A federal judge last week permitted a Muslim man serving a life sentence in Colorado’s “supermax” prison for terrorism-related offenses to pursue a limited number of religious freedom claims against the government.

Mostafa Kamel Mostafa, also known as Abu Hamza, arrived at the U.S. Penitentiary – Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence in 2015. A British citizen, Mostafa was extradited to the United States and convicted of hostage taking, providing material support to terrorists and conspiring to provide goods and services to the Taliban.

As an inmate at the highly secure prison, abbreviated “ADX,” he alleged multiple constitutional violations, ranging from prison staff assaulting him and failing to accommodate the exercise of his Muslim faith to withholding basic hygiene items from Mostafa – who, as a double amputee, has difficulty functioning with prosthetic arms.

In a pair of Jan. 3 orders, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer significantly narrowed the scope of Mostafa’s lawsuit. For many claims, Brimmer found Mostafa had not made full use of the internal prison grievance process, which is a prerequisite for filing suit.

However, Brimmer declined to dismiss Mostafa’s allegations that ADX officials were denying him access to a religious diet and the ability to wash himself in accordance with his faith, and they unreasonably prohibited him from contacting an attorney.

Mostafa’s lawsuit seeks monetary damages, a removal of the restrictions on his religious exercise and the provision of prosthetics that enable him to maintain his hygiene.

Mostafa was the leader of a London mosque until 2003. British authorities arrested and charged him with inciting murder and racial hatred. While he was imprisoned, the U.S. sought to extradite him for his role in taking hostages in Yemen in 1998 – resulting in four deaths – and conspiring to establish a “terrorist training camp” in Oregon, among other acts.

The European Court of Human Rights weighed Mostafa’s concerns about torture and inhumane treatment if he were extradited and confined at ADX, but in 2012 cleared the path for his transport to the U.S.

“Where there are limitations on the services provided, for example restrictions on group prayer, these are necessary and inevitable consequences of imprisonment,” the court wrote of ADX. Even if a detainee’s rights were violated, there would be recourse through an “administrative remedy programme and the federal courts.”

Following Mostafa’s terrorism convictions in New York, he entered ADX. Representing himself at first, but then with the assistance of pro bono counsel, Mostafa filed suit in 2020 alleging:

? ADX does not permit him to pray with other Muslims, serve halal food to him in a way he can access given his physical disabilities, or enable him to effectively cleanse himself before prayer

? Muslim prisoners as a group are subject to stricter, unnecessary prohibitions on their religious exercise

? ADX officials assaulted him while he underwent a hunger strike

? The prison constrained his ability to communicate with his children, grandchildren and lawyers

? His rights under federal disability law were violated by the provision of ineffective or dangerous prostheses

The various terrorism-related restrictions that still apply to Mostafa are “an exaggerated response to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon over 20 years ago,” wrote his attorney, Paul Wolf.

The government defended the conditions placed upon Mostafa, citing his “demonstrable jihadist proclivities” and the “sprawling network of terrorists Mostafa has spawned.”

“Prison employees must make difficult judgment calls about how to manage inmates, particularly one like Mostafa who will complain of everything – even the offer of custom-built prostheses,” wrote then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan Prose, who has since joined the bench as a federal magistrate judge. “No plausible inference can be drawn that Mostafa faces conditions falling below the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.”

Brimmer concluded most of Mostafa’s claims were not viable for various reasons, including the near-prohibition on prisoners being able to sue federal officials for money over constitutional violations, a recent precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Even though the government submitted statements from prison officials asserting Mostafa did have access to a religious diet and was outfitted with a special cell to address his concerns over hygiene, Brimmer declined to dismiss those claims. He noted such evidence was more appropriate for later stages of the litigation.

Otherwise, Brimmer agreed with the government that Mostafa had not shown how group prayer restrictions violated Mostafa’s right to equal protection under the law, or that the prohibitions on communicating with his children and grandchildren were unreasonable.

The lawsuit “does not allege that Mr. Mostafa’s sons and stepsons have no connections to terrorist activities or organizations,” he noted.

One defendant, a nurse identified only as “William,” did not seek to dismiss the claim against him, specifically that he refused to assist Mostafa put a bandage on his bleeding arm stump. Consequently, Brimmer left the claim intact.

The case is Mostafa v. Garland et al.