This case arose out of numerous individual lawsuits filed by inmates who were members of the Fiver Percent Nation of Islam (Five Percenters), who were incarcerated in the South Carolina Department of Corrections from 1995 - 1996. After a series of violent incidents in early 1995, the Five Percenters were classified as a Security Threat Group (STG). As a result of this classification and SCDC's policy for STGs, members of the Five Percenters were transferred to administrative segregation or maximum custody confinement.

On October 25, 1996, each of the individual cases was consolidated into the current docket, under the name Long Term Administrative Segregation of Inmates Designated as Five Percenters . An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated docket on December 31, 1996. The plaintiffs, represented by the Southern Center for Human Rights and private counsel, sued the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, they alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment, the Equal Protection clause, and the Free Exercise clause. Specifically, they alleged that their higher security classification and segregated custody violated their constitutional rights, as well as the defendants' ban on all literature. The case was assigned to Judge Patrick Michael Duffy.

On February 5, 1997, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which they later amended to contain an argument based on the First Amendment. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June 4, 1997.

Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr issued a recommendation that the injunction be denied on July 1, 1997, as the Supreme Court had found RFRA unconstitutional, in City of Boerne v. {CITE}. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted except as to the claim concerning the ban on the Five Percenters' literature on July 23, 1997.

On December 3, 1997, Judge Patrick Michael Duffy granted the motion for summary judgment in part as to the plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment, Equal Protection, and First Amendment claim regarding their custody in high-security, segregated units. Applying the test from Turner v. Safley, Judge Duffy found that the reclassification of the plaintiffs to a higher custody level did not unconstitutionally impinge on their right to Free Exercise. Additionally, Judge Duffy found that the defendants' classification and segregation of the Five Percenters was "reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest." However, Judge Duffy denied to grant summary judgment as to the defendants' total ban on possession of literature. In this same order, the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction was granted, allowing them to "access properly censored Five Percenters literature."

The plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit (No. 98-6032), but then voluntarily dismissed that appeal on February 2, 1998.

In the district court, on June 1, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a motion to get access to religious material, as required by the preliminary injunction. On August 21, 1998, the parties entered into a settlement that led to a consent order, where the preliminary injunction became a permanent injunction. The parties stipulated that the plaintiffs were the "prevailing parties" on this issue of injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs again appealed to the Fourth Circuit (No. 98-7337). Following oral argument, on April 21, 1999, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. 174 F.3d 464. The plaintiffs sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied. 120 S.Ct. 179.

On April 20, 2000, the court approved an attorneys' fees settlement requiring the defendants to pay the Southern Center for Human Rights $5,000, and closed the case without further liability for defendants.

Caitlin Kierum - 07/01/2020


compress summary