Joshua Lopp v. Heidi Washington, et al.

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a pro se civil rights action brought by Joshua Lopp, an adherent of the Nation of Gods and Earths, against Michigan Department of Corrections officials. Lopp alleges violations of the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and RLUIPA based on denial of NOGE recognition, religious dietary accommodations, and access to NOGE-related literature. The recommendation concludes that Defendants’ motion should be granted, Lopp’s motion denied, and the action dismissed with prejudice.

Holdings

1. The magistrate judge recommends finding that Lopp lacked standing to assert religious-injury claims because he repeatedly characterized NOGE as a culture rather than a religion and denied that he was claiming a religious injury.
2. The magistrate judge recommends finding that Defendants did not violate Lopp's First Amendment rights by denying or delaying NOGE recognition because the challenged decisions were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and no clearly established law required recognition.
3. The magistrate judge recommends finding that Defendants did not violate Lopp's First Amendment rights by denying his religious or alternative diet requests and that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
4. The magistrate judge recommends finding that restricting The Five Percenters and How to Hustle and Win did not violate Lopp's First Amendment rights and that Defendant Bush was entitled to qualified immunity.
5. The magistrate judge recommends granting summary judgment to Defendants on Lopp's equal protection claim because he failed to produce evidence that he was treated differently from a similarly situated prisoner or group.
6. The magistrate judge recommends rejecting Lopp's request to recover damages under RLUIPA and finding his requests for declaratory and injunctive relief moot after his parole.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Lopp had Article III standing to assert First Amendment Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA claims when he repeatedly described NOGE as a culture rather than a religion and denied religious injury.
2. Whether Defendants violated Lopp's First Amendment free-exercise rights by declining to recognize NOGE for group services, honor days, and religious property.
3. Whether Defendants violated Lopp's First Amendment rights by denying his religious or alternative diet requests.
4. Whether restricting The Five Percenters and How to Hustle and Win violated Lopp's First Amendment rights.
5. Whether Defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating NOGE differently from recognized religious groups.
6. Whether qualified immunity barred damages on Lopp's constitutional claims.
7. Whether RLUIPA permitted damages against the Defendants and whether Lopp's requests for declaratory or injunctive relief remained justiciable after his parole.
8. Whether Lopp was entitled to summary judgment.

Disposition

other