WPC 1# UN % 0(w@E4 0l 0D 0JX 0T 0^ 0hT 0@ 0r 0|n 0 0p 1u 0du U> B) B@ D3] DC AM U* J =M q  AQ 0D 0D D// B^v~{vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ bcdefgDhijӀvS"3|xv((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  ("$    2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d d 'dxd7Border 1dd*"C << G<  9p`(Arial !  +"  $$   YYY FILED$X July17,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.$AppellateCourtClerk  3 !  $       DonalCampbellisthecommissioneroftheTDOC,RobertConleyisidentifiedinthecomplaintaswardenatWTHSFandCorporalLaneandOfficerMaxwellidentifiedaspropertyroomofficersatWTHSF. g !  $       Thiscasewassubsequentlyoverruledby Danielsv.Williams ,474U.S.327(1986),whereinthecourtstated:8  In Parrattv.Taylor ,451U.S.527,101S.Ct.1908,68L.Ed.2d420(1981),astateprisonersuedunder42U.S.C.1983,claimingthatprisonofficialshadnegligentlydeprivedhimofhispropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw.Afterdecidingthat1983containsnoindependentstateofmindrequirement,weconcludedthatalthoughpetitionerhadbeen deprivedofpropertywithinthemeaningoftheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment,theStatespostdeprivationtortremedyprovidedtheprocessthatwasdue.Petitionersclaiminthiscase,whichalsorestsonanallegedFourteenthAmendment deprivationcausedbythenegligentconductofaprisonofficial,leadsustoreconsiderourstatementin Parratt that theallegedloss,eventhoughnegligentlycaused,amountedtoadeprivation. Id .,at536537,101S.Ct.,at1913.WeconcludethattheDueProcessClauseissimplynotimplicatedbya negligent actofanofficialcausingunintendedlossoforinjurytolife,liberty,orproperty. Daniels ,474U.S.at328.  !  $       (a)Ingeneral. Governmentshallnotsubstantiallyburdenapersonsexerciseofreligioneveniftheburdenresultsfromaruleofgeneralapplicability,exceptasprovidedinsubsection(b). (b)Exception. Governmentmaysubstantiallyburdenapersonsexerciseofreligiononlyifitdemonstratesthatapplicationoftheburdentotheperson (1)isinfurtheranceofacompellinggovernmentalinterest;and (2)istheleastrestrictivemeansoffurtheringthatcompellinggovernmentalinterest.*+,-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ..' dxdP PdPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! .   \RA'\ ` ` pX\RA'\ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,WESTERNSECTION@ ATJACKSON @ _______________________________________________________ ) FREDE.DEAN , ) LauderdaleCountyCircuitCourt ) No.4881̀Plaintiff/Appellant. ) )VS. ) C.A.No.02A019704CV00077*R#%"A1-j|iK`  `@R ) DONALCAMPBELL,etal.,  ) )̀Defendants/Appellees. ) )______________________________________________________________________________FromtheCircuitCourtofLauderdaleCountyatRipley. HonorableJosephH.Walker,Judge FredE.Dean ,ProSe JohnKnoxWalkup ,AttorneyGeneralandReporter, StephanieR.Reevers ,AssistantAttorneyGeneralAttorneysforDefendants/Appellees.OPINIONFILED: AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  FARMER,J. CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S. :(Concurs) LILLARD,J. :(Concurs)  ` ` X FredE.Dean,aninmateincustodyoftheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrections(TDOC)suedDonalCampbell,RobertConley,CorporalLaneandOfficerMaxwellformonetarydamagesina ComplaintforViolationofCivilRightsUnder42U.S.C.1983. &   ׀ThecomplaintallegesthatwhenMr.Deanwastransferredfromonecorrectionfacilitytoanother,severalitemsofpersonalpropertyweremissing,towit:sweatpantsandshirt,plasticbowl,somecosmeticsandaprayerrug.HeallegesthatafterwritingCommissionerCampbell,hewasnotifiedprayerrugsmustbenolargerthan3x5feet;withafireretardantlabelandnonskidback.Thecomplaintallegesthatprayerrugsarenotmadewithanonskidbackorfireretardantlabel.Thus,heallegesthathehasbeendeprivedofaprayerrug. DefendantsfiledamotiontodismissthecomplaintpursuanttoRule12.02T.R.C.P.forfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedandforlackofjurisdiction.ThemotionwasgrantedandPlaintiffappeals.InconsideringaRule12.02(6)motiontodismiss,wearerequiredtotaketheallegationsofthecomplaintastrueandtoconstruetheallegationsliberallyinfavoroftheplaintiff. Pembertonv.AmericanDistilledSpiritsCo. ,664S.W.2d690,691(Tenn.1984).Itadmitsthetruthofallrelevantandmaterialaffirmancecontainedinthecomplaintbutassertsthatsuchfactsdonotconstituteacauseofaction. Humphriesv.WestEndTerrace,Inc. ,795S.W.2d128(Tenn.App.1990).Mr.DeanallegesthathewasdeprivedofhispropertywithoutdueprocessinviolationoftheFourteenthAmendmentandthathisprayerrugwasconfiscatedbecauseitdidnotmeettheDepartmentsstandardsinviolationoftheFirstAmendmentandtheReligiousFreedomRestorationAct(RFRA),42U.S.C.2000bb, etseq . Nostateshalldepriveanypersonofpropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw.U.S.Const.amend.XIV,1.In Brooksv.Dutton ,751F.2d197(6thCir.1985),aninmateattheTennesseeStatePrisonsuedtoprocurethereturnofpropertywhichhadbeenremovedfromhiscellwhilehewasinthehospital.Inaffirmingthedistrictcourtsdismissal,the6thCircuitnotedthattheSupremeCourtheldin Parrattv.Taylor ,451U.S.527,543,(1981), '   ׀thataprisonerslossofpropertyduetothenegligenceofastateemployeewasnotaviolationofdueprocessifthestateaffordedameanstoresolvetheallegedloss.Thecourtnotedthat Parratt wasfollowedby Vicoryv.Walton ,721F.2d1062(6thCir.1983), cert.den. ,469U.S.834(1984),whichheldthata1983actiondoesnotlieifstatelawprovidesan immediatecorrectiveprocessinitscourts,bywhichtheplaintiffcouldrecoverhisproperty. Vicory ,721F.2dat1064.ThecourtheldthattheStateofTennesseehasprovidedadequateprocedurestoassurethereturnofitemseithernegligentlyorintentionallyconverted,citingT.C.A.98207,[nowT.C.A.98307(a)(1)(F)],andintheabsenceofresorttostateremedies,afederalcourtmaynotassertjurisdiction.T.C.A.98307(a)(1)(F)providesthatthecommissionoreachcommissionersittingindividuallyhasexclusivejurisdictiontodetermineallmonetaryclaimsagainstthestatefornegligentcare,custodyorcontrolofpersonalproperty. Congressshallmakenolawprohibitingthefreeexerciseofreligion.U.S.Const.amend.I.ByreasonofthedueprocessclauseoftheFourteenthAmendment,theprovisionsofthisamendmentwhichforbidcongressionallegislationwithrespecttotheestablishmentofreligionisequallyapplicabletostateandlocalgovernmentalbodies. Wileyv.Franklin ,468F.Supp.133,143(E.D.Tenn.1979), modifiedonothergrounds ,474F.Supp.525(E.D.Tenn.1979);497F.Supp.390(E.D.Tenn.1980); Cantwellv.Connecticut ,310U.S.296,303(1940). Lawfulincarcerationbringsaboutthenecessarywithdrawalsorlimitationsofmanyprivilegesandrights.AprisoninmateretainsthoseFirstAmendmentrightsthatarenotinconsistentwithhisstatusasaprisonerorwiththelegitimatepenologicalobjectivesofthecorrectionssystem.Challengestorestrictionsonthoserightsmustbeanalyzedintermsofthelegitimatepoliciesandgoalsofthepenalsystem. Pellv.Procunier ,417U.S.817(1974). In McClaflinv.Peace ,739F.Supp.537(D.Or.1990),aninmatebroughta1983actionallegingthatthecorrectionalinstitutiondeprivedhimandrestrictedhisrightstopracticehisreligionbynotallowinghim,amongotherthings,arosary.ThecourtnotedthattherosaryisnotessentialtothepracticeoftheinmatesreligionofCatholicism.Inthepresentcase,Mr.Deanscomplaintdoesnotallegethataprayerrugisessentialoracentraltenettothepracticeofhisreligion. Neitherastatenoritsofficialsactingintheirofficialcapacitiesare personsunder1983. Willv.MichiganDeptofStatePolice ,491U.S.58(1989).TheresuitwasfiledinstatecourtagainsttheMichiganDepartmentofStatePoliceanditsdirector.SubsequenttoreviewbytheCourtofAppealsandtheSupremeCourtofMichigan,theU.S.SupremeCourtheldthatneitherastatenoritsofficialsactingintheirofficialcapacitiesare personsunder1983.Thestatecourtjudgeruledforpetitioner,findingthatbothrespondentswere personsunder1983.Thestatecourtofappealsvacatedthejudgmentagainstthedepartment,holdingthatastateisnotapersonunder1983andremandedforadeterminationofthedirectorspossibleimmunity.Thestatesupremecourtaffirmedinpartandreversedinpart,agreeingthatthestateisnotapersonunder1983,butholdingthatastateofficialactinginhisorherofficialcapacityalsoisnotsuchaperson.Thatjudgmentwasaffirmed.Thedefendantsinthepresentcasewereclearlysuedintheirofficialcapacities. Mr.DeancontendsthattheconfiscationoftheprayerrugisviolativeoftheReligiousFreedomRestorationAct(RFRA),42U.S.C.2000bb1. (   ׀However,theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesrecentlyheldtheRFRAtobeunconstitutional. CityofBoernev.Flores ,No.952074,1997WL345322,(U.S.June25,1997).TheretheCourtsaid:8  ItisforCongressinthefirstinstanceto determin[e]whetherandwhatlegislationisneededtosecuretheguaranteesoftheFourteenthAmendment,anditsconclusionsareentitledtomuchdeference. Katzenbachv.Morgan ,384U.S.,at651,86S.Ct.,at17231724.Congressdiscretionisnotunlimited,however,andthecourtsretainthepower,astheyhavesince Marburyv.Madison ,todetermineifCongresshasexceeditsauthorityundertheConstitution.BroadasthepowerofCongressisundertheEnforcementClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment,RFRAcontradictsvitalprinciplesnecessarytomaintainseparationofpowersandthefederalbalance.ThejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealssustainingtheActsconstitutionalityisreversed. CityofBoerne ,1997WL345322,at*16. Fortheforegoingreasons,webelievethetrialcourtwascorrectingrantingthedefendantsmotiontodismiss.ThejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedandthecostsofthisappealaretaxedtoMr.Dean,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.     ____________________________________     FARMER,J.______________________________CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S.(Concurs)______________________________LILLARD,J.(Concurs)