Dieppa v. Clarke et al, No. 7:2018cv00455 - Document 22 (W.D. Va. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 07/08/2019. (aab)

Download PDF

CLERK' S OFFICE U.S.DIST.Ceotlr ATRG NOKE,VA FILED JUL g! 2219 IN T H E U N ITE D STATE S D ISTRICT CO U RT UL UDLEY,CLERK FORTHEWE RO STAENO RNUDIDST IWS RICIO TNOFWRGINIA/:Féyg D *'u u/ M ICH AEL ANTHON Y DIEPPA, Plaintiff v. H AROLD W .CT.ARKR,etal.y Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CA SE N O .7:18-CV-00455 By:H on.M ichaelF.U rbansld ChiefUG ted StatesDisttictJùdge M EM O RAN D U M O PIN IO N M ichaelA nthony D ieppa,currently incarcerated atG reen Rock CorrectionalCenter (GROQ and proceecling p-cq . K ,complainsthatdefendantsviolated hisconsdtutionaldghts andrightsundertheReligiousLandUseandlnstimdonalizedPersonsAct,42U .S.C.j2000cc1 :1atq.( RLUIPA).DefendantsHarold Clarkeand David Robinson,130t11employeesofthe . VirginiaDepartmentofCorrections(VDOC),have flled amotion to dismiss.ECF No.15. D ieppa responded to th: m oéon to dismiss,m aldng thism atterripe fordisposidon.Fozthe reasonssetforth below,the m odon to dismissisGRAN TED in partand D EN IE D in part. BA CKG RO U N D 1.FactualAllegations . h The following facts,which aretaken from Dieppa'scom pbint,hisafhdavit,them otion to distniss,and the attached exhibits,ate accepted as ttue for purposes of the defendants' Dieppa v. Clarke et al Doc. 22 m otion.lDieppaisa follower ofCeldc Draidry.D efendantH arold Clarke isthe director'of 1SeeCanad v,Hod es,No.7:17CV00464,2018WL3146792(W.D.Va.2018)(constrllingadditionalfactsitz pro. qresponseasamenclmentstocomplaint)andScatesv.Doe,No.6:15-2904-M FS-IU M,2016W. L 8672963 (D.S.C.2016)(nodngthatitzevaluatingamotion to dismiss,courtsevaluatethecompbintin itsentirety, including docum entsthatareintegralto and relied on in thecom plnintwhen thereis no quesdon as to their authenticity). Dockets.Justia.com VD O C and D efendantA .D avid Robinson istheVD O C ChiefofO peradons.CeldcD raidry ftis a polytheistic, non-dualisdc,non-sexist, non-racist, sciendfic, holiséc, and ecologically oriented faith em bracing peacefulnessand fthe love ofAT, L existences.'''ECF N o.1 at3.A core tenet of D tnlidry is that (Tthe divine is experienced thtough clitect connecdon and com m union with nature.''Id.D ruids exercise theitreligion in a ffsaczed space developed by thecollectionanditw ocadon oftheelementsand thegods.'?J-l. LReligiouspracdcerequiresthe presence ofthe elem entsofearth,* ,w ater,and flre.ECF N o.1-1 at3-4.W ithoutallfour elem ents,f<a sacred space cannotproperly be established''and adherentsare prevented from m eaningfulw orship and religiouspractke.ECF N o.1-1 at4. The VDOC follows Opetadng Procedure (OP) 841.3 to provide offenders the opportunity to pracdce theirreligions.ECF N o.16-1.at 5.O ffendershave access to group religious serdces and VD O C designates space and either a paid orvolunteer chaplain who servesas an advocate forequitable accom m odation ofallrehgious faiths.1d..at16-1 at5-19. Religiousserdcesatesubjecttomonitoringand othersecuritymeasuresin accordancewith requirements for the ordetly operadon and safety of the offender poptzladon.J-I. L at 8, Com m unalreligiouspropertyused in religiousserdcesm ustcom ply with alldepattm entand facilitypêoceduresrelating to contzaband.Com m unalfaith item sarestored in asecureaêea of thefacilityand madeavailableto offendersdtuing approvedworship tim es.J. Z at15. In addiéon to com m unalfaith item s,offendersm ay submitrequestsfozpezsonalfaith objectsattheinséttzéonalteveland the facility head ordesignee reviews the requests and makesarecomm endation forappzovalorderlial.Ldxat9.Requestsare then sentto theFaith Review Committee(FRC),apanelofrepresentadveVDOC staff,forreview.J.daTheFRC'S 2 recom m endaéonsare ffteferred to the Chiefof Correcdons O peradons ...forreview and approvalpriorto notifying facilitiesofchanges.''Id.at14.Ifapproved,therequested item is added to thelistofApprovedReligiousItems,availableforoffendersthroughout' VD OC.Lda at9.IftheFRC hasreview ed arequèstforapardcularitem within thepasttwelvem onths,no new review isreq'pired - thepziordecision can be applied to alltepeated requests.Id. VDOC allowsoffendersto observe holy daysN/here caied forby dae/ reEgons. H owever,levelsofoffenderparticipation and the availabilityoffacilityresoutcesand religious leadersdoesnotperm itsepatate servicesforeverypossible fot'm ofworsllip atevery facility. 1d.at12.VD O C hasa ffM asterReligiousCalendar''thatitusesasa guide forplanning holy daysand zeligiousobservations.Id.and ECF N o.18-3 at7-11. Pursuantto OP 841.3,Dieppa requested sevezaltdspeciik and reqlnited religiousitem s for personaluse.''ECF N o.1 at4.Dieppa requested a wooden w and,a tea candle,an oil diffuser,asmallbell,an offeringbowl,and an outdoorayawith aflrepit(Aff.ofBetnard Morris,!(11;ECF No.16-1).The Facility UtlitHead recommended disapprovalofallthe requestsand theFRC reviewed and denied a1ltherequestson Septem ber 14,2017.ECF N o. 1 at5. D ieppg'srequestfotaw ooden wand specified thatitwasan fTintegral,necessary staple ofèislreligion used forTfhealing,harmony,peace,and cleansinp''ECF No.1-2 at9.The Facility UnitH ead recom m ended approvalofthe wand forcom m unaluse only,nodng that the facility alteady allow ed Htnxm sdcks.J-d.Another group w as pe= itted to use these Hmlm sticks,which aresim ilarto awahd in shapeand m aterial,in theirreligiouspracdces.ECF 3 N o.1 at6.D espitetherecom m endaéon fozapptoval,theFRC disapproved therequestbased on ffsafety and security;potendalweapon.''ld. D ieppa'srequestfora tea candleindicated thatthe candle fulfllled the requirem entof fltein hissacred space.ECF N o.1-2 at10.The FacilityUnitH ead recom m ended disapproval based on secut'ity and safety concetnsrelated to the open flame.ldz.The FRC'Sbasis fo: denying therequestwasf<safetyand security (fltehazard)& colzld mask odors(Hrlxgs,etc.).'' = Id Dieppazequested an oildiffuserbecausehisdfprayersand itw ocationsarenotproperly carried to the gods withoutit.''ECF N o.1-2 at 11.The Facility U nitH ead recom m ended disapprovalasstaffisnotperm itted thisitem .TheFRC denied the requestdueto ffsafetyand sectlrity(flrehazard)& couldmask odors(cltnxgs,etc.).7'Lda Dieppateqqested aw ooden or m etaloffering bowlfor daily use.ECF N o.1-2 at12. H eindicated thatplasticsand m an-m ade m aterialsare uhacceptable asthey are'Tfoffensiveto glaimland ghisldeiées.''1d.Fotthisreason,theplasécbowlssoldbyVDOC arenotacceptable fprteligioususe.ECF N ot1 at7.The Facility UnitH ead recom m ended disapprovalasthe item isalreadyapproved forcom m unaluse.ECF N o.1-2 at12.TheFRC found thatablessing bbwlwasalteadyapproved asacomm unalitem and denied therequest.Ldx Diepparequested asm allbell,indicadngitisffrequired in glaislreligiousptacdces...to clear gltislsacred space ofunwanted negadve energiesand spirits''and can be used to ffcall deides to ghisl sacted space.''ECF No.1-2 at13.The Facility UnitHead recommended disappzovaldue tp the dfburden ofkeeping track ofanothermetalobjectin thefacilitp''J. 1 .i. TheFRC deniedtherequestdueto <fsafety& security(potendalweaponl.''Lda Finally,D ieppa requested an exterior worslzip area with a flte pitto use as part of approved hohday celebraéons.ECF N o.1-2 at 14.The Facility U nitH ead recom m ended disapprovaland theFRC denied therequestdueto ffsecurity& safetyissuewith ftteinsidethe com pound.''Id. ln àdcliéon tp D ieppa'srequests,two otheroffendersm aderequestsrelated to D ruidry. O ffendetW illiam G raham tequested plant-based essentialoilsand a chalice.TheFacilityU nit H ead recom m ended approvalof oils,butitw as denied by the FRC because the ffalready approved oils are deem ed adequate.Cedarwood is alteady approved.''ECF N o.1-2 at 7. G raham 'srequestfor a chalice was notapptoved,wit .h the Facility U nitH ead saying itwas notareasonablerequestforpersonaluseand theFRC finding itwasa safety and sectuityrisk brqauseitcould beused asaw eapon.ECF N o.1-2at8.O ffenderFieldsrequestedrecognidon ofsixD ruid holy days,buttherequestwasdeniedbecauset'woholydays,Sam hain and Beltane, alreadywerezecognized.ECF No.1-1at7-89MorrisAff.!(12,ECF No.16-1at3. Diçppa appealed the denials of all the objects and the holy days thtough 'the adrninisttadve process.ECF N os.1 at691-2 at2-6.D efendaptRobinson upheld the FRC'S decisionsregardingtheobjeçtsandholydaysonDecembet4,2017andnoéfiedDieppathat he had exhausted allidnainisttadverem edies.ECF N o.1-2 at6. II.Causes ofA ction Dieppacloimsthat(1)defendantsviolated hisdghtsundertheFitstAmendm entand RI,UIPA bydenym ' g him possession ofcertain holyitem s,including theessendaloils,chalice, wooden wand,candle,oildiffblset,smalloffetingbowl,and smallbell;(2)defendantsviolated l' tisrightsunder the FirstAm endm entand RLUIPA by denying him tecognition ofcertain holy days;and (3)defendantsviolated hisrightto equalprotecdon undertheFourteenth Am endm entby denying D ruidry'sholy dayswhileapproving theholy daysofotherreligions. Dieppa seeksinjunctive reliefmandadng approvaloftherequested religiousitemsand holy days,declaratoryreliefthathisrightswereviolated,and $50,000.00inpunidvedamagesfrom each defendant. In theirmoéon to disnaiss,defendantsargue(1)Dieppalacksstancling tobdngclnims fortheitemsandholydayshe.didnotpersonazyrequest;(2)Dieppahasfailedtostateaclnim fotreliefbecause hehasnotstated factsshowing thatdefendantshave substandally burdened hisfaithunderRLUIPA andtheFirstAmendment,and(3)Dieppafailedtoallegethepersonal involvementofeithetDefendantnecessaryto sustain aclaim underj1983. APPLICABLE T,AW 1.M otiontoDismissPursuanttoRule12(b)(1) DefendantsmovetodismissDieppa'jclnimsunderRule129$(1)oftheFederalRules ofCivilProcedure,asserting thathelacksstanHing to sue on som e ofhiscbim s.SeePa nev. Cha elHiIINorth Pro eGes LL(j,947 F.supp.zd 567,572 (M .D.N.C.2013)(nodngthat challenges to standing ate addressed .under Rtzle 124$(1) fot lack of subject matter ' Jurisdiction). Therearetwo strapdsofstanding:constitudonaland prudential.D oev.Vit 'rziaD e t. ofStatePolice,713F.3d745,753(4thCir.2013).ArficleII1oftheConsdt tzdonpermitsfederal l cotutsto adjudicateonlyffact-ualcasesand controversies.''Allen v.Wriht,468U.S.737,750 (1984).Theconsétuéonalstanding doctdne giveseffectto tlliszeqllitementby Tfenstzrging) that a plaindff has a suffkient personalstake in a dispute to render judicialresoludon 6 appropriate.''FdendsoftheEarth Inc.v.G aston Co erRec clin Cor .,204 F.3d 149,153 (4thCir.2000)(enbanc).Toestablish constimtionalstanding,apbintiffmusthave(1)suffered aninjutpin-factthatis(a)concreteandparécularizedand(b)acmalorimminent;(2)theinjury mustbefairly traceableto thechallenged action ofthedefendant;and (3)theinjurymustbe likelyto bezedzessedbyafavorabledecision.Lujanv.DefendetsofW ildlife,504 U.S.555, 560-61(1992). Thepattyitwokinpfederaljurisdictiongenetallyd<bearstheburdenofestablishingthese elem ents.''Ldxat112.Howçver,docum entsflledpz-q. tqareliberallyconstruedandthisextends to standing.Erickson v.Pardus,551U.S.89,94 (2007).SeeGouldv.Schneider,448F.App'x 615,618(7thCir.2011)(explainingthatadistdctcourtmayliberallyconstrueapro. K htkant's factazalallegadonspertainingto standing)and Lerman v.Bd.OfElecéonsin C# ofNew York,232F.3d430,437l/t. h Cir.1998)rfrllheobligation toreadthepleadingsofap-r-q. iq plainéfflibçrally and intelw etthem tp zaise the strongest argam ents thatthey suggest .. extendsto thequeséonofstandingnolessthanitdoesto anyotherissue.''(internalquotadon marksand citationsomitledl). Prudendalstanding servesTjudicially self-imposed limitson the exercise offedetal jurisclicéon.''Allen,468U.S.at751.Thedocttineencompassesffthegeneralprollibidon on raising another person's legalrights,the rttl ebarringadjudicadon ofgenerahzed grievances . m ore apptopriately addressed in the representative branches,and the requilem entthatthe pbinéff'scomplzntfallwithin thezone ofinterestsprotected by the law invbked.''1d. D efendants allege that Dieppa lacks ll0th consdtutionaland prudentialstancling to bring clnim stelated to theplant-based essentialoils,thechalice,and tlaeholy daysbeçause he did notpersonally requestthose item s and did nottequestthe holy days to which he now clnim she and theotherD raidsare entitled.A ssetoutabove,O ffenderGraham requested the chalice and theplant-basedzoils,whileO ffenderFieldssoughtrecognition ofthe six holy days. D ieppa respondsthatbecause Robinson upheld the denialofthese religiousitem s and holy days, Dieppa is prevented from practicing his religion in violation of RT,UIPA,the Fitst Am endm ent,and the Fokuteenth Am endm ent. ThecotutfindsthatD ieppahasconstitutionalstanding becausehehasapersonalstake in the outcom e of tlnis M gaéon.H e alleges thathe needs the requested item s in order to practicelniszeligion and itisuncontested thatV D O C hasdeclined to add theitem srequested by D ieppa and G raham to the listof approved faith item s.To the extent defendants are asserlingthatD ieppa failed to e' xhausthisadmirlistrativerem edies, theirasserdon isfozeclosed by defendantRobinson'sfinalresponse to Dieppa'sgrievances,where he stated thathe had reviewed Dieppa's grievance ofthe FRC'S decision to disapprove llis request for religious (v ' item sand addidonalholy days.Robinson determ ined thatthegrievance was unfounded and stated thatDieppahad exhausted allaclm inistrative rem edies.ECF N o.1-2 at6. M oreover,theFRC isnotreqllited to zeview repeatrequests fotindividualfaith item s for twelve m onths following its iniéaldecisién.ECF N o.16-1 at 9.Thus, the denial of Graham 'srequesteffectively fozeclosed D ieppa'sability to seek FRC apptovalforayear.The denialofitem sD ieppaclnim sarereqllited forllisreligiouspractice,even though requested by Graham,consémtesaconcreteand particularized injurrin-fact.A favorabledecision would tedressDieppa's injuty by enabling Dieppa to access these items through the Approved ReligiousItem slist.Consdtutionalstanding thereforeissadsfied. The sam e analysis applies to Dieppa's claim that de/ al of the holy days places a substantialburden on the practice ofllisreligion.ThatFieldsratherthan D ieppa requested the holy days does not change the fact that the holy days are notrecognized by VD O C. A ccordingly,Dieppahasconstittztionalstanding to bring b0th ofthese cbim s. Second,Dieppaalso hasprudentialstanding.D efendantsclnim thatDieppa is . attem pting to bring clnim son behalfofGraham and Fieldszatherthan lnim self.H ow ever, Dieppa'scom plnintm akesclearthathe isseeking theitem sso thathe can ffm eaningfully practicellisreligion.':ECF N o.1 at8.W hile hedoesdiscusstheitem sin term sofhim self and otherswho practicethereligion,nowherein l' lispleaclingsdoesheappearto bebringing clqim son behalfofanyonebutlnim self.Also,ifapproved,the plant-based essentialoilsand chalicewould have been placed on theApproved ReligiousItem slistand m adeavailable to allVD O C offenders,including D ieppa.W hileprtzdentialstanding generally ffprollibits raising anotherperson'slegalrightsy''the courtunderstandsD ieppato be seeking relieffor injurieshehimselfhassuffered.Allen,468U.S.at751.Dieppahassatisfied the.courtthathe hasstanding to bring these clnim s. II.M otion to DismissPursuantto Rule12(b)(6) TosurdveamotiontodisnùssunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure129$(6),a com plaintm ustcontain suffk ientfactazalallegations,which,ifaccepted astrue,fffstatea cllim to reliefthatisplausibleonitsface.'''Ashcroftv.I bal,556U.S.662,678(2009) (quotingBellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,557(2007)).Undertheplausibility standard,acom plaintm ustcontain Tfm ore than labelsand conclusions''ora çfform ulaic recitation oftheelementsofacauseofaction.''Twombl,550U.S.at555.Tllispkusibility standard requiresaplaintiffto dem onstratem orethan <dasheezpossibility thatadefendant hasacted urllawflplly-''Lqb-a-l,556U.S.at678. W hen ruling on a m oéon to dismiss,the courtacceptsTfthewell-pled allegadonsofthe complaintastrue''and f'constrtzegs)thefactsand reasonableinferencesderived therefrom in thelightinostfavorabletotheplnintiff.''Ibarrav.UnitedStatqs,120F.3d472,474(4thCir. 1997).W hilethecourtmustacceptastruea1lwell-pleaded factualallegations,thesameisnot true forlegalconclusions.fv hreadbarerecitalsoftheelem entsofacause ofacdon,supported 1,556 U .S.at 678.A court need not by m ere conclusory statem ents,do not suflk e.''Lqba- acceptsastrtze fTflegalconclusions,elem entsofacauseofacéon,...bateassetdonsdevoid of fkuthet facttul enhaqcem ent, . unw rranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arplments.'''Xchardsonv.Sha iro,751F.App'x346,348 (4th Cir.2018)(quotingNemet Chevrolet,Ltd.v.Consumeraffaizs.com,Inc.,591 F.3d 250,255 (4th Cir.2009))(internal 9uotaéonmarksomitted).Thus;acompvntmustpresentspfficientnonconclusoryfactual allegadons to supporta reasonable inference that the pbintiffis entitled to reliefand the defendantisliable fottheunlawfulactorom ission alleged.SeçFtancisv.G iacom elli,588F.3d 186,196-197 (4th Cit.2009)(affit-mingdismissalofcbim thatsimplystated alegalconclusion with no factssuppordpg theallegadon)and IQn v.Rubenstein,825 F.3d 206,214 (4th Cir. 2016)(<. 'lusionsTarenotentitled totheasskmapéon oftrtzth'andareinsufficient fBarelegalconc . to stateaclnim .'7l(quotingI bal,556U.S.at679). A.RLU IPA Claim s Asan inidalm atter,aprisonerbringing a cause ofacéon underRT,UIPA isnotenétled to m oney dam ages against state dçfendants in either theit individual or ofhdalcapacides. 10 Sossamon v.Texas,563 U.S.277,293 (2011).Thus,Dieppa is limited to seeking only itjuncdvereliefunderRI,UIPA.Baacliv.M athena,No.7:12-cv-436,2013W L 819735,at*6 (W .D.Va.2013). D efendantsassettthatD ieppahasfailed to statea clnim under130th RT, U IPA and the FirstAm endm ent.W ith regard tq prison inm ates,RT, U IPA providesthe foEowing: (a)Generalrule N o governm entshgllim posea substanéalburden on thereligiousexelyise ofaperson residing in orconhned to an institution ...even ifthe burden resultsfrom a rule of general applicability, unless the governm ent dem onstrates that im position of the burden on thatperson- (1)isin filttheranceofacompellinggovernmentinterest;and (2)istheleastrestdcévemeansoffllttheringthatcompellinggovernmentinterest. 42U.S.C.j2bOOcc-1(a). RI, U IPA cbim sare analyzed underthe sttictscrutiny standatd and areto be construed :::1nfavorofbroadprotectionofreligiousexercise.'''Lovelacev.Lee,472F.3d174,186(2006) (quoting 42 U.S.C.j 2000cc-3(g)).'t' he inmate bears the irlidalburden ofshowing thata Prison's policy creates a substantial butden on his zeligious exercise.If he m akes such a showing,the btgden slliftsto the defendantto show thatitspolicy ftzrthersacom pelling state interestbytheleastrestriçdvemeans.42U.S.C.j2000cc-2 (b)9Incumaav.Stirlin ,791F.3d 517,525(4th Cir.2015). A lthough the stam te does not define Tfsubstanéalburden,''the Suprem e Cotuthas defm ed the tet.m in the contextofthe free exercise clause asffputting subàtandalpressure on an adherentto m odify ltisbehavior and violate hisbeliefsy''Thom asv.Review Bd.O flnd. Em lo m entSec.Div.,459 U.S.707,718 (1981),or Tfone thatforces apetson to fchoose between followingthepreceptsofherreligionandforfeie gkovernmentaljbenefits,onthe one hand,and abandoning one of the precepts of her teligion . ..on the other hand.''' Lovelace,472F.3dat.187(quotingSherbertv.Verner,374U.S.398,404 (1963));litie erv. Brown,496F.App'x322,325(4t. h Cir.2012).Governmentactiondoesnotcreateasubstandal btuden ifitm akes the religious exercise m ore expensive or difhcult,as long asit does not pressure the adherentto violate hisothezreligiousbeliefsorabandon one ofthe preceptsof thereligion.Al-Azim v.Everett,No.3:14CV339,2017W L 1097219,as* 3 (E.D.Va.2017) (cidngLivin W aterChurch ofGodv.Char erT .OfMeridian,258 Fed.Appx.729,739 (6th Cir.2007)). Regarding thetfleastrestdcdvem eans,''the standard isf<excepdonally dem ancling,''and itrequiresthegovernm entto ffféhogw)thatitlacksothermeansofaclùevingitsdesitedgoal withoutimposing a substanéalburden on theexezciseofzeligion by theobjecéngpalrtly' l.''' Holtv.Hobbs,135S.Ct.853,864(2015)(quodngBurwellv.Hobb Lobb Stpres lnc.,573 U.S.682,728 (201$)(altetationsitaoriginal).Courtsmustçffscrutinizle)theasserted hst' m of granting specificexem ptionsto pardcularrezgiousclnim ants'and flook atthem arginalinterest in enforcing'thechallenged governm entaction in thatpardcularcontext.'''H olt,135 S.Ct.at 863 (quodng Hobb Lobb , 573 at 726-727 and G onzales v. O Centro E s itita BenehçenteUrlio doVe etal,546U.S.418,431(2006))(alteradon in Hobb Lobb ). H qwever,RT, U IPA doesnotffelevate accom m odadon ofreligious observances over an instiiuéon's need to m aintain order and safetp''Cutterv.W illdnson,544 U.S.709,722 (2005).Securityin aprison setdngisacompelling stateinterestand sectuityconcernsdeserve patdctzlarsensitivitp Lovelace,472F.3dat190 (cidng Cutter,544U.S.at722). 12 (1)SubstantialBurden A s Dieppa aEeges that each of the requested item s is to be used during religious exezcise,theonlyissueiswhetherthedenialoftheseitem sconsdtm esa substanéalburden on llisability to pracéce llis religion.To m ake thatshowing,D ieppa m ustdem onstrate thatthe lack oftheseitem s placessubstandalpressure on him to m odify hisbehaviozand violate llis beliefs.Iitieger,496 F.App'x at325.A blanketassertion thata religiousitem is teqllited is ' . , insuf:cient.Ata nlinim um ,a free exercise cloim under RT, U IPA reqlxites an explanadon of w hy theabsenceofaspecihcreligiousitem im posesasubstandalburden on religiouspracdce. SeeId.at326. For this reason,D ieppa's request fot an outdoor wozslnip area fails to state a cbim underRT,U IPA .Diepparepeatedly alleges thatllisreligiouspracdcesTfshould''be perfot-m ed outdoors.ECF 1-1 at3,5.D ieppa's requestfor an outdoorw orsllip space echoes Ktieger, where an inm ate asserted that his religious pracdce was f'best perfotm ed outdoors''and requested an outdoorw orship space in which to pracéce.litie er,496 F.A pp'x at325.The court found that Ifrie er Tffailed to offer >ny explanadoh regarding the reason why indoor worship would com pronlise lzis religious beliefs.'' Id. atA325. Sim ilarly, D ieppa has not provided any basis for the court to conclude that the denial of an outdoor worship area substantially butdenshis religious exercise and therefore,the defendants'm otion to disnniss thisclaim isgtanted and the clnim isdisnlissed. Dieppa'scloim regarding sptcihc holy daysalso failsto state a clnim under RI,U IPA. Dieppastatesonly thathisreligion haseightannualholy observances,thatcertain ritualsm ust be perfprm ed dudng those observances,and thatthe FRC derzied recognition ofthese holy days.H e failsto state how the denialim poses a substantialbutden on hiszeligious pracdce and why he cannotobserve these holy daysindependently.Com are M ilesv.Guice,688 F. App'x 177,178-179 (4th Cir.2017)(remanclingto disttictcouztafterhnclingthatfailuzeto accommodate fasting on holy daysisa substantialburden);and Lovelace,472 F.3d at187 (removinginmatefrom Ramadanobsewancepasslistcausedhim tobeunabletofast,meaning he could notf'ulflllone ofthe tive pillars or obligadons oflslnm).Accordingly,Dieppa's RT. UIPA cbim basedonthedenialofDruidholydays(otherthanthetwothatarerecognized) isdismissed for failureto statea claim . Therequestsforspeçihcpersonalitem stequire ftzrtherconsideradon.To state a clnim fordeprivation ofreligiousobjects,Dieppamustallegethattheprison derlied him items neçe#sary for specifk, reqllired, teligious pracdces and that the absence of those item s m odihed his behavior >nd violated lzis zeligious beliefs.See Blankensh v.Setzer,681 F. App'x 274,277 (4th Cir.2017);Iirie er,496 F.App'x at326.Theprison in Blankenslni substandally burdened the inm ate's religious pracdce because the inm ate ffasserted thatllis religion requires him to read and study the bible daily''and therefore the ffdeprivadon of a Bible for longerthan a period of24 hoursfotced him to m oclifyhisbehaviot and violate his zeligiousbeliefs...'')Blakenshi,671 F.App'x at277.Conversely,in IG ieger,theinm ate's failure to explnin why frthe absence ofsacyed item shad an impacton the zitualsand violated l' ligbeliefsg''prevented thecourtfrom effectivelyevaluatingwhethertlaerestdcdon posed a substandalburden.litieger,496 F.App'x at326.. Like the prisoney in 'Blankenshi ,D ieppa asserts that the plant-based essendaloils, chalice,offeringbowl,woodenwand,tea-lkhtcandle,oildiffuset,and smallbellarerequired 14 fot specifk com ponentsofhisdàily religiouspracdce.H e describestheptupose ofeach item andclnimsthattheirabsencepreventshisrelationsllipwiththeclivine.Therefore,justasthe deprivation oftheBible in Blankenslli forced theinm ateto disobey thereqe em entofdaily Biblestudy,thedeprivation ofthese objectspteventsDieppa from completing hisrequited da' tly pzacdces. The D efendants argue that D ieppa's com plaint only alleges that llis pracdce of D rlzidism requiresthepresence ofthe fourelem entsand doesnotrequize the use ofa single, specifk item to invoketheelements.They sugyestthatto invoketheelementofair,Dieppa doesnotneed an oildiffuser,butcan blow ozwllistle.Ratherthan neecling a bowlm ade out ofnatazralm aterials,he could use lnishands orleavesto hold water.To invoke fue,he could usea pictare offtre,orcreate am akeshiftflreby shaping wood and leavesbtéltto look likea cam pflre.Ratherthan using a bell,defendantssuggesthe could m ake sim ilar soundswith his m outh,lips,orhands.ECF N o.16 at10. H owever,this argum entignores criécalporéons of Dieppa's com plnint.The coutt understandsD ieppa to com plain thatllisreligiouspracéceshave tavo intersecéng butseparate reqllirem ents- the presenceofallfourelem entsand the specihcitem satissuehete.D ieppa's affidavit suggests that the elem entalrepresentadons m ay vary,while the specifk item s m ay not.Thus,notwithstanding defendants'suggested alternatives,thecourtfindsthatD ieppahas stated a clnim thatnotbeing allowed the item s places a substandalburden on isisteligious Pracéces.z 2Dieppa's clqim s relating to essendaloils and a chalice and bowlm ade of nattzralm aterials echo requests addressedbyothercourts.InLaplantev.Mass.Dept.ofCorr.,89F.Supp.3d235,245(D.Mass.2015),the courtfound thatlimidng the types ofrit' ualoils available placed a substandalbutden on religious exercise. (2)LeastResttictiveM eans U nderRI, U IPA,theburden shiftsto defendantsto show that' VD O C'Spoliciesf'xt'tlner itscom pelling stateintetestin safety and sectzritybytheleastresttictivem eans.H olt,135 S.Ct. at853;Cuter,544 U .S.at722;Lovelace,472 F.3d at190. Thecandlezequested by D ieppaforusein lniscellclearly posesadangerto bim selfand the facilitp çfef' he need to pzeventinm ates'access to f=e witllin living areasis an obviously juséEable reason to maintain instimtionalsecudty and cliscipline and prevent thteats to inmates'safetp''De'lontav.lohnson,No.7:11-CV-175,2012R 2921762,at*10(W.D.Va. 2012)(ciéng Davisv.Or.Coun ,607 F.3d 543 (8th Cir.2010)).See also W ardv.W alsh,1 F.3d 873,879(9th Cir.1993)(findingin Pre-RT,UIPA casethatffserioussafetyand security concernsraised by allowing inm atesto possess and use candlesoutweighsthe curtlilm entof gthepetidoner's)religiouspractice.'') VD O C has an ffopen flam e candles''policy wllich providesthatcandlesm ay be used dlzring designated eventsand requiresthata staffm emberwith aradio and ftre extinguisher rem ain in the area wlzile candles are lit.ECF N o.18-3 at 12.The courtfinds thatallowing D ieppa to use candles atdesignated eventswit. h ptecautbnsin place is the leastrestdctive m eansfor allowing him to ptacécellisreligion and thatthe denialofa candlein hiscelldoes notstate a clnim underRT,UIPA . Similarly,thecourtin Leviev.W ard,No.CIW 05-1419-HE,2007 WL 2840388,at*16 (W .D.OIA .Sept27, 2007),found thata policy limiting Wiccan prisoners to five kindsofoilswasa substandalburden under RT.UIPA,given thatprayersaredfrendered ...pointless''withoutthecorrectoils.O thercolzrtshavefound that allowing onlyplasdcalternadvesforreligiousitem s,when theinm ate'sreligion requiresnatnlralsubstancesand disavows plasdcs,im poses a substandalburden.See W arner v.Patterson,N o.2:08-CV-519 TC,2011 W L 5117917,*10(D.UtahOct.27,2011). 16 Regarding the use ofan oildiffuser,VD O C denied the requestbecauseitcteatesaftre hazatd and also becauséitcould mask otherodorssuch asdrugs.The courtfindsthatthe prohibition on an in-celloildiffuser furthetsVD O C'Scom pelling interestin keeping illegal cllnlgs outofthe facility and isthe leastresttictive m eans ofdoing so.Thus,Dieppa cannot statea clnim based on the denialon an in-celloildiffuser. D ieppa'srequestfotawand in hiscellwasdenied by the Facility UnitH ead with the recom m endadon thatitbe allowed forcom m unaluseonly.Itw asnoted thatdmpm stickswere allowed,presum ablyin acom m unalseténg.TheFRC denied therequestto haveawand even in acom m unalsetting,becauseitcotzld beused asaweapon.ECF N o.1-2 at9.D ieppapoints outthataChrisdan group isallow ed to usem usicalinsttum ents,inclucling adrum set,forthei. r twiceweeklyw orsllip sérvice.H ow ever,he doesnotclnim thatindividualinm atesareallow ed to havecltnlm sticksin theircells.The cotutfindsthatthe denialofawand forin-cellpersonal use isconsistentwith VD O C'Ssafety concerns. N evelheless,given that the Chrisdan group is allowed cltnpm sticks in a com m unal seténg,itdoesnotappearthatbanning wandsentirelyistheleastrestdctivem eans'ofensudng safety.Lim iting possession ofa wand to a com m unalsetdng w ould furtherW 7O C'S safety conceznswhile allowing Dieppaand the other D raidsto pracdce thei. rreligion.A ccorclingly, defendantshave failed to m eettheirbutden underRI,UIPA ofshowing thatdenialoftlae use l of a w and in a com m unal setting is the least restticéve m eans of furthering the interest of safetyin theinstittztion.SeeM arénezv.m chardson,No.6:15-cv-732,2017W L 9289644 (E.D . Tex.2017)(nodng thatawandwasallowedin acommunalsettingwhen itwasbtoughtin by an approvedvolunteerand rem oved im mediatelyaftertheserdce). Regarlingin-cellpossession ofawooden orm etalchalice,Robinson denied therequest because ofthe potentialto use it as a weapon.The chalice requested w as thtee-and-a-half inches tall.VD O C inm ates are allowed to have a six-inch by eight-inch wooden plaque depicting an icon in theitcells,which presllm ably also could befashioned into aweapon.ECF N o.18-3at5.Allowing theplaquesunderm inesthedefendants'contendon thatasm allchalice should bedisallowed becauseitcould be used asaw eapon as130th item shave som epotential to be used asw èapons.See also K em vanee v.Skolnik,N o.3:10-cv-535,2012 W L 893776' (D.Nev.2012) (noting thatprisonerhad chalice made ofunspecified materialin his cell). Thus,thecourtfinds thatdefendantshave notm ettheirburden underRLUIPA with regard to denying D ieppa the use ofa sm allchalice in lziscell. Forthe sam e reasons,defendants'concerns aboutsafety related to D ieppa'srequest fora two-inch tallbellm easuring threeinchesatthe basçdo notappearconsistentwith other item s thatare azowed,such asone-and-a-half-inch m etalam ulets,m edallions,and pendants. ECF N o.18-3 at4.Som eprisonsrouénely allow bellsin cells.SeeM aierv.Swanson,N o.CV- 08-26-H-DW M ,2009.W 1,1439477,*3 (D.Mont.2009))butseeSrnith v.Stoley,No.1:08-cv693,2009WL 3233825(W.D.Mich.2009)(finding thatruledisallowingin-cellbellbecauseit could beused to signalotherprisonersdid notviolaterightsunderRT,UIPA).W hilealmost anyobjectcouldbe fashioned into aweapon,asmallbelldoesnotseem morelikelythan an am uletor m edallion to be dangerous.A ccordingly,defendants have not naettheg butden underRI, U IPA in denying D ieppa personaluse ofa sm allbell. Dieppa'szequestfora sm alloffering bowlwasdenied because ablessing bowlalready isapptoved fotcom m unaluse.D ieppa asks foteitlaeta wooden bowlm easuring fiveinches . 18 by t'wo inchesby one-and-a-halfinches,or a three-ipch m etalbowlthathe can use daily to hold offedngs to llisdeides.ECF N o.1-2 at12.Itisunclearwhether a blessing bowlisthe sam e thing asan offering bowlorifthere is a safety or secut' ity risk in allowing an inm ate to have a sm allwooden or m etalbowlin his cell.A ccozdingly,defendantshave notm ettheit burden ofshowing thatthe denialofan offering bowlforpersonalreligiouspurposesisthe leastrestricdvem eansofflprtlnering acom pelling governm entinterest. Finally, the zequest for plapt-based essendal oils was denied because the already approved o;s are deenned adequate,and because cedar wood oilin patdctzlar already is # approved.ECF N o.1-2 at7.lnm atesate allowed to haveprayeroilforpersonalusein a oneounceclearplasticbottle and the allowed oilsincludesage,rosem ary,sw eetgrass,lem ongrass, cedar wood,eucalypm s, sandalwood, franldncense,m yrrh,' Jasm ine,wiccan ritazal ol 'l, and genedcoil.ECFNo.18-3at5.Dieppaobjectstotheseoilsbecausetheyareman-maderather than plant-based.ECF N o.1-1 at4-5.A ccepting astruethattheprayeroilneedsto bem ade ofplantessencesTftodraw theblessingsofthegod/goddess,''disallowingplant-basedoildoes notseem to furtheracom pellinggovernm entintetest,m uch lessto do so in theleastrestricdve m annet.For this reason,the defendants'm otion to disnniss is denied with zegard to plantbased essenéaloils. In s'nm ,defendants'm odon to disnaiss is granted with regatd to D ieppa'sRT,UIPA causesofaction based on the need to practicelzisreligion outside;theneed for six addidonal Druid holy days;theneed fora candlein lziscell;and the need fotpersonalorcom m unaluse ofan oildiffdser.H owever,atthisstageoftheM gadon,defendantshavenotm ettheitburden under RT, U IPA of showing that denialofD ieppa's requests to use a chalice,bell,offering 19 bowl,and plant-based essendaloilsin his cellis the leastrestricdve m eans of filttheritng a com pelling governm entinterest.N or have defendants m et theitburden with regatd to the com m unaluseofawand.A ccordingly,thedefendants'm oéon ' to disnnissD ieppa'sRT-UIPA cllim sisdenied wit.h regard to theseitem s. B.Liabilityunder42U.S.C.j1983 Topzevailon acloim foracivilrightsviolaéonunder42U.S.C.j1983,aplaindffmust establish (1) that he hasbeen deprived of a right,privilege,or immunity secured by the Consdtaztion orlawsoftheUnited Statesand (2)thattheconductaboutwhich hecomplains w as com m itted by a person acting under color of state law.D ow e v.TotalAcdon A ainst Pover in Roanoke Valle ,145 F.3d 653,658 (4th Cir.1998).Plainéffsmay seek money dam ages against defendants for their officialacéonswhen they aze sued in theitindividual capacities,subjectto someexcepéonsand immuniées.Haferv.Melo,502 U.S.21,30-31 (2001) Cbim s for m oney dam agesbroughtagainstdefendants in theirofficialcapacidesare notcognizablein j1983lawstzitsbecauseneitherastatenoritsofficialsacdngintheizofûcial capaciéesarepersonsforpurposesofj1983.Wi. IIv.MichianDe 'tofStatePolice,491U.S. 58,71(1989).Thus,acbim broughtagainstapersoninllisorherofficialcapacityisconsidered a suit ag/instthe official's office.Because the Eleventh Am endm entprohibits cotzrts from entertaining an acdon againstthe state,Alabama v.Pu h,438 U.S.781,782 (1978),italso prollibitscotutsfrom considering clqim sagainstdefendantsin tlaeiroffcialcapaciées.Crom er v.Btown,88F.3d 1315,1332 (4th Cit.1996). 20 However,aplaindffmayseekprospecdveinjuqctivereliefagainststatedefendantsin thek officialcapacides.W iIIv.MicllianDe t.ofStatePolice,491U.S.58,71(1989)9Grahnm v.Kentucky,473 U.S.159,167 n.14 (1985).<<To ensureenforcementoffederallaw ...the Eleventh Amendmentpe= itssuitsforprospecéveinjuncévereliefagainststate officials acdnginviolaéonoffederallaw.7'Frew exrel.Frew v.Hawkins,540U.S.431,437(200$. Defendantsmay assertqualified immunityagainstj1983cloimsbroughtagainstthem in theit personalcapacities.The doctdne of qualihed im m unity affords protection agninst inclividualliabilityfozcivildnm agesto offkialsinsofarastheizconductdoesnotviolateclearly ( established stam tory orconstitazdonaldghtsofwllich azeasonableperson would haveknown. Pearson v.Callahan,555U.S.223,231 (2009)(quoting Harlow v.Fitz erald,457 U.S.800, 818 (1982)). Stated anothez way, ffgqlualified immunity protects ofhcials Twho commit consdm tionalviolaéonsbutwho,in lightofcleatly established law,could reasonably believe thattheiractionswerelawful.'''Bookerv.South CarolinaD e t.ofCorrecdons,855 F.3d 533, 537-538 (4th Cir.2107)(cidngHe ,m Purnell,652F.3d 524,531(4th Cir.2011)(enbancl). Thedocttineweighstheneed to hold publicofficialsaccountable forizresponsible exerciseof poweragainsttheneed to shield officialsfrom harassm ent,disttacdon,and liabilitywhen they perform theirdudesresponsibly.Booker,855F.3d at538(ciéngPearson,555U.S at231). ln perfo= ing a qualified im m unity anàlysis,a courtm ustfttstdete= ine the specifk rightthattheplaintiffallegeswasinfringed bythechallenged conduct.1d.(citingW infieldv. Bass,106 F.3d 525,530 (4th Cir.1997) (en bancl).Thecourtthen mustask whether a consétuéonalviolation occtuted and whetlaerthe rightviolated wasclearly established atthe timetheofhcialviolatedit.Thequesdonsneednotbeaskedin apardcula. rorder.Id.(citing Me1atex rel.Me1arv.Greene,593F.3d 348,353 (4th Cir.2010)and Pearson,555 U.S.at 236).Theplnindffbearstheburdenofshowing thataconsdtudonalyioladon occurred,while the defendantbears the butden of showing entitlem entto quao ed im m urlity.Purnell,501 F.3d at317. (1)LiabilityofClarkeandRobinson D efendantClarke isthe D irectorofVD O C and Robinson istheChiefofCozrections OpezationsatVD OC,asdefendantsin thiscase.A valid j1983 clnim muststatethatffeach G overnm ent-official defendant, thtough the offcial's own actions, has violated the Consdtudon.''A shcroft, 556 U .S.at676.D efendants argue that the acdons idenéfied in D ieppa's com plaintwere taken by the FRC and thatneither Clatke nor Robinson had the requisitepersonalinvolvem ent.Thisistrue forClarke,asheisnotrefetenced in thecom pllint outside the capdon.Therefore,allcllim sagainstClarke are disrrlissed. H owever, Robinson, as the Chief of.correcéonal O peradons,is responsible for reviewing and m aking afm aldecision regarding FRC zecom m endadons.See OP 841.3 IV .D .S rTaith Review Committee tecommendadonsshallbe referred to theClliefofCorrecdons O peradons and Corrections O perations A dnninistzator for teview and appzovul prioz to noéfying faciliéesofchanges.') In this capacity,Robinson'sinvolvem entis similat to the ùwolvementoftheprison warden in Kin v.Rubenstein,825F.3d 206,223 (4th Cit.2016). There,the courtfound that an inm ate stated a clnim against a w atden who over-tatned a decision of the adrninistradve segregation com tnittee to return the inm ate plaintiff to the generalpopulation.J-1. L at218-219.See also Smartv.Goord,441 F.Supp.2d 631 at643-44 (S.D.N.Y 2006)(fmding supedntendent'sfruldmateauthority''todetetminewhetherto accept 22 orrejectthereview committee'stecommendation regatding administtativesegtegaéon was sufficientpezsonalinvolvementto sustain a j 1983 acdon).Taldng allofthe factsalleged in tlae com plqint and suppoténg docxam ents as tzue, D ieppa states sufhcient pezsonal involvementby Robinson to satisfy aj 1983 cbim againsthim in bisindividualand ofhcial capacities. (2) FirstAmendment Inm atesretain protecéons provided by the First Am endm ent,including its ditective thatno law shallpzolnibitthe free exerciseofrehgion.O 'Lonev.Estate ofShabazz,482 U .S. 342, 348 (1987). N evertheless, inmates' rights are evaluated in the context of thei. r incarceradon and courts accord deference to prison officials.Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 199. <fll W jhen aprison reguladonimpingeson inmates'consdtutionalrights,theregulation isvalid ifitisreasonably related to legitim ate penologicalinterests.In ourview,such a standard is necessaryiffprisonadmitzistrators...,andnotthecotzrts,(are)tomakethedifEcultjudgments concerninginséttzdonaloperations.'''Turnerv.Safle ,482U.S.78,89(1987)(quoénglones v.NorthCarolinaPrisoners'Union,433U.S.119y128(1977)).Thus,theFirstAmendment affords fewerprotectionsto inm ates'free exezcise rightsthan doesRIU IPA . Lovelace,472 F.3d at199-200. The fuststage ofthe analysisofa freeexercise cbim isessentiazy the sam e forclnim s under130t11RT,UIPA and theFirstAmendment.W ri htv.Lassiter,921F.3d413,418 (4th Cit. 2019);See,e.g.,Carterv.Flenain ,879 F.3d 132,139 (4th Cit.2018)(finding thatto statea clnim underthefreeexerciseclause,an inmateffmustdemonstratethat:(1)heholdsasincere teligiousbelief;and (2)aptison ptacdceorpolicyplacesasubstantialbutden on llisabilityto 23 pzacticehisreligion').Accozdingly,thecotutfmdsthatDieppahasstatedaFirstAmendment clnim thatthedenialofthereligiousitem sherequested forllispersonaluseplaced asubstandal burden on llisability to practice lliszeligion,butfndsthatDieppa hasfailed to state a clnim based on thedenialofDruid holy daysorthe need to hold religious serdcesoutside. under the ftee exercise clause,deference to prison ofhcials'authodty is aclzieved in . partthrough applicadon ofareasonablenesstestthatislessrestticéve than the testordinotily applied to alleged infringem ents offundam entalconsdttzéonalrights.Lovelace,472 F.3d at 199 (cidng O'Lone,482 U.S.at 349).Coutts look at whether there is a valid,rational connection between the prison reguladon or acdon and the interest asserted by the overnm en't;whetheralternadvem eansofexercising therightrem ain open t6 prison inm ates; w hat im pact the desired accomm odadon would have on prison staff, inm ates, and the N allocation ofprison resources;and whetherthere existany obvious,easy,alteznadves to the èhallenged acéon orregulation,wlaich nlightsuggestthatitisnotreasonable butisrathetan exaggezated zesponseto prison concerns.Ttuner,482 U.S.at89-92 (internalquotationsand citadonsom itted). W here thecourtfound thatRobinson m etlaisburden underRTU IPA ofshowing that the prohibitions on personal use of candles, a wand, and an oil-diffuser were the least restricévem eansoffurthering ' VD O C goalsofsafetyand seclptity,itsim ilarly findsthatthese prollibitions ate reasonably related to legitim ate penological interests under' the Fitst Amendment.See Dettmerv.Landon,799 F.2d 929,934 (4t .h Cir.1986) (concluding that sectuity ofhcer'sconcern aboutinm ate'sunsuperdsed possession ofcandlesand incensew as reasonable under the FirstAmendm ent) and Abelv.M m el,No.2:09-cv-1749,2013 W L 552416 (E.D.Cal.2013)(hnding thatno mattetthebuzden placed on the exetciseofan inm ate'steligion,confiscaéon ofawand did notam ountto violaéon oflnisFizstAm enclm ent rightbecause keeping weapons and weapon m aking m aterialoutof the hands of prisoners furtheted ptison sobjectweofsafety foral1). H oweker,atthis stage ofthe lidgation,the couttfinds thatRobinson hasnotm ethis burdèn ofshowing thattheprohibidon on personaluse ofplant-based oils,a sm allchalice,a sm alloffering bowl,and a sm allbell,and the com m unaluse ofawand,are raéonally related to thelegitim atepenologicalinterestsin safetyand secuzity.A sdiscussed above,therequested item saresim ilarin size and m atedalto item salteady allowed forpersonaluseand,in thecase ofthe w and,forcom m unaluse.Accordingly,D ieppa m ay ptoceed againstRobinson under theFirstAm endm entfreeexercise clause on theseclqim s. Robinson's assertion of qualified im m unity fails at this tim e. fw here quao ed im m unity isatissue,a colll'tm ust& stdetezm ine fw hethet a consdtudonalrightwould have been violated on the facts alleged;gand) . second whether the right w as clearly established.'''Snnith vs-salhh,589F.3d 736,739(4th Cir.2009)(quoting Saucierv.Katz,533 U.S.194,200 (2001))(alterationsin original).Dieppabearsthe burden in the fastquesdon and Robinson bearstheburden on the second question.SeeH e v.Puznell,501 F.3d 374, 377-78 (4t.h Cir.2007).Dieppametllisburden by alleging factssufficientto supportclnims under the First A m endm ent. Robinson, however, failed to ffbrief, with ftzll supporéng authority,w hy therightw asnotso clearly established asto putareasonable ofhcialon nodce ofany legalobligadons.''Shabazzv.Johnson,No.3:12CV282,2015 W L 789200,*12 n.19 (E.D.Va.Feb.24,2015).Instead,Robinsononlystatesthatheisendtledtoqualifiedimmunity because he clid nottakeany personalacdon,a cbim thecoutttejects.Because he failed to m eethisbutden,Robinson isnotentitled to quav ed im m unityattitisstage ofthelidgadon. (3) EqualProtection The equalptotecéon clauseoftheFoutteenth Am endm enttequttesthatpezsonswho are sim ilarly situated be treated alikeby the goveznm ent.Ci ofClebuznev.CleburneLivin Ctr.:Inc.,473U.S.432,439-41(1985).ToestablishavioladonoftheEqualProtecdon Clause, aplaintiffm ustshow thathehasbeen treated differentlyfrom otherswho aresim ilarlysituated and that the unequal treatnentwas intentional or ptuposeful.lf a plaintiff m akes such a showing,thecotlrtthendetermineswhethertheclispatityin treatmentcanbejusdhedunder therequisitelevelofscrutiny.Morrison v.Garra h ,239F.3d648,654 (4t.h Cir.2001). Dieppa com plains thatthe defendants violated the equal protecdon clause of the Fourteenth A m endm entby denying recognition ofD raid holy daysw hilerecognizing theholy days ofotherreligiousgtoups.Dieppa assertsthat'VD O C has approved m uldple holy days for other religiousgroups,ranging from nine holy days for one group to fou. rholy days for another gtoup,with Ram adan laséng for m ultiple w eeks and Chanukah for m ore than one w eek.ECF no.1-1 at8.Seealso M asterReligiousCalendar,ECF N o.18-3 at7-11. H ow ever,itisnotenough to allege thatonegroup has m ore holy days than another. W ithouta descripdon ofthe holy daysand theitsignihcance to the teligion,the courtisata lossto dete= inewhethertlaegtoupsate sim ilarly sim ated. M oreover, D ieppa'sim plied assertion thatallthe otherrehgiousgroupsare accorded m oze holy days than the two days accorded D ruidty is false.For exam ple,pracééoners of Catlaolicism/cluiséanityateaccotded two holy days(Cluistmasand Easter);ptactitionetsof 26 Humanism alsohavetwoholydays(DatwinDayandNationalDayofReason);ptactiéonets ofRastafarianism havet'wodaysll-laileSelaisse'sbitthdayandHaileSelaisse'scotonadon);and pracddonerspfBuddhism havetwo days(Vesak and Bodhi).1i.Accozdingly,Dieppahas failed to state a Fourteenth A m endm ent clnim forvioladon ofbisrightto equalprotecdon based on the denialofaddiéonalholy daysand thisclnim isdism issed. CON CLU SION As set forth above,the court GRA N TS defendants'm odon to disnniss in pat'tand D EN IE S the defendants'm odon to dishnissin part,ECF N o.15. (1)Thecout'tDISM ISSESallclnimsagainstClarkebroughtunder42U.S.C.j1983; (2)ThecourtDISM ISSESallj1983cbimsformonetaryreliefagninstRobinsoninhisofhcial capacity; (3)The courtDISM ISSESclnims related to holy days for faillzre to state a clnim undet M UIPA and theequalprotecdon clauseoftheFoutteenth Am endm ent; (4)ThecourtDISM ISSESallofDieppa'sclnimsbasedontheneedtopracticehisreligion outside; (5) ThecotutDISM ISSES allofDieppa'sclqimsrelated to thepersonaluseofacandlein hiscell,thepersonaluse ofawand,and thepersonalor com m unaluse ofan oildiffuser; (6)Dieppamay proceed on hisRT-UIPA clnimsforitjuncévereliefbased on thedenialof com m unaluse ofa w and and personaluse of a chalice,an offering bow l,a bell,and plantbased essendaloils;and 27 (7)DieppamayproceedonlzisFirstAmendmentcbimsagainstRobinsonbasedonthedenial ofcom m unaluse ofawand and personaluse ofa chalice,an offering bowl,a bell,and plant- basedessenéaloils.Robinson'sassertionofqualifiedimmurzityisdeniedwitlaoutprejudice. A n appzopriateorderwillbe entered. Itisso O R DE RED . ENTERED: o T --o &- J= /7 /w/- -' r1,.-4/. # K-,i-. M ichaelF.Urbansld Chietunited StatesDistrictludge 28

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.