Misael Cordero, a pro se inmate at the New Jersey State Prison, sued correctional officers Gregory Kelley and Stephen D’Lllo, alleging that their rejection of his bulk religious mailings violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Prior to 2015, Cordero could receive hundreds of religious pamphlets at a time. However, between 2015 and 2017, Officer Kelley rejected multiple bulk mailings containing 100 or more religious tracts based on a prison policy requiring such materials to be routed through the chaplaincy. Cordero initially appealed a District Court ruling that granted summary judgment on his RLUIPA and First Amendment claims. In a prior 2022 decision, the Third Circuit affirmed the RLUIPA ruling but vacated the First Amendment damages claim, remanding the case because there was a factual dispute over whether the officer was acting pursuant to policy. On remand, the District Court granted the defendants' second motion for summary judgment, this time finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Cordero appealed that specific ruling.
The Third Circuit applied the two-part qualified immunity test: whether the facts show a violation of a legal right, and whether that right was clearly established. The court noted that the District Court had assumed, without deciding, that a First Amendment right was violated, but focused on the second prong. Cordero argued that his right to receive a yearly order of Christian tracts was clearly established, citing the Third Circuit's prior decision in Washington v. Klem. The court rejected this argument, explaining that Washington involved a RLUIPA challenge to a policy limiting the number of books an inmate could retain, not a federal constitutional right to receive bulk mail. The court emphasized that Washington did not facially invalidate the limitation and did not establish a right to receive bulk quantities of religious materials through the mail. The court also addressed Cordero's reliance on the New Jersey Administrative Code, which mandates that inmates be permitted to receive religious literature without quantity limitations. The court held that officials do not lose qualified immunity merely because their conduct violates a state statute or administrative provision. For qualified immunity, the right must be a clearly established federal right. Since no binding precedent placed the question of a right to bulk religious mailings beyond debate, the officers were entitled to immunity.
The decision affirms the lower court's grant of summary judgment, meaning the officers are shielded from personal liability for damages regarding the rejection of the bulk religious mailings. The ruling clarifies that while state regulations may grant inmates certain rights, those regulations do not automatically create a clearly established federal constitutional right for the purpose of qualified immunity. The decision leaves open the question of whether the underlying First Amendment right exists, as the court did not reach that issue, but it effectively bars damages claims against individual officers in similar circumstances where the law was not previously explicit.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download