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UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

action 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.,

(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,

, 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,

, 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,

(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