Matter of Holman v Goord
Annotate this CaseDecided on June 29, 2006
Supreme Court, Sullivan County
In the Matter of David Holman, Petitioner,
against
Glen S. Goord, Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.
2500-05
David Holman
Petitioner Pro Se
Attorney General of the State of New York
235 Main Street
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
By: Barry Kaufman, AAG, of counsel
Attorney for Respondent
Frank J. LaBuda, J.
Petitioner, a Shi'ite Muslim filed a complaint on March 4, 2005 with the Superintendent of the Sullivan Correctional Facility ("SCF") alleging problems with the Muslim religious accommodations within the prison. Specifically, petitioner asserted that the DOCS Protocol for Shi'ite Muslim Programs and Practices ("Protocol") was discriminatory because it did not provide for separate Shi'ite Muslim and Sunni Muslim Friday Jumah services, which he argues are mandated by previous New York Supreme Court and Appellate Division decisions, and because the leaders of the Jumah services are unduly discriminatory and harsh to Shi'ite Muslims.
After an investigation into the matter, DOCS' Deputy Superintendent of Programs found that SCF followed the Protocol. Specifically, the Superintendent found that SCF provided Shi'ite Muslims with separate storage facilities and separate religious instructional classes during the week, and afforded all Shi'ites an opportunity to participate in the weekly Friday Jumah Service along with Sunni Muslims. However, the Superintendent denied petitioner's request for a separate Friday Shi'ite Service.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the Inmate Grievance Program Central Office Review Committee ("CORC") of the DOCS. CORC denied petitioner's appeal on grounds that the SCF followed the Protocol. Petitioner exhausted his available administrative remedies within DOCS and now requests Article 78 relief from this court.
DOCS' created the Protocol in response to, Cancel v. Goord 278 AD2d 321 (2nd Dept., 2000), in which an inmate sought religious services specific to Shi'ite Muslims, and completely separate from Sunni Muslims.
Cancel, supra was the appellate decision emanating from Supreme Court, Duchess County in 1999 wherein the Court in Dutchess County found for the petitioner on much the same issues herein and ordered DOCS to allow inmates to practice their Shi'ite faith.
However, in Cancel, supra the Appellate Division, Second Department modified the lower court's ruling and called for "DOCS to conduct administrative proceedings, with Shi'a participation, to determine the manner in which to best afford Shi'ite inmates separate religious services, under appropriate Shi'ite religious leadership, in a time and manner that comport with penological concerns." Cancel v. Goord, 278 AD2d 321, 323 (2nd Dept. 2000).
Appeal was denied. Cancel v. Goord, 96 NY2d 707 (2001).
Following the directive of the Second Department, DOCS consulted with the Imam Al-Khoei Islamic Center in Jamaica, Queens, Shaykh Ismail of Ministerial Services, Imam Mubdi, a Shi'ite Chaplain, and other Muslim organizations and leaders, to learn about Shi'ite and Sunni practices and religious needs. After hearing the needs and recommendations and assessing penological safety and security concerns, DOCS designed a Protocol specifically to address the Shi'ites grievances and comply with the court order in Cancel, supra. [*2]
The Protocol (1) called for all employees (including Chaplains, volunteer Chaplains, and inmate facilitators) to refrain from making disparaging remarks about a religion or its followers; (2) designated the Imam Al-Khoei Islamic Center as DOCS' official Muslim authority; (3) allowed Shi'ite Muslim inmates to attend separate Shi'ite Muslim religious education and study classes, and utilize Shi'ite Muslim inmate facilitators; (4) gave Shi'ite Muslim inmates a full and equal opportunity to participate in the weekly Friday Jumah service, and Shi'ite Muslim chaplains the opportunity to officiate at the service. Further, at least one member of the Muslim Majlis (the governing boards of the individual prisons' Muslim communities) must be a Shi'ite Muslim; (5) included observances unique to Shi'ites in DOCS' revised religious observance calender.
Petitioner asserts that the Protocol, which provides for one generic Jumah service, is discriminatory on two fronts. First, the Protocol does not afford Shi'ites a separate Jumah service he claims was mandated in Cancel, supra. Second, the current service lacks Shi'ite chaplain representation and the current chaplain subjects Shi'ites to discriminatory epithets.
Petitioner misconstrues the courts phrasing of "separate religious services" as a mandate for separate Friday Jumah services in Cancel, supra.
The sentence in which the disputed phrase appears, reads:
Accordingly, we modify the judgment to the extent of deleting the second and third decretal paragraphs thereof, which directed the manner in which the appellant was to permit the petitioner and his fellow adherents of the Shi'a sect of Islam to practice their faith, and remit the matter to the DOCS to conduct administrative proceedings, with Shi'a participation, to determine the manner in which to best afford Shi'a inmates separate religious services under appropriate Shi'a religious leadership, in a time and place that comport with legitimate penological concerns." Cancel, supra at 323.
In context, the object of the sentence was to overrule the lower court's decision to direct a specific remedy and instead leave the matter to DOCS to determine an appropriate remedy. The term "separate religious services" refers generally to various services DOCS may provide to accommodate inmates' religious practices. This Court does not read it as a specific reference to mandate separate Friday Jumah services.
Further, the courts in Pugh v. Goord, infra and Cancel v. Mazzuca, infra agreed with this reading. If the court truly intended to provide a specific, Friday Jumah service, it would not have remanded the case to DOCS with orders to structure a remedy. Pugh v. Goord, 184 F. Supp. 2d 326 (S.D.NY 2002); Cancel v. Mazzuca, 205 F. Supp. 2d 128 (S.D.NY 2002).
The record is clear that DOCS complied with the court's order to determine the manner in which to best afford Shi'ite inmates religious services within the state's penological interests. DOCS spent over two years reaching out to Islamic organizations, including several Shi'ite organizations and leaders, in efforts to learn matters of Islamic doctrine, tradition, and ritual. The [*3]end-product was the Protocol, which is a sincere and adequate effort to provide for the needs of the Shi'ite inmate population. Thus, petitioner's assertion that DOCS has not complied with the court order in Cancel, supra is incorrect.
Petitioner's next claim is that the denial of a separate Friday Jumah service is severe enough to amount to a denial of his religious liberty.
The United States Constitution, amendment 1, and the New York State Constitution, article 1, §3, protect religious liberty and the freedom of worship.
New York Correction Law §610 affirms this right for prisoners, with a slight caveat: "The rules and regulations established for the government of the institutions mentioned in this section shall recognize the right of the inmates to the free exercise of their religious belief... such services to be held and such advice and administration to be given in such manner and at such hours as will be in harmony, as aforesaid, with the discipline and regulations of the institution."
While "the freedom to believe is absolute, the freedom to act is not; the freedom to act is subject to regulation for the protection of society." Brown v. McGinnis, 10 NY2d 531, 536 (1962).
Determining if a burden on free exercise of religion amounts to a denial of religious liberty in a prison setting hinges on three factors: (1) whether the practice asserted is religious in the person's scheme of beliefs, and whether the beliefs are sincerely held; (2) whether the challenged practice of the prison officials infringes upon the religious belief; and (3) whether the challenged practice of the prison officials furthers some legitimate penological objective. O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 (1987); Farid v. Smith, 850 F.2d 917, 925-6 (1988).
Assuming, arguendo, that a separate Jumah service falls within petitioner's scheme of beliefs, that he sincerely holds that belief, and DOCS' practices infringe on that belief, petitioner's argument cannot survive alone. It must be balanced against DOCS' compelling and legitimate penological objectives of maintaining safety and security within the prison.
In considering whether the infringement was reasonable in furthering a legitimate penological interest, courts will consider four factors: (1) whether there is a rational relationship between the regulation and the legitimate government interests asserted; (2) whether the inmates have alternative means to exercise their rights; (3) the impact that accommodation of the right will have on the prison system; (4) whether ready alternatives exist which accommodate the right and satisfy the government interest. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987).
In this case, the security concerns for inmates and correctional officers, fiscal and staffing considerations, and space restrictions are all rationally related to the policy of holding only general religious services.
[*4]
Further, "proper deference must be given to the decisions and judgements of prison officials charged with the day-to-day operations of a prison." O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 (1987).
DOCS held extensive administrative proceedings to determine a set of practices that could best accommodate Shi'ites religious freedoms while balancing its own security concerns. Its Protocol provides Shi'ites full opportunity to participate in the Friday Jumah service and extends invitation to Shi'ite chaplains to officiate at those services. The alternative providing every religious denomination with a separate service would be disastrous for the reasons previously mentioned.
Based upon the above, it is
ORDERED, that the petition seeking article 78 relief herein is denied.
This shall constitute the Decision and Order of this Court.
DATED: June 29, 2006
Monticello, NY _________________________________
Hon. Frank J. LaBuda
Acting Supreme Court Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
