Professional Documents
Culture Documents
West v. Kind Appellee's Brief 08182020
West v. Kind Appellee's Brief 08182020
No. 20-1570
RUFUS WEST,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Defendants-Appellees.
JOSHUA L. KAUL
Attorney General of Wisconsin
BRIAN P. KEENAN
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar #1056525
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1
A. Parties .....................................................................................3
ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................14
-i-
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
Page
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................28
ii
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242 (1986) ........................................................................................ 13
Borzych v. Frank,
439 F.3d 388 (7th Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 23
Bostock v. Clayton Cty., Georgia,
140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) .............................................................................. 19–20
Boyden v. Conlin,
341 F. Supp. 3d 979 (W.D. Wis. 2018) ..................................................... 20–21
Brown v. Godinez,
No. 15-cv-115-JPG, 2015 WL 1042537 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2015) ................... 20
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,
573 U.S. 682 (2014) ........................................................................................ 15
Chavez v. Illinois State Police,
251 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 27
Crowder v. Lash,
687 F.2d 996 (7th Cir. 1982) .......................................................................... 27
Cutter v. Wilkinson,
544 U.S. 709 (2005) ........................................................................................ 23
Douglas v. Reeves,
964 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 13
Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith,
494 U.S. 872 (1990) ........................................................................................ 23
Fillmore v. Page,
358 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 26–27
Flack v. Wis. Dep’t of Health Servs.,
395 F. Supp. 3d 1001 (W.D. Wis. 2019) ......................................................... 21
Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cty. of Burlington,
566 U.S. 318 (2012) ........................................................................................ 16
iii
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
Page
iv
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
Page
Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 1291 ................................................................................................... 1
28 U.S.C. § 1331 ................................................................................................... 1
42 U.S.C. § 1983 ................................................................................................... 1
42 U.S.C. § 2000-cc .................................................................................... 1–2, 14
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ........................................................................................... 13
v
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The district court had federal question jurisdiction over this case because
West brought this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his
rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
(RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000-cc et seq., and the First Amendment to the United
This Court has jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because
this is the appeal of a final judgment that disposes of all of West’s claims in
this case. The district court entered its final judgment on March 9, 2020,
(Dkt. 68), and West filed his notice of appeal on April 8, 2020. (Dkt. 71.)
INTRODUCTION
transgender man, observed another guard perform the search. West was also
were to perform a strip search. West claims this one search, and the potential
against his faith to be seen naked by anyone other than his wife—male or
female. Given the limited burden on his religious exercise, West has no valid
claim under RLUIPA. Because his RLUIPA claim fails, his First Amendment
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
free exercise claim fails as well. And because his First Amendment claim fails,
his failure to intervene claim against two defendants who did not participate
42 U.S.C. § 2000-cc1(a). West claims that it is against his faith to be seen naked
by anyone other than his wife—male or female. West alleges that he has been
transgender man in the future. Has West been substantially burdened in his
religious exercise?
individuals in employment, and courts have held that such discrimination also
Corrections’s decision that transgender men have the same job duties as all
2
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
male guards, which allows them to strip search male prisoners, in furtherance
exercise claim fails as well. In addition, neutral rules of general application are
permitted under the First Amendment, and prisons can permissibly burden
penological interest. Has West shown a violation of his right to free exercise of
the relevant defendants were not even present at the strip search. They merely
intervene claim?
I. Factual background
A. Parties
(“Green Bay”). (Dkt. 30:1 ¶1; 43:1 ¶7.) West, who is a male, embraced Islam in
3
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
1995. (Dkt. No. 43:1 ¶¶ 9, 11.) West was transferred from Green Bay to
(Dkt. 30:1 ¶ 2; 43:1 ¶ 4), John Kind was the security director, (Dkt. 30:2 ¶ 3;
43:1 ¶ 2), Scott Eckstein was the warden, (Dkt. 30:2 ¶ 4; Dkt. 43:1 ¶ 3), Bradley
inmates under the inmate complaint review system (ICRS), (Dkt. 30:2 ¶ 5;
43:1 ¶ 5), and Cindy O’Donnell was the policy initiatives advisor and the
B. Relevant facts
This case concerns a strip search of West that occurred on July 2, 2016,
not exposing his nakedness when alone, except when there is a need to
undress, or to anyone except his wife.” (Dkt. 43:1–2 ¶ 12.) This includes being
seen by either males or females. West says that Islamic law prohibits Muslims
unless that person is their spouse.” (Dkt. 43:2 ¶ 13.) West says that under
4
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
Islamic Law, males and females are determined by their sex at birth.
(Dkt. 43:2 ¶ 14.) According to West, “the nakedness of the male consists of the
area between the navel and the knees and his buttocks.” (Dkt. 43:2 ¶ 15.) West
claims that although he has been imprisoned since 1994, he never had been
Buhle is a transgender man, that is, he was assigned female at birth and
now identifies as a man. (Dkt. No. 35:2 ¶¶ 6–7.) Green Bay hired Buhle as a
male officer in January 2016. (Dkt. 34:2 ¶ 6; 35:2 ¶ 7.) Kind and Eckstein
consulted with human resources when Buhle was hired and were told that he
duties accordingly. (Dkt. 32:2 ¶ 5; 34:2 ¶ 6.) When he was hired, Buhle was told
his duties would include all the duties of a male officer, including performing
DOC has a policy governing strip searches under which two officers are
required for each strip search. (Dkt. 34:4 ¶ 16.) One officer conducts the search
by directly observing the inmate and the other observes the search from a side
position. (Dkt. 34:4 ¶ 16.) The officer conducting the strip search is required to
be of the same gender as the inmate. (Dkt. 34-1:4 § 3.A.) The officer observing
5
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
the strip search from the side typically handles the clothing and searches
through it while the main officer conducts the strip search. (Dkt. 34:4 ¶ 16.)
The observing office also observes the staff member doing the strip search to
make sure the proper procedures are being followed. (Dkt. 34:5 ¶ 20.) Under
the policy, the officer who observes the strip search from the side can be a
female or male staff member. (Dkt. 34:5 ¶ 20.) Under the policy, inmates are
required to be strip searched after contact visits with people from outside the
Green Bay has approximately 69 uniform staff posts, and second shift has
approximately 56 uniform staff posts. (Dkt. 34:3 ¶ 12.) These staff members
are located throughout the institution with different areas of responsibility and
supervision. (Dkt. 34:3 ¶ 12.) To ensure consistent strip searches are performed
and completed in a timely manner, there are identified positions that are
assigned to complete this job task. (Dkt. 34:3 ¶ 12.) DOC does not allow inmates
to dictate which guards are allowed to strip search them. (Dkt. 34:3 ¶¶ 12–13.)
On July 2, 2016, West had a visit with a friend. (Dkt. 43:2 ¶ 19.) Afterward,
he went to the strip search area for a routine strip search under the policy.
(Dkt. 34-1:4; 43:2 ¶ 19.) The strip search room at Green Bay contained several
stalls to protect inmates’ privacy, and each stall had a courtesy curtain in the
front to obscure inmates’ private areas from view by people other than the
6
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
officer performing the strip search. (Dkt. 34:5 ¶ 19.) The observer cannot see
the inmate’s private areas, due to the courtesy curtain. (Dkt. 34:5 ¶ 20.)
West alleges that when it was his turn to be searched, Buhle approached
him to perform the strip search. (Dkt. 43:2 ¶ 20.) West says he asked Buhle
how that was possible, and Buhle responded “I’m a dude.” (Dkt. 43:2–3 ¶ 20.)
West says “he knew Buhle was a female because of her female features
(breasts, face, voice and demeanor . . . ) and that exposing his nakedness to her
would be in violation of his Islamic beliefs.” (Dkt. 43:3 ¶ 20.) He says he asked
Buhle again, who responded in the same way. (Dkt. 43:3 ¶ 20.) He then asked
some male officers “would one of them please strip search him, which one of
them did while [Buhle] looked on and observed.” (Dkt. 43:3 ¶ 20.)
exposing his nakedness to females. (Dkt. 32-1; 43:2 ¶ 23.) Eckstein responded
that “the officer in question is a male and is qualified to complete these duties.”
(Dkt. 32-2:1.) The warden continued that “[i]f in the future you are directed to
submit to a strip search by this individual or any other male staff member is
West also filed an inmate complaint with the ICRS requesting an exemption
from exposing his nakedness to the opposite sex. (Dkt. 43-1:7–10.) The
7
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
PREA standards for adult prisons and jails (§115.5).” (Dkt. 43-1:11.) Warden
issue” and was conducting strip searches in accordance with DOC Policy.
DOC, dismissed the complaint because “[p]er the Warden’s memo to the
constitutional provisions, as well as RLUIPA. (Dkt. 1.) West then filed what he
called a supplemental complaint adding some parties and claims. (Dkt. 11.)
The district court ordered West to file an amended complaint containing all of
the claims he wished to bring. (Dkt. 14.) West then filed an amended complaint.
(Dkt. 15.)
8
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
The district court screened the amended complaint and allowed West to
proceed on First Amendment free exercise and RLUIPA claims against Buhle,
Kind and Eckstein. (Dkt. 16:7.) The court also allowed him to proceed on a
(Dkt. 16:10–11.)
B. Summary judgment
Both parties moved for summary judgment. (Dkt. 28–45, 48–52, 56–57,
60–62.) The district court granted the defendants’ motion and denied the
On the RLUIPA claim, the district court first rejected an argument that the
claim was moot because West had been transferred and was not likely
(Dkt. 67:12–19.)
On the merits, the court first held that neither the July 2, 2016, search nor
the practice of allowing transgender men to strip search male inmates imposed
contrasted the single incident West complained of with the “repeated and
on-going” burdens that had been recognized in the case law as constituting a
substantial burden. (Dkt. 67:23.) Further, West admitted that it was against
his Islamic faith to be seen naked by either a man or a woman, thus he could
9
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
not show that being “seen naked by a transgender person imposes more of a
burden on the plaintiff’s religious exercise than being seen naked by a person
The court also held that, even assuming West’s religious practice was
the least restrictive means, in treating Buhle as a male officer with all of the
positions where they would not have to strip search inmates that might object
to any guard and thus make it impossible for guards to do their jobs.
(Dkt. 67:29–30.)
On the First Amendment claim, the district court held that West’s “free
exercise claim fails for the same reasons that his RLUIPA claim failed.”
(Dkt. 67:33.) As with the RLUIPA claim, “the plaintiff has not submitted
evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that the defendants
practices.” (Dkt. 67:34.) West had not shown a substantial burden because he
10
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
only “alleges a single incident in which someone he claims was a woman saw
him naked,” and, in any event, “Buhle acceded to his request that Buhle not
search the plaintiff, Buhle never participated in another search of the plaintiff
and the plaintiff himself says that having anyone other than his wife see him
Further, “the defendants’ assigning Buhle the same duties as any other
transgender male corrections officers the same duties as other male corrections
officers, and a legitimate government interest behind doing so.” (Dkt. 67:34.)
Under the balancing test in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89–91 (1987), “most
assigning Buhle to conduct and observe strip searches like other male officers,
or Buhle’s observation of the plaintiff’s July 2, 2016 strip search, violated the
Lastly, the court held that West’s failure to intervene claim against Hompe
(Dkt. 67:36.)
11
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
The district court entered a judgment in favor of the defendants, (Dkt. 68),
On the RLUIPA claim, West did not establish that his religious exercise had
been substantially burdened. West has been incarcerated for 25 years and was
which that officer did not even perform the strip search. And, in any event, his
professed religious beliefs prohibit him from showing his nakedness to both
males and females. West simply has not been substantially burdened in his
exercise of religion. But even assuming he had, DOC has a compelling interest
to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as recently decided by
the Supreme Court, and the Equal Protection Clause by treating transgender
administration for the efficient and orderly use of its staff. DOC employs the
Because West’s RLUIPA claim fails, his First Amendment free exercise
claim fails as well because RLUIPA provides more protection than the First
Amendment. The free exercise claim fails even if this Court were to reinstate
his RLUIPA claim. DOC practice of allowing transgender men to strip search
12
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
the First Amendment. And in the prison context, prison regulations can burden
Lastly, West’s failure to intervene claim fails because his First Amendment
violation. In any event, Hompe and O’Donnell were not present at the search,
so they could not have intervened, and did not act in reckless disregard of
West’s rights because it was not clear there was a constitutional violation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews “the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,
applying the same standards as the district court and construing all facts and
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to” the non-moving party.
Frakes v. Peoria Sch. Dist. No. 150, 872 F.3d 545, 550 (7th Cir. 2017). Summary
judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
whether ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for
the nonmoving party.’” Douglas v. Reeves, 964 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting
13
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
ARGUMENT
claim because DOC did not “impose[ ] a substantial burden” on his religious
exercise. 42 U.S.C. § 2000-cc1(a). West was strip searched one time while a
guard who is a transgender man observed the search, but his religious beliefs
forbid him from being seen naked by both males and females. And even if one
assumes that DOC did impose a substantial burden, DOC had compelling
governmental interests in complying with the law—both Title VII and the
West has not been substantially burdened in the exercise of his religion.
West complains of one strip search during which Buhle, a transgender man,
observed. This was the only time he has ever allegedly been seen naked by a
transgender man. (Dkt. 43:31 ¶ 22.) He also alleges that he might be searched
by a transgender man in the future because officials at Green Bay told him
they expect him to comply with such a guard’s request to strip search him.
(Dkt. 43:3–4 ¶¶ 23–27.) West claims this would violate his religious beliefs
because he may only be seen naked by his wife under Islamic law, but this
14
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
means he cannot be seen naked by both male and female guards, whether
transgender or not. No reasonable factfinder could find that this one incident,
which burdens his religious exercise the same as being searched by a male
searches are not a substantial burden because they have not yet occurred, and
substantial burden under RLUIPA when he would have “to shave his beard
and thus to ‘engage in conduct that seriously violates [his] religious beliefs.’”
Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 361 (2015) (quoting Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 720 (2014)). This Court has recognized that this
but there’s a lot of space in that range.” Schlemm v. Wall, 784 F.3d 362,
364–65 (7th Cir. 2015). While there is some uncertainty in what constitutes a
up with his professed religious beliefs. West’s religious beliefs forbid him
from being seen naked by anyone other than his wife—male or female.
(Dkt. 43:1–2, ¶¶ 12–13.) This means his religion is burdened by the very fact
15
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
of being strip searched by any guard, regardless of the guard’s gender. West
does not challenge strip searches generally. West does not explain why he does
religion. West suffered one alleged burden: a strip search that Buhle observed. 2
This isolated burden is modest and thus do not rise to the level of serious. See
Schlemm, 784 F.3d at 364–65. Further, West’s religious beliefs were burdened
by the male guard who conducted the search and would also have been
While West alleged that he might suffer a burden in the future by being
1 A RLUIPA challenge to all strip searches would likely fail, given that prisons
have a compelling interest in conducting strip searches, see Florence v. Bd. of Chosen
Freeholders of Cty. of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318, 327–29 (2012), and there is no way to
conduct them without requiring the inmate to remove his clothes.
2 Under the strip search practice at Green Bay, Buhle would not have seen West
naked. Because West alleges that Buhle did see him naked, Defendants realize a
court cannot decide such a factual issue on summary judgment. Defendants do not
concede, however, that West suffered any burden on his religious exercise.
16
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
strip searched by Buhle. Further, West would only be seen naked by the
transgender guard if the guard performed the search; under DOC policy the
observing officer should not see the inmate naked. (Dkt. 34:5 ¶ 20.) Thus, it is
transgender man could agree to observe, rather than perform the search, to
address West’s concerns. West simply has not shown he is likely to suffer a
Moreover, the limited burden West actually suffered, and the hypothetical
burden he could conceivably face in the future, contrast sharply with the
Holt, the inmate stated that his religion required him to grow a beard. 574 U.S.
at 361. The prison policy required him to shave that beard, thus seriously
violating his religious beliefs. Id. And given the nature of the policy, that
burden would continue indefinitely into the future unless a court provided
relief.
Similarly, this Court recognizes that “[w]hen the state forces a prisoner to
Hobby Lobby and Holt.” Jones v. Carter, 915 F.3d 1147, 1150 (7th Cir. 2019).
As in Holt, such a burden would be serious; it would occur every day into the
future. And in Schlemm, this Court recognized there was a genuine issue of
17
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
policy prevented the inmate from properly celebrating a religious feast in the
past and, unless the court issued relief, would prevent the inmate from doing
so in the future.
The burdens recognized by the Supreme Court and this Court prevented
inmates from exercising their religion either every day—in the case of the
future burdens were not speculative; they would continue into the future
unless a court granted relief. This contrasts sharply with West’s isolated
religion, DOC has compelling governmental interests in (1) complying with the
law by treating transgender men the same as male guards and (2) efficient and
18
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
constitution and federal law. Here, treating guards who are transgender men
differently than male guards would potentially violate Title VII of the Civil
With regard to searches that might occur in the future, DOC clearly has an
interest in complying with Title VII. The Supreme Court recently made clear
of sex, prohibited by Title VII. Bostock v. Clayton Cty., Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731
(2020). As a result, DOC risks violating Title VII if it treats transgender guards
with their identified gender, which means that transgender men should have
same job duties—including strip searches—as all male guards. This the least
restrictive means of advancing this interest because DOC could not assign
consistent job duties while carving out transgender men from certain duties.
The district court thought this interest did not support Buhle observing the
July 2, 2016 search of West because, as of that date, “there was no controlling
transgender people.” (Dkt. 67:26.) While there may not have been controlling
19
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
precedent, DOC still had an obligation to comply with Title VII to the best of
was prohibited by Title VII was foreseeable in July 2016. In 2017, this Court
Educ., 858 F.3d 1034, 1047 (7th Cir. 2017). Courts then began to apply the
same reasoning to Title VII. Boyden v. Conlin, 341 F. Supp. 3d 979, 995–97
(W.D. Wis. 2018).3 Had DOC not treated transgender employees as it did, it
rel. A.H. v. Greensburg Cmty. Sch. Corp., 743 F.3d 569, 577 (7th Cir. 2014).
Even prior to July 2, 2016, courts within this Circuit had allowed equal
20
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
2015 WL 1726965, at *3 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 13, 2015). And moving forward, courts
395 F. Supp. 3d 1001, 1019–22 (W.D. Wis. 2019). As with Title VII, there is not
The first shift at Green Bay has approximately 69 uniform staff posts, and
second shift has approximately 56 uniform staff posts. (Dkt. 34:3 ¶ 12.) These
staff members are located throughout the institution with different areas of
searches are performed and completed in a timely manner, there are identified
positions that are assigned to complete this job task. (Dkt. 34:3 ¶ 12.) It would
allowed to dictate who was allowed to strip search him based on whether the
person does not conform the inmate’s opinion of the guard’s gender. (Dkt. 34:3
¶ 12.)
21
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
This Court has recognized the difficulty in assigned guards to various duties
too many permutations to place guards and prisoners into multiple classes by
sex, sexual orientation, and perhaps other criteria, allowing each group to be
unhappiness.” Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 147 (7th Cir. 1995). And with
and supposition, as West did with Buhle. Prisons would not be able to assign
Should the Court affirm on West’s RLUIPA claim, then his First
provides more protection than the First Amendment. In addition, West’s free
exercise claim fails because (1) DOC was merely imposing a neutral, generally
applicable rule; and (2) its actions were reasonably related to a legitimate
penological interest.
22
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
If this Court affirms the district court on the RLUIPA claim, then it must
affirm on the free exercise claim because the First Amendment is less
protective of religious rights than RLUIPA, which was enacted “to accord
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 714 (2005). If the challenged action does not
violate RLUIPA’s higher level of protection, it also does not violate the First
Amendment. Borzych v. Frank, 439 F.3d 388, 390 (7th Cir. 2006). Thus, if
West’s RLUIPA claim fails, then his First Amendment claim fails as well.
Even if the Court were to reverse the district court on the RLUIPA claim,
West’s First Amendment free exercise claim still fails. First, the First
may enforce neutral rules.” Borzych, 439 F.3d at 390 (citing Emp’t Div., Dep’t
of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 878–81 (1990)). DOC can
Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 878–81;
Borzych, 439 F.3d at 390. Allowing guards who are transgender men to strip
search male inmates is a general rule that applies to all male inmates. That
23
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
this neutral rule may burden West’s exercise of his religion does not make it
unconstitutional because the First Amendment does not require DOC to make
searches of male prisoners satisfies the low threshold that prison regulations
must meet to satisfy the First Amendment. See O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz,
482 U.S. 342, 349 (1987); Turner, 482 U.S. at 89–90. The practice at issue here
moreover, is not on the State to prove the validity of prison regulations but on
the prisoner to disprove it.” Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003).
regulation and the asserted goal is so remote as to render the policy arbitrary
24
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
accommodation of the right would have on guards and inmates and prison
Overton, 539 U.S. at 132 (quotation marks omitted). In addition, courts must
not substitute their judgment for that of the prison officials with respect to the
482 U.S. at 353. Instead, courts “must accord substantial deference to the
responsibility for defining the legitimate goals of a corrections system and for
Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. It also has an interest in prison
administration in the efficient use of its staff. Even if this Court would hold
that these interests are not “compelling” under RLUIPA, they are “legitimate”
for purposes of the First Amendment. In fact, this Court has held that
given the State’s interests in abiding by Title VII and the Equal Protection
Clause, as well as making good use of staff. Johnson, 69 F.3d at 146. Allowing
25
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
accommodating West would have a negative impact on the prison and guards
The other two factors do not help West. He alleges a burden on one aspect
of his religion, but still retains the ability to practice Islam by reading the
And as discussed above, there is no way for the prison to strip search West
without violating his religious beliefs given that the prohibition on nudity
applies to both males and females. Finally, West has not “pointed to some
while not imposing more than a de minimis cost to the valid penological goal.”
Overton, 539 U.S. at 136. West simply cannot show that DOC’s actions are
unreasonable.
If the court finds there was no underlying First Amendment violation, then
the failure to intervene claim against Hompe and O’Donnell fails as well. There
violation that compelled intervention. Fillmore v. Page, 358 F.3d 496, 506
26
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
Even if this Court were to reverse the district court on West’s First
grounds. First, because Hompe and O’Donnell were not present at the July 2,
2016, search, they “would have been unable to intervene, rendering [them] not
liable.” Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 652 (7th Cir. 2001).
And the claim fails no better with respect to DOC’s practice of allowing
guards who are transgender men to strip search male inmates. A failure to
Amendment.” Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052, 1064 (7th Cir. 2005). As a result,
to establish such a claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant “fail[ed]
Lash, 687 F.2d 996, 1005 (7th Cir. 1982)). Here, a reasonable jury could not
find that Hompe and O’Donnell, in denying West’s inmate complaint, acted in
First Amendment right is not clearly established, meaning that Hompe and
O’Donnell did not have “reason to know . . . that any constitutional violation
282, 285 (7th Cir. 1994). West cannot satisfy the standard for an Eighth
27
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court should be
affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,
JOSHUA L. KAUL
Attorney General of Wisconsin
s/ Brian P. Keenan*
BRIAN P. KEENAN
Assistant Attorney General
State Bar #1056525
*Counsel of Record
28
Case: 20-1570 Document: 16 Filed: 08/17/2020 Pages: 35
This brief contains 6426 words, excluding the parts of the brief
exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f) and has been prepared in a
proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2013 in
13 point Century Schoolbook.
s/ Brian P. Keenan
BRIAN P. KEENAN
Assistant Attorney General
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I further certify that a copy of the above document was mailed to:
s/ Brian P. Keenan
BRIAN P. KEENAN
Assistant Attorney General
29