth e qu a li ty

o f c o u n s e l, an d

w e c o n s id e r

th e c o mp e te n c e o f

a la y ma n repr esenting himself to be clea rly too limi ted to allow h i m t o ri s k the rig hts of others.” ( citation omitted)). 5. M ot ion for a D e faultJudg m e nt F ina lly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

de nyingHe ard ’s mot ion

fo r a de fa ult judgme nt pursuant to F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 5. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d d e fe nd ants ’ m oti on to d ism iss on Aug ust 22, 2006, but Masker did not fi l e an an s wer until March 26, 2007. On Apr il 2, 2007, Hea rd filed a motion for a def

ault judgme nt, citing Ma sker’ s failure to f i l e a timely

answe r. The dis tr ic t c ourt

de nie d He ard ’s mot ion on Ap ri l 25, 200 7, statin g that “[d]e fa ult wa s n e ve r e nte re d in thi s ca se . ” R

. 1 6 5 ( O r d e r 4 / 2 5 / 0 7 )

. “ P r i o r

t o o b t a i n i n g a

d e f a u l tj u d g m e n tu n d e r

e i t h e r Rul e 55(b)( 1) or Ru l e 5 5 (b)(2), there must be an entry of def ault as provided by

Rule 55(a) .” 10A C H A RLES A L AN W R I GHT E T AL ., F ED ER A L P R AC TI C E AND P ROCE D U RE § 2682, at 13 (3d ed. 1998). Rule 55(a) provides that “[w]hen a par ty ag ainst whom a judg ment for affirmative relief is sought23

has fa iled to ple ad or otherwise defe nd, and that failure is shown by aff idavit or otherwise, the cler

k must enter

the par ty ’s def ault.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 55( a). B eca use He ard did not first see k entry of a defa u l t from the c lerk of the court, it was pr ocedur ally improper f

or He ard to move f

or entry of a de fa ult jud g me nt. III . C ON CL USI ON Fo r t he re asons discussed a bove, we VA CA TE th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s g r an t o f s u mma ry judgme nt for def

endants on He ard’ s proce dural-due -pr o cess c laim and REMAND for f urther proce eding s. We also VA CA TE the district c ourt’s g rant of summary judgme nt for def

endants on Hea rd’s e qual-prote ction and RL UI PA claims cha l l en gi ng the re fusal to provide H ear d with a Nation-of- I slam diet and REMAND fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. Th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IR M ED in a ll o the r r e sp e c ts.