8/6/2019 Giraldo Letter (Humanist Prisoner Group)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/giraldo-letter-humanist-prisoner-group 1/3

1 

August 17, 2011

Vance Laughlin

Warden

Adams County Correctional Center

20 Hobo Fork RoadNatchez, Mississippi 39120

Carlos A. GiraldoAdams County Correctional Center

Reg. No. 59508-079P.O. Box 1600

Washington, Mississippi 39190

Re: Carlos A. Giraldo and the Humanist Prisoners Community 

Mr. Laughlin:

I am writing on behalf of Carlos A. Giraldo, an inmate in the Adams County Correctional

Center whose application to form a humanist inmate organization (the “Humanist PrisonersCommunity”) you denied on August 1, 2011.

The Humanist Prisoners Community has been officially recognized as an affiliate of the

American Humanist Association (“AHA”), a national nonprofit organization with over 10,000members and 20,000 supporters across the country, including in Mississippi. The AHA’smission is to promote humanism, a comprehensive nontheist worldview and set of ethical values

grounded in the philosophy of the Enlightenment and informed by scientific knowledge.

The mission of the AHA’s legal center is to protect the fundamental constitutional

principles of our democracy requiring separation of church and state1

and legal equality2

for all

regardless of their religious views, including in particular for humanists, atheists and otherfreethinkers.

1The very first sentence of the Bill of Rights mandates that the state be secular: “Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion.” This provision, known as the Establishment Clause, “build[s] a wall of 

separation between church and State.” Reynolds v. United States , 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878).2

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that: “No state shall . . . deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This same restriction applies to the federal government

pursuant to the Fifth Amendment.

8/6/2019 Giraldo Letter (Humanist Prisoner Group)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/giraldo-letter-humanist-prisoner-group 2/3

2 

Mr. Giraldo sought official recognition for the Humanist Prisoners Community in orderto gather with other humanist inmates for discussion of their religious and ethical views and to

receive humanist books and bulk mail from AHA.

In denying his request, which made reference to Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) ProgramStatement 5381.05 (Inmate Organizations), you told him that the BOP “does not require private

facilities to comply with the program statement referenced.” The underlying issue of concern

here is not the applicability of any particular bureaucratic policy. It is the protection of Mr.

Giraldo’s fundamental constitutional rights. These depend on the provisions of no regulation or

contract. Your refusal to permit him to form a group relating to his humanist views and to

receive mail on that subject from a humanist organization violate his First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court has made clear that “[p]rison walls do not form a barrier separating

  prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84

(1987).3  “Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment.” O’Lone v.

Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987). The First Amendment separates church and stateand protects the private free exercise of religion and the freedoms of speech and association.

Prison actions which impinge on such rights are unconstitutional unless proven to be “reasonably

related to legitimate penological interests.” Turner at 89.4 

Our first concern is that, because Mr. Giraldo’s views on religion are humanist, your

denial of his application to form a humanist group without any articulated penological reasonviolates his constitutional right to associate with others who share his religious views.

The fact that humanism is nontheistic and may be seen as a non-traditional religious viewis of no consequence and cannot be used as basis for your decision regarding Mr. Giraldo. Tothe contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that it is not the place of the state (or

in your case, a private actor engaged by the state to perform state functions) to pass judgment on

the nature of the particular religious views of citizens when complying with the First

Amendment. Any prison decision which denies a prisoner “a reasonable opportunity of 

  pursuing” his religious views “comparable to the opportunity afforded fellow prisoners whoadhere to conventional religious precepts” amounts to “palpable discrimination” in violation of 

the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972). CCA provides awide variety of religious groups and programs for traditionally religious inmates ( i.e. those with

3As an aside, the fact that CCA is a private corporation is not relevant in this matter. Private prison facilities such

as the Adams County Correctional Facility are no more permitted to violate the constitutional rights of inmates than

those that are publicly owned and operated. See e.g. Rosborough v. Management & Training Corp., 350 F. 3d 459,461 (5

th Cir. 2003) (holding that “private pr ison-management corporations and their employees may be sued under

[42 U.S.C.] §1983 by a prisoner who has suffered a constitutional  injury” because “confinement of wrongdoers is a

fundamentally governmental function”).4

The Supreme Court in Turner identified several factors relevant to whether a prison regulation is reasonably related

to legitimate penological interests. First, there must be a valid, rational connection between the legitimate, neutral

government interest and the prison regulation, so that the policy is not “arbitrary or irrational.”  Id . at 89, 90. A

second factor is whether there are alternate means for the inmate to exercise the asserted constitutional right.  Id. at

90. Finally, whether ready alternatives to the prison regulation are available and what impact accommodation of the

asserted right would have on guards, other inmates, and the allocation of prison resources is considered. Id. at 90-91.

8/6/2019 Giraldo Letter (Humanist Prisoner Group)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/giraldo-letter-humanist-prisoner-group 3/3

3 

theistic beliefs).5

It cannot discriminate against inmates with different religious beliefs, such as

humanists.

In fact, the Supreme Court has expressly recognized humanism as a nontheist religion

protected by the First Amendment. See Torcaso v. Watkins , 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) (noting

that “[a]mong religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered abelief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism . . . and Secular Humanism” and holdingthat the government cannot prefer “those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as

against those religions founded on different  beliefs”). Federal courts have ruled that a

corrections official’s refusal to permit a prison inmate to organize an atheism study group where

other religious groups were permitted to do so violated the Establishment Clause. See Kaufman

v. McCaughtry, 419 F. 3d 678 (7th

Cir. 2005).

Our second concern is that the denial of Mr. Giraldo’s application infringes on hisconstitutional right to freedom of speech.

Inmates have a First Amendment right to receive mail. See Daigre v. Maggio, 719 F. 2d1310 (5th Cir. 1983) (holding that prison mail restrictions may interfere not only with prisoners’First Amendment interests but also with those of their would-be correspondents) and Kaufman v.

Frank, 2006 WL 1982692 (W.D. 2006) (holding that an atheist inmate can bring suit claimingthat prison officials “violated his rights under the Establishment Clause by making Christian

literature readily available to inmates while impeding prisoners’ access to atheist literature.”).

Prison restrictions on inmate mail must pass the Turner test. See e.g. Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2009). Because CCA has not articulated any reason at all why Mr. Giraldo’saccess to humanist bulk mail and literature must be restricted, let alone a valid penological

reason, any such restriction is unconstitutional.

We respectfully request that you (1) approve Mr. Giraldo’s application to form theHumanist Prisoners Community and (2) permit him to receive bulk mail and literature from

AHA.

Please notify us in writing about the steps you are taking to end this constitutional

violation so that we may avoid any potential litigation. Please feel free to contact me if you have

any questions. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

William J. Burgess, Esq.

Appignani Humanist Legal Center

American Humanist Association

5See http://www.ccarehabilitation.com/keeping-the-faith/ .