UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Luis Catala

v. Civil No. 05-cv-106-JD

Commissioner, New Hampshire

Department of Corrections,

and Bruce Cattell, Warden,

New Hampshire State Prison

O R D E R

Luis Catala, who is incarcerated and proceeding pro se,

brought suit alleging that he is being required to participate in

a religious-based twelve-step program for substance abuse, the

Substance Abuse System or “SAS,” as a condition of amending his

classification status. He also alleges that an inmate’s refusal

to participate in the program is a consideration in whether to

grant parole. The defendants, the Commissioner of the New

Hampshire Department of Corrections, and New Hampshire State

Prison Warden, Bruce Cattell, move for judgment on the pleadings. 

Catala did not file a response to the motion.

Standard of Review

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is decided under the

same standard as a motion to dismiss. Pasdon v. City of Peabody,

417 F.3d 225, 226 (1st Cir. 2005). When considering a motion for

Case 1:05-cv-00106-JD Document 13 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 6
2

judgment on the pleadings, the “court must accept all of the

nonmoving party’s well-pleaded factual averments as true and draw

all reasonable inferences in her favor.” Feliciano v. Rhode

Island, 160 F.3d 780, 788 (1st Cir. 1998). Judgment on the

pleadings is not appropriate “‘unless it appears beyond doubt

that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her

claim which would entitle her to relief.’” Santiago de Castro v.

Morales Medina, 943 F.2d 129, 130 (1st Cir. 1991) (quoting

Rivera-Gomez v. De Castro, 843 F.2d 631, 635 (1st Cir. 1988)).

Discussion

Several courts have held that forcing inmates to participate

in religion-based substance abuse programs, such as the twelvestep program used by Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics

Anonymous, violates the Establishment Clause of the First

Amendment. See, e.g., Warner v. Orange County Dep’t of Prob.,

115 F.3d 1068, 1074 (2d Cir. 1997); Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472,

474 (7th Cir. 1996); Bobko v. Lavan, 2005 WL 1309072, at *3 (M.D.

Pa. May 31, 2005); Turner v. Hickman, 342 F. Supp. 2d 887, 895

(E.D. Cal. 2004). Forced attendance or coercion is shown if a

prison official, a parole board, or anther state actor requires

an inmate to attend a program that emphasizes religion or faith

as a condition of his probation or sentencing. Warner, 115 F.3d

Case 1:05-cv-00106-JD Document 13 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 6
3

at 1075. In contrast, merely suggesting or recommending a

religious program, without force or coercion or when secular

options are equally available, is not a First Amendment

violation. See Freedom From Religion Found. v. McCallum, 324

F.3d 880, 882 (7th Cir. 2003); Kerr, 95 F.3d at 480.

For purposes of their motion for judgment on the pleadings,

the defendants do not contest that the SAS involves religion or

that Catala’s participation in that program is a condition of

amending his classification or a consideration for his parole. 

The defendants also do not suggest that the prison offers an

alternative, secular program. Instead, the defendants argue that

the Commissioner’s counsel’s response to Catala’s grievance about

the program establishes that he is not required to attend

religious programming.

Catala alleges that he received a classification

authorization decision on December 20, 2004, that listed the SAS

program in the section titled “Program Assignment and

Recommendations.” He further alleges that the SAS “is based upon

a 12-step system that is reinforced by books, lectures and

writing assignments.” Comp. ¶ 4. He states that the New

Hampshire State Prison Parole Board is using an inmate’s failure

to participate in the SAS program as a reason to deny parole. He

also states that he appealed the SAS recommendation and appends

Case 1:05-cv-00106-JD Document 13 Filed 11/22/05 Page 3 of 6
4

the responses he received from the defendants.

Catala’s first request was sent to Warden Cattell. Catala

wrote that he was not sentenced to a drug or alcohol program,

that he does not believe in the 12-step program used in the SAS

program, asks that the SAS recommendation be removed from his

classification status, and states that state sponsored programs

such as SAS are unconstitutional. Warden Cattell responded:

You do not seem to understand your situation. This is

not a school for boys where you get to decide what

classes you want to take. You do not have to be

sentenced by a court to need to participate in a

counseling program. We have professional staff whose

job it is to make professional programming recommendations. It does not matter whether you like or agree

with the recommendation. We are concerned with your

future criminal behavior and we know that drug and

alcohol abuse is a precipitator of criminal behavior. 

No one is going to drag you to the program but if you

chose not to attend we will ensure that it is a

consideration in any custody reduction or release

decision concerning you.

Catala then appealed to the Commissioner, stating “Warden Cattell

does not seem to understand that forcing me to attend and

participate in a religious based program against my will

constitutes coercion and a violation of my first amendment

rights.” He reiterated his legal challenge to the SAS program

and asked that the SAS program be removed from his classification

status. John Vinson, who is represented to be the Commissioner’s

counsel, responded to Catala’s request to the Commissioner. 

Case 1:05-cv-00106-JD Document 13 Filed 11/22/05 Page 4 of 6
5

Vinson wrote: “See Warden’s articulate response. If there are

components of SAS that are religious in nature, you can ask the

providers to be excused from that part. You will not be forced

to in [sic] religious programs.”

The Warden’s response to Catala on its face is problematic

and demonstrates his failure to understand the well-established

First Amendment prohibition against forced attendance at

religious-based programs. The defendants do not argue otherwise. 

Instead, they contend that because Vinson told Catala that he

could ask to be excused from any religious part of the SAS

program, he was not being forced to participate in a religiousbased program.

 Given Vinson’s acceptance of the Warden’s remarks, his

response to Catala raises more questions that it answers. See,

e.g., Warner, 115 F.3d at 1076 (holding that although inmate was

not required to participate in religious part of Alcoholics

Anonymous meeting, his coerced attendance nevertheless violated

Establishment Clause). For example, it is far from clear whether

Catala would be excused from religious parts of the SAS program,

despite asking. It is also unclear whether attending parts but

not all of the program would meet the classification requirement

or would provide any meaningful counseling services. 

Whether or not the defendants’ imposition of the SAS program

Case 1:05-cv-00106-JD Document 13 Filed 11/22/05 Page 5 of 6
6

violates Catala’s First Amendment rights cannot be resolved in

the defendants’ favor in the context of a motion for judgment on

the pleadings. Given the factual complexities, the claim would

be better addressed in a properly supported motion for summary

judgment, if that is appropriate in this case.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion for

judgment on the pleadings (document no. 12) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

November 22, 2005

cc: Luis Catala, pro se

Mary E. Maloney, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00106-JD Document 13 Filed 11/22/05 Page 6 of 6