Case: Shabazz v. Norris

2:81-cv-02715 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee

Filed Date: Aug. 17, 1983

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In 1981, three Muslim inmates at Fort Pillow State Farm filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee against prison officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the prison official defendants had violated their First Amendment rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that defendants did not allow Muslim inmates to hold religious services in the absence of an outside sponsor known as a "free world sponsor" and refused to issue name badges bearing t…

In 1981, three Muslim inmates at Fort Pillow State Farm filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee against prison officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the prison official defendants had violated their First Amendment rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that defendants did not allow Muslim inmates to hold religious services in the absence of an outside sponsor known as a "free world sponsor" and refused to issue name badges bearing the inmates' Muslim names. In August of 1983, another action was filed alleging that defendants failed to provide constitutionally adequate substitutes for pork and on one occasion intentionally served pork to Muslim inmates in violation of their religious tenants. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. In 1985 these two cases were consolidated with four other actions filed by Muslim inmates in the Western District of Tennessee.

In 1985 the district court (Judge Robert McRae) granted injunctive relief requiring defendants to accommodate Muslim inmates in terms of the food served at the prison, to allow for religious services even in the absence of a "free world sponsor," and to change prison records upon request to reflect the inmates' Muslim names. The district court also denied plaintiffs' request for damages. Defendants appealed the injunctive relief issued by the district court, and one plaintiff cross-appealed the court's decision to deny money damages.

On May 31, 1991, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (per curiam opinion by Judges Keith Nelson, David A. Nelson, and John W. Peck) affirmed the lower court's denial of monetary relief but found that the scope of the court's injunction reached too broadly. Shabazz v. Norris, No. 89-6145, 89-6149, 1991 WL 90894 (6th Cir. May 31, 1991). The court held that defendants did not have to change their menu plans, because plaintiffs failed to establish any right to relief based upon their claims that their rights had been violated by the prison's food and menu practices. The court also held that defendants could require a "free world sponsor" but only if the requirement was applied in a neutral manner to all religious gatherings. Finally, the court stated that the district court did not order defendants to change prison records to reflect inmates' Muslim names, but only observed that it would be proper and appropriate to do so; therefore, the court found there was no issue to appeal concerning the recognition of Muslim names.

We don't have any further information about these cases, which presumably are long-since over.

Summary Authors

Emilee Baker (5/17/2006)

People


Judge(s)

Keith, Damon Jerome (Michigan)

Nelson, David Aldrich (Ohio)

Peck, John Weld II (Ohio)

Judge(s)

Keith, Damon Jerome (Michigan)

Nelson, David Aldrich (Ohio)

Peck, John Weld II (Ohio)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

89-06145

89-06149

Unpublished Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

May 31, 1991

May 31, 1991

Order/Opinion

934 F.2d 934

Docket

Last updated Jan. 23, 2024, 3:21 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Tennessee

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 17, 1983

Case Ongoing: No reason to think so

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Three Muslim inmates at the Fort Pillow State Farm prison alleging that the defendants violated their First Amendment rights.

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Fort Pillow State Farm, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Free Exercise Clause

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 1991 - None

Issues

General:

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Religious programs / policies

Affected Sex or Gender:

Male

Type of Facility:

Government-run