On December 12, 2012, a prisoner at the SCDC serving a life-sentence without the possibility of parole filed this pro se lawsuit against the director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). The plaintiff claimed the SCDC was substantially burdening his practice of religion which violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). Additionally, the plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the grounds that the SCDC violated his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the plaintiff had been in administrative segregation since 1995, after his involvement in a riot where several guards were taken hostage. Since being placed in administrative segregation, he had committed no infractions. The plaintiff practiced a religion called the Nation of Gods and Earths (NOGE), a derivation of the Nation of Islam, also known as the Five Percenters. The SCDC did not recognize NOGE as a legitimate religious denomination and classified NOGE as a Security Threat Group. The plaintiff claimed that the SCDC would not release the plaintiff into the general population unless he renounced his religion.

On October 9, 2013, the case was reassigned to Judge David C. Norton. After requesting supplemental memoranda on the case, Judge Norton granted summary judgment to the defendant in district court on March 11, 2014. The director of the SCDC was terminated on March 11, 2014, and the new director's name was substituted on the docket.

The plaintiff then appealed to the Fourth Circuit. On July 1, 2015, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court affirmed the dismissal of the RLUIPA claims because the plaintiff failed to show that his confinement in administrative segregation was because of his religious affiliation rather than because of his participation in the riot.

The appeals court reversed the district court’s decision as to the Fourteenth Amendment due process claims. The appeals court determined that the plaintiff had a protected liberty interest because of the hardships of indefinite solitary confinement. Though a prisoner’s placement in administrative segregation was reviewed every 30 days, the appeals court determined there was a triable dispute as to the adequacy of the procedure and remanded that issue.

After the case was remanded, the plaintiff retained private counsel. While it is likely that the case was resolved outside of court after counsel became involved, as of March 2017, no further motions have been filed in response to the remanded section of the case.

Amanda Kenner - 03/04/2017


compress summary