Lawsuits by Michigan Prisoner Yield $57,750 in Settlements, Plus Policy Changes
In a letter received in August 2024, Michigan state prisoner John Patrick Moore II notified PLN about three successful lawsuits he filed against the state Department of Corrections (DOC) which resulted in settlement agreements.
In an important case, Moore challenged a prison policy that allowed Muslim prisoners to wear kufi religious head coverings outside their cells only when they were attending or going to or from religious services. Similar restrictions were not imposed on head coverings worn by prisoners of other faiths, according to the complaint he filed, “including yarmulke for Jewish men and hijab for Muslim women.”
The federal court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied qualified immunity (QI) to Defendant DOC officials on February 3, 2022, noting that they had “abundant notice that they were violating Moore’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights” by barring him from wearing a kufi while allowing other prisoners to wear both religious and non-religious head coverings. See: Moore v. Washington, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32274 (E.D. Mich).
The parties then proceeded to reach their settlement agreement on June 25, 2022. Under its terms, DOC changed its policy to allow Muslim prisoners to wear kufis at all times; the agreement also provided payment to Moore of $25,000 in damages. He was represented in the suit by attorneys with the state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, as well as Daniel Manville at the Michigan State University Law Clinic. See: Moore v. Washington, USDC (E.D. Mich.), Case No. 2:19-cv-13616.
In a separate lawsuit filed in 2020, Moore was one of more than two dozen plaintiffs who argued that temporary denial of group religious services at Parnell Correctional Facility during the COVID-19 pandemic violated prisoners’ equal protection rights and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. ch. 21C § 2000cc et seq. Plaintiffs objected that religious services were denied while certain secular activities and programs were allowed to continue—including vocational and educational classes, in-person visits, barbershops and co-mingling of prisoners on the recreation yard and in the dining hall.
While some congregate religious services resumed in May 2021, restrictions remained; for example, Catholic and Protestant prisoners were not allowed to have services on Sunday. Secular visitors were allowed to enter the prison, but religious volunteers were not. The district court refused to dismiss RLUIPA claims on July 6, 2022, finding that Defendants failed to meet their burden of justifying why accommodations were made for secular activities but not religious services. See: Rouse v. Whitmer, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118606 (E.D. Mich.).
The parties then proceeded to reach a settlement on March 7, 2023, with an agreement by DOC that future proposed restrictions on religious services due to COVID-19 must be documented in the facility’s action plan, and “must include consideration of whether there are (1) less-restrictive means to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and (2) comparable restrictions imposed on non-religious services.” Moore was represented by the Oliver Law Group, PC, which was awarded $12,750 in fees and costs. See: Rouse v. Whitmer, USDC (E.D. Mich.), Case No. 2:20-cv-12308.
Moore’s most recent suit was filed to challenge DOC policies related to Islamic religious items and worship practices at Parnell. Again, the district court denied Defendant DOC officials’ motion to dismiss on February 28, 2023. See: Moore v. Washington, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33482 (E.D. Mich.). As part of the agreement reached to settle the case, prison officials modified policy to let Muslim prisoners purchase and possess one ounce of prayer oil, two turbans (male prisoners only) and miswak sticks. Further, DOC changed its yard rules to allow prisoners to engage in non-disruptive “religious discussion/prayer” on prison yards. Moore said he received $20,000 in damages, of which $15,000 went to his attorneys representing him again from the Oliver Law Group. See: Moore v. Washington, USDC (E.D. Mich.), Case No. 2:21-cv-12564.
Notably, in pursuing his successful lawsuits, Moore managed to navigate DOC’s Byzantine, deliberately complicated grievance system, which is “not intended to resolve anything”—as he told the district court before it dismissed yet another suit of his on February 21, 2024. See: Moore v. Washington, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66483 (E.D. Mich.). But as he noted, copies of settlements that he provided PLN let other prisoners “see them and know that things are being won,” and they should “be encouraged to continue to fight.”
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login