Opinion
7:02-CV-012-R
February 13, 2002
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
ON THIS DATE, came onto be considered the papers and pleadings this action, and the Court finds and orders as follows:
This is a complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by an inmate confined in the Allred Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Iowa Park, Texas. Plaintiff claims that he has been denied his First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Complaint ¶ V. He seeks five million dollars in monetary damages. Id. at ¶ VI.
Lewis claims that he submitted a request to the Chaplain at the Allred Unit asking permission to attend religious services for Jehovah's Witnesses which are held every Monday in the prison chow hall. Complaint ¶ V. Plaintiff was informed by the Chaplain that he would need to change the designation on his inmate religious preference form from Baptist to Jehovah's Witness in order to attend the services. Id. Plaintiff argues that, under the First Amendment, he should be permitted to attend "any religious program whether it be Baptist, Catholic or any other [religion]." Id.
Although incarcerated, an inmate retains his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, subject to reasonable restrictions and limitations necessitated by penological goals. E.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 2261-62 (1987); O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349-50, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 2405 (1987); Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 25-26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1025, 113 S.Ct. 668 (1992). To fall within the purview of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, a religious claim must satisfy the following two criteria: "First, the claimant's proffered belief must be sincerely held; the First Amendment does not extend to `so-called religions which . . . are obviously shams and absurdities and whose members are patently devoid of religious sincerity.'" Callahan v. Woods, 658 F.2d 679, 683 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Theriault v. Carlson, 495 F.2d 390, 395 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1003, 95 S.Ct. 323 (1974)). Second, "the claim must be rooted in religious belief; not in `purely secular' philosophical concerns" Id. (citing Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526 (1972)). Thus, only sincerely held religious beliefs require accommodation by prison officials. See e.g. U.S. v. Daly, 756 F.2d 1076, 1081 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86-88, 64 S.Ct. 882, 886-87 (1994) and United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184, 85 S.Ct. 850, 863 (1965)), cert. denied, 4474 U.S. 1022, 106 S.Ct. 574 (1985); Malik v. Brown, 16 F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 1994), supplemented, 65 F.3d 148 (9th Cir. 1995); Mosier v. Maynard, 937 F.2d 1521, 1526 (10th Cir. 1991).
To prevail on a civil rights claim an inmate must demonstrate that he was deprived, under color of law, of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or laws. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 234 (5th Cir. 1995). In the case at bar, Plaintiff has failed to make a claim that he has been denied the right to freely exercise his sincerely held religious beliefs. The fact that he is not be permitted to attend services for religions other than his own presents no claim of constitutional magnitude. See Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1126 (5th Cir. 1986) (finding no constitutional violation where inmate was permitted to attend one religious service each Sunday but was denied permitted to attend all available services). Lewis makes no claim that practicing other religions is a sincerely held tenet of his religion. Moreover, any such claim would certainly be suspect.
A district court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it determines that the action is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989); Henson-El v. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1235, 111 S.Ct. 2863 (1991). A complaint is without an arguable basis in law if it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833. The claims set forth in the case at bar have no arguable basis under federal law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED
JUDGMENT
This action came on for consideration by the Court, and the issues having been duly considered and a decision duly rendered,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).