Corey Greene v. Kenneth Lassiter ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6273 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/13/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6273
COREY DELON GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KENNETH LASSITER, Director of Prisons, NCDPS, in his individual capacity and
official capacity; TIM MOOSE, Chief Deputy Secretary, NCDPS, in his individual
capacity and official capacity; TODD ISHEE, Commissioner of Prisons, NCDPS, in
his individual capacity and official capacity; SARAH COBB, Deputy Director of
Prisons, NCDPS, in her individual capacity and official capacity; BETTY BROWN,
Director of Chaplaincy Services, NCDPS, in her individual capacity and official
capacity; CHRIS RICH, SRG Coordinator, NCDPS, in his individual capacity and
official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00224-MR)
Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: December 13, 2023
Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Rushing dissents.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6273 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/13/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
Corey D. Greene, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6273 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/13/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Corey Delon Greene appeals the district court’s orders in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983action granting summary judgment to Defendants on his claims under the First Amendment
and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc
to 2000cc-5 (“RLUIPA”), and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend
the judgment. We vacate and remand.
Greene is a North Carolina state prisoner who adheres to a belief system called
Nation of Gods and Earths (“NGE”). In the district court, Greene amended his pro se
complaint to specify that NGE “is a God centered culture” that must not be “misconstrued
as religion. This is a central tenet to the culture.” E.R. 239. The district court interpreted
this statement as a binding judicial admission that foreclosed relief under RLUIPA and the
First Amendment, entering summary judgment for Defendants on different grounds than
they asserted in their motion.
We hold that the district court erred in construing Greene’s pro se statement as a
relief-foreclosing judicial admission. Greene’s statement wasn’t an “intentional and
unambiguous waiver[] that release[d] the opposing party from its burden to prove the facts
necessary to establish the waived conclusion of law.” Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
762 F.3d 339, 347 (4th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). To the contrary, Greene has consistently
maintained that he asserts rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment for being denied
the ability to practice his faith or belief system, even if NGE eschews the label of “religion.”
And in RLUIPA, Congress “defined ‘religious exercise’ capaciously” and “mandated that
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6273 Doc: 21 Filed: 12/13/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
this concept ‘shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise.’” Holt
v. Hobbs, 547 U.S. 352, 358 (2015) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3).
Our review of the record shows that there may be at least an open factual question
about whether NGE qualifies as a religion for RLUIPA and First Amendment purposes,
making summary judgment inappropriate. Cf. Miles v. Guice, No. 5:13-CT-3193-FL, 2018
WL 505071, at *5 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2018) (denying defendants’ motion for summary
judgment and holding that North Carolina prisoner plaintiff established NGE is a religion
for RLUIPA and First Amendment purposes); Coward v. Robinson, 276 F. Supp. 3d 544,
567 (E.D. Va. 2017) (finding after a bench trial that a prisoner plaintiff proved NGE was
entitled to protections under RLUIPA and the free-exercise clause despite rejecting the
“religion” label).
We therefore vacate the district court’s entry of summary judgment and remand for
further proceedings. And we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4