Case: Hudson v. Maloney

This action began with a pro se complaint filed in 2001 by prison inmates in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Correction (the "DOC"). The plaintiffs brought the action against the Commissioner of DOC and other DOC defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston Division. The plaintiffs were Muslims and members of the Nation of Islam. They alleged that the defendants had interfered with their right to freely exercise their religion and had denied them an opportunity to exercise their religion equal to that of inmates of other faiths who were confined to the DOC facilities. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief for the deprivation of their rights as secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, laws and regulations of the United States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

On March 29, 2004, the court entered an order denying the plaintiffs' request for interim injunctive relief. On May 12, 2004, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On July 23, 2004, the court issued an order finding that the defendants were exempted by qualified and official immunity from any claims for monetary damages. The court further determined that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief as a matter of law with regard to DOC's ban on prayer rugs or its policy of assigning prisoners to kitchen service jobs on a nondiscriminatory basis. However, the court found that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether DOC's refusal to provide Halal meals to Muslim inmates constituted an undue burden on the plaintiffs' exercise of their religious beliefs. The court then appointed counsel to represent the plaintiffs. Newly appointed counsel thereafter, on May 26, 2005, filed an amended complaint.

On April 14, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion urging the court to revisit the prayer rug issue based on "newly discovered" evidence. After a hearing, on August 31, 2006, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, thereby framing the three issues to be decided at trial: whether DOC's refusal to provide regular Halal meals, its ban on traditional prayer rugs, and its refusal to permit inmates to participate in Jum'ah services, substantially and unjustifiably burdened the plaintiffs' exercise of their religious rights. In January of 2007, a six-day non-jury trial was held. Final arguments were heard in February of 2007. The parties were then given leave to file further pleadings.

At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the Commissioner filed a motion for judgment on partial findings, arguing that all but one (the Halal meal issue) of the plaintiffs' three claims were barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e) (PLRA). The court provisionally denied the motion, but deferred a final ruling until after the close of evidence and an opportunity for the plaintiffs to reply to the newly asserted jurisdictional claim.

On March 05, 2008, the court entered an order denying the Commissioner's motion for judgment on partial findings. In the order, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief on the issues of Halal meals and closed-circuit television access to Jum'ah services. However, the court held that the defendants' refusal to allow individuals in the Special Management Unit (SMU) to personally participate in Jum'ah services served compelling government interests – rehabilitation and promotion of order. Further, the court held DOC's practice of providing the plaintiffs with prayer towels in lieu of prayer rugs did not create a substantial burden on their religious beliefs. No money damages were awarded. A final judgment was entered on April 11, 2008.

Defendants appealed to the First Circuit. On August 24, 2009, in a published opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's entry of the injunction.

On May 21, 2015, an individual housed in General Population filed a motion to hold the defendants in contempt, arguing that the defendants had not adequately provided televised Jum'ah services. The court ruled, on June 22 of that year, that the plaintiff had not shown a prospect of immediate harm because he was eligible to attend live Jum'ah services and because the DOC had made financial commitments to eventually install televisions. Even so, the court ordered that the defendant file monthly status reports until installation was expected to be completed in November 2015.

Seemingly in response to this motion, the DOC moved on June 19, 2015, to modify the injunction to specifically deny that individual access to televised Jum'ah services should he ever be moved to SMU on the basis that he was not currently attending many live services. The court denied this motion on July 20, finding that there was no underlying current controversy that justified such a consideration.