UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DIVISION …virtuecenter.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2013-04-25-10/prisonerlawsuit.… · 2:13-cv-10271-PJD-PJK Doc # 16 Filed 04/24/13 Pg 1 of 40

1

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTEASTERNDISTRICTOFMICHIGAN

SOUTHERNDIVISION

CHARLESCONWAY,ANTONIOHUDSON, JOSERODRIGUEZ,andJEFFREYBROWN, CaseNo.13‐10271 Plaintiffs, Hon.PatrickJ.Duggan Magistrate:PaulJ.Komivesv. DANIELH.HEYNS,Director,MichiganDepartmentofCorrections,inhisofficialcapacity,only;DENNISSTRAUB,CorrectionalFacilitiesAdministrationDeputyDirector,MichiganDepartmentofCorrections,inhisofficialcapacity,only;BRADPURVES,MichiganDepartmentofCorrections,CorrectionalFacilitiesAdministration,FoodServiceProgramManager,inhisofficialandindividualcapacities;UNIDENTIFIEDDEFENDANTNO.1,FieldOperationsAdministrationDeputyDirector,MichiganDepartmentofCorrections,inhisofficialcapacity,only; LLOYDRAPELJE,Warden,SaginawCorrectionalFacility,inhisofficialandindividualcapacities;DONSPAULDING,formerFoodServiceDirector,SaginawCorrectionalFacility,inhisindividualcapacity,only;GLENNKUSEY,FoodServiceDirector,SaginawCorrectionalFacility,inhisofficialandindividualcapacities;MITCHPERRY,Warden,NewberryCorrectionalFacility,inhisofficialandindividualcapacities;

2:13-cv-10271-PJD-PJK Doc # 16 Filed 04/24/13 Pg 1 of 40 Pg ID 111

2

UNIDENTIFIEDDEFENDANTNO.2,FoodServiceDirector,NewberryCorrectionalFacility,inhisofficialandindividualcapacities;JEFFREYLARSON,Warden,CentralMichiganCorrectionalFacility,inhisofficialandindividualcapacities;TOMBURKETT,formerWarden,CentralMichiganCorrectionalFacility,inhisindividualcapacity,only;UNIDENTIFIEDDEFENDANTNO.3,FoodServiceDirector,CentralMichiganCorrectionalFacility,inhisofficialandindividualcapacities;CATHERINES.BAUMAN,Warden,AlgerMaximumCorrectionalFacility,inhisofficialandindividualcapacities;RICCARDI,FoodServiceDirector,AlgerMaximumCorrectionalFacility,inhisofficialandindividualcapacities; Defendants. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________/

AMENDEDCOMPLAINTFORDECLARATORYRELIEF,INJUNCTIVERELIEFANDDAMAGESANDJURYDEMAND

Plaintiffs, CHARLES CONWAY, ANTONIO HUDSON, JOSE RODRIGUEZ, and JEFFREY

BROWN (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, file this Amended

Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief and Damages against DefendantsDANIELH.

HEYNS,DENNISSTRAUB,BRADPURVES,LLOYDRAPELJE,DONSPAULDING,GLENNKUSEY,

MITCH PERRY, JEFFREY LARSON, CATHERINE S. BAUMAN, RICCARDI, and UNIDENTIFIED

DEFENDANTSNOS.1,2and3(collectively“Defendants”),forreligiousdiscriminationinviolation

of theUnitedStatesConstitutionand theReligiousLandUseand InstitutionalizedPersonsActof

2000(“RLUIPA”),42U.S.C.Sec.2000ccetseq.,pursuantto28U.S.C.§1331,andstateasfollows:


3

JurisdictionandVenue

1. This Court has original federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims of

violationsoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionandtheReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalizedPersons

Actof2000(“RLUIPA”),42U.S.C.§2000ccetseq.,pursuantto28U.S.C.§1331.

2. This Court has federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 over

Plaintiffs’claimsregardingthedeprivationundercolorofStatelawofrightssecuredbytheFirstand

FourteenthAmendmentstotheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesandthelawsoftheUnitedStates.

3. ThisCourthaspersonaljurisdictionoverDefendantsbecauseDefendantsresideand

conductbusinessintheStateofMichigan.

4. ThisCourthasjurisdictionoverPlaintiffs’constitutionalclaimspursuantto42U.S.C.

§1983.

5. Plaintiffs’claimsfordeclaratoryreliefaresoughtunder28U.S.C.§§2201and2202.

6. Plaintiffsseekpermanentinjunctiverelief,pursuanttoRule65oftheFederalRules

ofCivilProcedureand28U.S.C.§1343.

7. Plaintiffs’claimsforattorneys’feesandcostsarepredicatedupon42U.S.C.§§1988

and 2000cc‐2(d), which authorize the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing parties,

pursuantto42U.S.C.§1983andRLUIPA.

8. Plaintiffs’claimsfordeclaratoryandinjunctivereliefareauthorizedby28U.S.C.§§

2201and2202,byRules57and65oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,andbythegeneral,legal,

andequitablepowersofthisCourt.

9. Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1391 as to all Defendants because Defendants

operatewithinthegeographicalboundariesoftheStateofMichigan,andthesubstantialpartofthe

actsdescribedhereinoccurredwithinthisDistrict.


4

Plaintiffs

10. PlaintiffCharlesConwayisanindividual,amale,aMuslimandaninmateatSaginaw

Correctional Facility (Inmate No. 336827), and was at all relevant times considered a “person

confinedtoaninstitution”asthetermisdefinedin42U.S.C.§2000ccetseq.

11. PlaintiffAntonioHudsonisanindividual,amale,aMuslimandaninmateatNewberry

Correctional Facility (Inmate No. 213154), and was at all relevant times considered a “person

confinedtoaninstitution”asthetermisdefinedin42U.S.C.§2000ccetseq.

12. PlaintiffJoseRodriguezisanindividual,amale,aMuslimandaninmateatCentral

Michigan Correctional Facility (Inmate No. 695092), and was at all relevant times considered a

“personconfinedtoaninstitution”asthetermisdefinedin42U.S.C.§2000ccetseq.

13. Plaintiff Jeffrey Brown is an individual, amale, a Muslim and an inmate at Alger

MaximumCorrectional Facility (InmateNo. 362446), andwas at all relevant times considered a

“personconfinedtoaninstitution”asthetermisdefinedin42U.S.C.§2000ccetseq.

KnownDefendantsSuedinOfficialCapacity,Only

14. Uponinformationandbelief,DefendantDanielH.HeynesisDirectoroftheMichigan

Department of Corrections. Defendant Heynes is the ultimate decision‐maker with authority to

approveallMichiganDepartmentofCorrectionspolicies,includingitsdietarypoliciesforeachofthe

correctionalfacilitiesreferencedinthisAmendedComplaint.DefendantHeynesisbeingsuedinhis

officialcapacity,only.

15. Uponinformationandbelief,DefendantDennisStraubistheCorrectionalFacilities

Administration (“CFA”) Deputy Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Defendant

Straubisadecision‐makerwithauthoritytoapproveallMichiganDepartmentofCorrectionspolicies

concerning theoperationof all correctional institutionsoperatedby theMichiganDepartmentof


5

CorrectionsandtheOperationsDivision,whichincludestheFoodServiceSection.DefendantStraub

isbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.

KnownDefendantsSuedinIndividualCapacity,Only

16. Upon informationandbelief,DefendantDonSpaulding is the formerFoodService

Director at Saginaw Correctional Facility who had supervisory authority and control over food

service at the facility during the time of Plaintiff Conway’s confinement at Saginaw Correctional

Facility. Defendant Spaulding personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiff

Conway.DefendantSpauldingisbeingsuedinhisindividualcapacity,only.

17. Uponinformationandbelief,DefendantTomBurkettistheformerWardenofCentral

MichiganCorrectionalFacilitywhoisformeradecision‐makerandpossessedauthoritytoapprove

allpoliciesconcerningCentralMichiganCorrectionalFacilityduringthetimeofPlaintiffHudson’s

confinementatthefacility.DefendantformerWardenBurkettpersonallyengagedindiscriminatory

behavioragainstPlaintiffHudson.DefendantformerWardenBurkettisbeingsuedinhisindividual

capacity,only.

KnownDefendantsSuedinBothOfficialandIndividualCapacities

18. Upon information andbelief,DefendantBradPurves is the FoodServiceProgram

Manager at the Correctional Facilities Administration (“CFA”) of the Michigan Department of

Corrections. DefendantPurves is adecision‐makerandpossessesauthority toapproveMichigan

DepartmentofCorrectionspoliciesconcerningfoodserviceatallcorrectionalinstitutionsoperated

bytheMichiganDepartmentofCorrections.DefendantPurvesisbeingsuedinbothhisofficialand

individualcapacities.

19. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lloyd Rapelje is theWarden of Saginaw

Correctional Facility who is a decision‐maker and possesses authority to approve all policies

concerning Saginaw Correctional Facility during the time of Plaintiff Conway’s and Plaintiff


6

Rodriguez’ confinement at the facility. Defendant Rapelje personally engaged in discriminatory

behavioragainstPlaintiffConwayandPlaintiffRodriguez.DefendantRapeljeisbeingsuedinboth

hisofficialandindividualcapacities.

20. Upon information and belief, Defendant Glenn Kusey is the current Food Service

Director at Saginaw Correctional Facility who had supervisory authority and control over food

serviceatthefacilityduringthetimeofPlaintiffConway’sandPlaintiffRodriguez’confinementat

Saginaw Correctional Facility. Defendant Kusey personally engaged in discriminatory behavior

againstPlaintiffConwayandPlaintiffRodriguez.DefendantKuseyisbeingsuedinbothhisofficial

andindividualcapacities.

21. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mitch Perry is the Warden of Newberry

Correctional Facility who is a decision‐maker and possesses authority to approve all policies

concerningNewberryCorrectionalFacilityduringthetimeofPlaintiffHudson’sconfinementatthe

facility. DefendantWardenPerrypersonallyengaged indiscriminatorybehavioragainstPlaintiff

Hudson.DefendantWardenPerryisbeingsuedinbothhisofficialandindividualcapacities.

22. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jeffrey Larson is the Warden of Central

Michigan Correctional Facility who is a decision‐maker and possesses authority to approve all

policies concerning CentralMichigan Correctional Facility during the time of Plaintiff Rodriguez’

confinementatthefacility.DefendantWardenLarsonpersonallyengagedindiscriminatorybehavior

against Plaintiff Rodriguez. Defendant Larson is being sued in both his official and individual

capacities.

23. Uponinformationandbelief,DefendantCatherinS.BaumanistheWardenofAlger

Maximum Correctional Facility who is a decision‐maker and possesses authority to approve all

policies concerning Alger Maximum Correctional Facility during the time of Plaintiff Brown’s

confinement at the facility. Defendant Warden Bauman personally engaged in discriminatory


7

behavioragainstPlaintiffBrown.DefendantWardenBaumanisbeingsuedinbothherofficialand


24. Uponinformationandbelief,RiccardiistheFoodServiceDirectoratAlgerMaximum

Correctional Facilitywho had supervisory authority and control over food service at the facility

duringthetimeofPlaintiffBrown’sconfinementatAlgerMaximumCorrectionalFacility.Riccardi

personallyengagedindiscriminatorybehavioragainstPlaintiffBrown.Riccardiisbeingsuedinboth

hisofficialandindividualcapacities.

UnknownDefendantsSuedinOfficialCapacity,Only

25. Upon informationandbelief,UnidentifiedDefendantNo.1 is theFieldOperations

Administration (“FOA”) Deputy Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Defendant

UnidentifiedDefendantNo.1isadecision‐makerwithauthoritytoapproveallMichiganDepartment

of Corrections policies concerning the management and operation of all correctional facilities,

servicesandprograms.UnidentifiedDefendantNo.1isbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.

UnknownDefendantsSuedinBothOfficialandIndividualCapacities

26. Upon information and belief, Unidentified Defendant No. 2 is the Food Service

Director atNewberryCorrectional Facilitywhohad supervisory authority and control over food

serviceat the facilityduring thetimeofPlaintiffHudson’sconfinementatNewberryCorrectional

Facility. Unidentified Defendant No. 2 personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against

Plaintiff Hudson. Unidentified Defendant No. 2 is being sued in both his official and individual

capacities.

27. Upon information and belief, Unidentified Defendant No. 3 is the Food Service

DirectoratCentralMichiganCorrectionalFacilitywhohadsupervisoryauthorityandcontrolover

foodserviceatthefacilityduringthetimeofPlaintiffRodriguez’confinementatCentralMichigan


8

CorrectionalFacility.UnidentifiedDefendantNo.3personallyengagedindiscriminatorybehavior

against Plaintiff Rodriguez. Unidentified Defendant No. 3 is being sued in both his official and


NatureofthisAction

28. ThisisanactionfordeclaratoryandinjunctivereliefarisingundertheFirst,Eighthand

Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Religious Land Use and

InstitutionalizedPersonsActof2000(“RLUIPA”),and42U.S.C.§1983. Plaintiffsseekscostsand

attorneys’feesunder42U.S.C.§1988.

29. Upon information and belief, Saginaw Correctional Facility, Newberry Correctional

Facility,CentralMichiganCorrectionalFacility,andAlgerMaximumCorrectionalFacilityareeachan

“institution”withinthemeaningof42U.S.C.§2000cc‐1(a)and42U.S.C.§1997.

30. Defendants have not identified any compelling government interest for denying

Plaintiffs’requestsforadietthatsatisfiesnutritionalandcaloricrequirementsduringthemonthof

Ramadan.1

31. Defendants have not identified any compelling government interest for denying

Plaintiffs’requestsforahalalfooddiet.2

32. Defendantshavefailedtoenforcetheapplicablelaws,policies,directives,ordinances,

andregulationsintheleastrestrictivemeanspossible.

1 As discussed further in Paragraphs 46‐47, Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic Calendar. Muslims worldwide observe Ramadan as a month of fasting. This annual observance is regarded as one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Among other things, while fasting from dawn until sunset, Muslims refrain from consuming food, drinking liquids, smoking and sexual relations. 2 Halal is a term designating an object or an action which is permissible to use or engage in, according to Islamic teachings. The term is used to designate food seen as permissible according to Islamic teachings.


9

33. Defendantshaveunlawfully imposedadietarypolicy that substantially burdens the

rightsofPlaintiffstothefreeexerciseofreligionbymeansthatarenottheleastrestrictivemeans

availabletothecorrectionalfacilitiestoprotecttheirassertedgovernmentalinterest.

34. Defendants have imposed regulations that unreasonably limit religious exercise,

discriminatedagainstPlaintiffsonthebasisofreligiousdenomination,andtreatedPlaintiffsonless

thanequaltermswithotherreligiousandnon‐religioussimilarly‐situatedpersons.

DenialofaProperCaloricIntakeDuringtheMonthofRamadan(“RamadanPolicy”)

35. Uponinformationandbelief,underPolicyDirective04.07.100“OffenderMeals,”all

menusandmealsat correctional facilities requireabalancednutritionaldiet containingbetween

2600and2900caloriesonanygivenday.

36. Uponinformationandbelief,duringRamadan,Musliminmateswhoobservethefast

donotreceiveabalancednutritionaldietcontainingbetween2600and2900caloriesonanygiven

dayduringRamadan.(Thispolicywillhereinafterbereferredtoasthe“RamadanPolicy.”)

37. Uponinformationandbelief,otherinmatesreceivebetween2600and2900calories

andabalancednutritionaldietonanygivenday.

38. PursuanttoPolicyDirective05.03.150“ReligiousBeliefsandPracticesofPrisoners,”

“theCFAorFOADeputyDirectorordesigneemayauthorizethedevelopmentofaseparatemenuto

meetthenecessaryreligiousdietaryrestrictionsofaprisoner.Suchmenusshallmeettheminimum

nutritionalstandardssetforthinPD04.07.100‘OffenderMeals’.TheappropriateDeputyDirectoror

designeeshallhavefinalapprovalofsuchmenusandshalldetermineatwhichfacilitiesthemeals

willbeoffered.”MichiganDepartmentofCorrections,PolicyDirective05.03.150atpara.QQ.

39. PursuanttothesamePolicyDirective,“[o]ncethe[religious]mealsareprovided,the

prisonershallnotbeallowedtoeatfromtheregularmenu.”Id.atpara.TT.


10

40. On June 25, 2012, Defendant Purves issued a memorandum to wardens of all

MichiganDepartmentofCorrectionsfacilities(the“Memorandum”).

41. TheMemorandumreadinrelevantpart:

RamadanisgoingtocommenceonJuly20,2012at4:41a.m.andendonAugust14,2012at8:35p.m.AllfacilitieswillfollowtheStateWideStandardRamadanMenuorStateWideStandardRamadanBaggedColdmealmenudependingontheoptionyourfacilitychoosesbelow.DuetothedifficulttimeparameterssurroundingRamadanthisyear,facilitieswillbegiventheoptiontochoose fromoneof the four(4)optionstodeliverthesemeals.Options:1‐ Servebothmealsfromthediningroom.Followthecurrentposted

StateWideStandardMenu.(“Option1”)2‐ ServeabagBreakfastandservethedinnermealfromthedining

room‐usetheStateWideStandardRamadanMenu.Seeattached[sic](“Option2”)

3‐ Serve a bag Breakfast. Serve and deliver the dinner meal viaserving/traysegtrays‐followtheStateWideStandardRamadanMenu.Seeattached.(“Option3”)

4‐ Serve a bag Breakfast and bag Dinner. Follow the StateWideStandardRamadanColdmenu.(“Option4”)Seeattached.

42. Attached to the Memorandum was a “Ramadan Bagged Meal” Menu. The

MemorandumisreferencedasanExhibittothisAmendedComplaint.

43. Uponinformationandbelief,thedailycaloricintakeonthe“RamadanBaggedMeal”

Menurangesfromapproximately1,100caloriestoapproximately1,400calories,dependingonthe

day.

44. The nutritional and caloric intake of the Ramadan Bagged Meal menu is

approximatelylessthanhalftheamountofcaloriesthatotherinmatesreceiveonanygivenday.

45. UponadoptingIslam,PlaintiffsbeganobservingtheRamadanfast,inaccordancewith

theirsincerely‐heldreligiousbeliefthatfastingthemonthofRamadanisareligiousobligationwhich

iscompulsoryonallhealthyadultMuslims.


11

46. During themonth of Ramadan,Muslims fast from sunrise to sundown by, among

otherthings,abstainingfromeatinganddrinking.MuslimsbelieveRamadanisatimeforspiritual

reflection,self‐improvement,andincreaseddevotionandworship.

47. DuringthemonthofRamadan,Muslimsarepermittedtoeatanddrinkfromsundown

tosunrise.

48. In order to ensure that Plaintiffs receive their meals before sunrise and after

sundown,Plaintiffs,alongwithotherMusliminmates,submittedawrittenrequesttoeatfromthe

religiousRamadanmenu. SeeMichiganDepartmentofCorrections,PolicyDirective05.03.150at

para.SS.

49. EachofPlaintiffs’requeststoeatfromtheReligiousRamadanmenuwereapproved.

50. However, by requesting to eat from the religiousRamadanmenu, Plaintiffs, along

withotherMusliminmates,areforcedtosacrificeapropernutritionalandcaloricdiet.

51. Uponinformationandbelief,otherinmatesonreligiousdiets,menusormealplans

are not forced to consume such a significantly reduced number of calories or sacrifice a proper

nutritionaldiet.

52. The Michigan Department of Corrections Ramadan Policy imposes a substantial

burdenupontherightsofPlaintiffsandotherMusliminmatestothefreeexerciseofreligion,and

discriminates,andcontinuestodiscriminate,againstPlaintiffsonthebasisofreligionorreligious

denominationinviolationofRLUIPA.42U.S.C.§2000cc(b)(2).

53. TheMichigan Department of Corrections is capable of providing Plaintiffs with a

propercaloricandnutritionaldietbecauseitprovidesotherinmatesatitsfacilitieswithaproper

caloricandnutritionaldiet.

54. TheRamadanPolicy subjectsPlaintiffs andotherMuslim inmateswitha religious

basisforparticipatingintheRamadanfasttodisparatetreatmentandcruelandunusualpunishment

bydenyingthemapropernutritionalandcaloricdietonadailybasis.


12

55. ThesubstantialburdenthattheRamadanPolicyimposesontheseprisonersisnot

necessarytoachieveanycompellingstateinterest.

DenialofaHalalFoodDiet

56. Uponadopting Islam,Plaintiffsstartedeatingahalaldiet inaccordancewith their

sincerely‐heldreligiousbeliefthatkeepingahalaldietispartoftheirreligiousobligation.

57. The halal food diet is a diet that is in accordancewith Islamic teachings. Islamic

teachingsspecifybothwhattypesoffoodsarepermittedtobeeaten,aswellashowthefoodmust

beprepared.

58. Underthehalalfooddiet,porkandpork‐basedfoodproductsareexpresslyforbidden,

inadditiontoallmeatthatisnotslaughteredandpreparedinaccordancewithIslamiclaw.

59. Since Plaintiffs’ confinement began at their respective correctional facilities,

DefendantshaverefusedtoprovidePlaintiffswithahalaldietdespiterepeatedrequests.

60. MichiganDepartmentofCorrectionsdietarypoliciesforceprisonerswithareligious

basisforconsumingahalaldiettochoosebetweenviolatingtheircorereligiousbeliefsorreceiving

apropercaloricandnutritionaldietonadailybasis.

61. During the month of Ramadan, because Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates are

providedanunreasonablylowcaloricdietpursuanttotheRamadanPolicy,Plaintiffshaveallbeen

forcedtoviolatetheirsincerely‐heldreligiousbeliefsbyeatingfoodsthatviolatetherestrictionsof

the halal food diet, including pork‐based food products andmeat that has not been prepared in

accordancewithIslamiclaw,onadailybasisinordertosustainthemselves.

62. TheMichiganDepartmentofCorrectionsdietarypolicyimposesasubstantialburden

upon the rights of Plaintiffs to the free exercise of religion, and discriminates, and continues to

discriminate, against Plaintiffs on the basis of religion or religious denomination in violation of

RLUIPA.42U.S.C.§2000cc(b)(2).


13

63. The substantial burden that Michigan Department of Corrections dietary policies

imposedontheseprisonersisnotnecessarytoachieveanycompellingstateinterest.

64. TheMichiganDepartmentofCorrectionsiscapableofprovidingPlaintiffswithahalal

dietbecauseitprovidesprisonersofotherfaithsareligiousdiet.

65. Forexample,pursuanttoOperatingProcedure05.03.150A,“KosherMealProgram,”

the“KosherMealProgramisavailabletoprisonerswhosereligiousbeliefshavebeendeterminedto

requireaKosherdiet.” MichiganDepartmentofCorrections,OperatingProcedure05.03.150Aat

para.A.

66. Several correctional facilities, including Alger Maximum Correctional Facility and

NewberryCorrectionalFacility,are“authorizedtoprovideKoshermealstoprisoners.”Id.atpara.B,

AttachmentA.

PlaintiffCharlesConway

67. Uponinformationandbelief,SaginawCorrectionalFacility,wherePlaintiffConwayis

currently confined, chose to implement theOption4Ramadanmenu,whichprovides thatmeals

shouldbeservedtoMusliminmatesthroughbagbreakfastsandbagdinners.

68. In accordancewith exercising theOption4Ramadanmenu, that facility prohibits

Musliminmates,includingPlaintiffConway,fromeatingatthemainlinewhereotherinmatesreceive

theirmeals.

69. Accordingly, Plaintiff Conway and other Muslim inmates at that facility, are

dependentuponthefacilitytoprovidethemwithfood.

70. Asshownabove,uponinformationandbelief,themealsprovidedtoMusliminmates

duringRamadandonotmeettherequirementsthatallinmatesreceiveabalancednutritionaldiet

containingbetween2600and2900caloriesonanygivendayduringRamadan.


14

71. Moreover, the meals Plaintiff Conway receives are “cold meals” whereas other

inmatesatthesamefacilityarereceiving“hotmeals.”

72. In addition to receiving meals that are below caloric and nutritional standards,

oftentimesduringthemonthofRamadan,PlaintiffConway’sbagbreakfastisbroughtaftersunrise

andaccordinglyPlaintiffConwayisunabletoeatthemealsoasnottoviolatetheirsincerely‐held

religiousbeliefthatrequireshimtofastfromsunrisetosunsetduringthemonthofRamadan.

73. PlaintiffConwaywrotealettertoDefendantSpaulding,formerFoodServiceDirector

atSaginawCorrectionalFacility, that inquiredregardingthenumberofcaloriesheisreceivingas

opposedtothenumberofcaloriesotherinmatesarereceiving,stating“whatisthecaloricintakeof

thembagsyoufeedingusbecauseitisnotenoughfoodforonefullday.”

74. On August 15, 2011, Defendant Spaulding, responded that “[t]hemain linemenu

allowsfor2600k‐caloriesdailywhichhasbeenreviewedandcertifiedbyregisterdietitians.This

meanswe aremeeting yourdailyneeds as long aswe follow themenu,whichwedo. As far as

participatinginRamadanthisisdoneinaccordancewithyourreligioustennants[sic]. Themeals

providedareadequateforthis.”

75. OnSeptember6,2011,PlaintiffConwayfiledagrievanceregardingbeingdenieda

propercaloricintakeduringthemonthofRamadan.

76. OnSeptember19,2011,DefendantKusey,currentFoodServiceDirectoratSaginaw

CorrectionalFacility,deniedPlaintiffConway’sgrievancestatingthat“[f]oodserviceisfollowingthe

menuprovidedbyMDOCCentralOfficeFoodprogrammanager.”

77. OnSeptember30,2011,PlaintiffConwayfiledanappealclaimingthat“thecaloric

intakeof themealsprovidedduring themonth ofRamadanwerenot equal to the caloric intake

providedtherestofthepopulation.”

78. On October 20, 2011, Defendant Warden Rapelje responded that “no policy or

procedureviolationhave[sic]beenshown,”anddeniedPlaintiffConway’sappeal.


15

79. PlaintiffConwayagainfiledanappealstatingthat“[t]heapprx.1200caloriesorso

perday,thatwasgiventoinmatesadheringtoramadan[sic]wasnotequaltotheapprx.2600calories

thatwasallowedforinmateswhowerenotonramadan.”

80. OnJanuary11,2012,PlaintiffConway’sappealwasdeniedonthebasisthat“thereis

noadditionalinformationorbasisfoundforreliefatStepIII.”

81. Plaintiffhasexhaustedhisadministrativeremedies.

AntonioHudson

82. Uponinformationandbelief,NewberryCorrectionalFacility,wherePlaintiffHudson

is confined and was recently transferred, chose to implement the Option 4 Ramadan menu in

previous years, which provides that meals should be served to Muslim inmates through bag

breakfastsandbagdinners.


Musliminmatesfromeatingatthemainlinewhereotherinmatesreceivetheirmeals.

84. Accordingly,PlaintiffHudsonandotherMusliminmatesatthatfacility,aredependent

uponthefacilitytoprovidethemwiththeirfoodduringtheupcomingmonthofRamadan.




86. Moreover, the meals Plaintiff Hudson receives are “cold meals” whereas other


87. In addition to receiving meals that are below caloric and nutritional standards,

oftentimesduringthemonthofRamadan,ateachofthecorrectionalfacilitieswherePlaintiffHudson

waspreviouslyconfined,PlaintiffHudson’sbagbreakfastwasbroughtaftersunriseandaccordingly


16

PlaintiffHudsonwasunabletoeatthemealsoasnottoviolatetheirsincerely‐heldreligiousbelief

thatrequireshimtofastfromsunrisetosunsetduringthemonthofRamadan.

88. On July 23, 2012, while Plaintiff Hudson was confined in Central Michigan

CorrectionalFacility,PlaintiffHudson fileda grievance stating that “[t]hemonthRAMADAN IS in

procees[sic],myconstitutionalrightstobefeed[sic]thepropercaloric/protien[sic]intake…Iwas

toldthatIwastoreceiveonlytwomeals.”

89. OnAugust9,2012,J.CrosbydeniedPlaintiffHudson’sgrievancestatingthat“[t]he

Regional Food service Director [Unidentified Defendant No. 2] said thatwe are following policy

becauseweareallowingthemtofastandfastingisprimarilytheactofwillinglyabstainingfromsome

orallfood,drinkorbothforaperiodoftime.InthiscasetheRamadanFastisamatterofpersonal

choicewherenofoodordrinkispermittedbetweendawnandsunsetaccordingtoIslamicteachings,

andsuchresultsinnotreceivingtheLunchmeal.”

90. OnAugust17,2012,PlaintiffHudsonfiledanappealclaimingthatthepolicyviolated

theirrightsto“befeed[sic]thepropercaloric/proteinintakewhilepracticing[his]constitutional

religiousrightsofFASTINGinthemonthofRAMADAN.”

91. OnSeptember6,2012,DefendantformerWardenBurkettdeniedPlaintiffHudson’s

appeal, stating that “[f]urther investigation reveals that Grievant’s concerns were thoroughly

addressedattheStepIlevel…Lackinganyevidenceofapolicyorproceduralviolations.”

92. PlaintiffHudsonfiledanappealstatingthat“[t]heWarden/Birkett[sic]shouldhave

madeJ.Crosbyfollowthemenuguidelinestoprovidemewiththeprotien[sic]tomeetthenutritional

andcaloricstandards…thiswasaviolationtomyconstituional[sic]rightsbynotservingmethe

protien[sic]ofthedailyrecommendationaspersecutionforchoosingtofastasamuslim[sic].”

93. Plaintiff’sHudson’sappealwasagaindenied.

94. PlaintiffHudsonhasexhaustedhisadministrativeremedies.


17

JoseRodriguez

95. Uponinformationandbelief,CentralMichiganCorrectionalFacility,wherePlaintiff

Rodriguezisconfinedandwasrecentlytransferred,chosetoimplementtheOption4Ramadanmenu

in previous years, which provides that meals should be served to Muslim inmates through bag

breakfastsandbagdinners.


Musliminmatesfromeatingatthemainlinewhereotherinmatesreceivetheirmeals.

97. Moreover, the meals Plaintiff Rodriguez receives are “cold meals” whereas other


98. Accordingly, Plaintiff Rodriguez and other Muslim inmates at that facility, are

dependentuponthefacilitytoprovidethemwiththeirfoodduringtheupcomingmonthofRamadan.




100. OnAugust1,2012,whilePlaintiffRodriguezwasconfinedatSaginawCorrectional

Facility,PlaintiffRodriguezwrotealettertoDefendantWardenRapeljestating“Iamkitingtofind

outwhytheRamadanbagsarebelowthedailycalorieintakemandatedbypolicyandtheU.S.D.A.,

becausethelackofdailycalorieintakeisaburdenonmyFreeExerciseofmyReligion.”

101. InitsresponsetoPlaintiffRodriguez’ letter,onAugust7,2012,DefendantWarden

Rapelje’sofficeattachedamemorandumbyDefendantKuseythat“theRamadanFastisamatterof

personalchoicewherenofoodordrinkispermittedbetweendawnandsunsetaccordingtoIslamic

teachings,andsuchresultsinnotreceivingthelunchmeal.”

102. OnAugust13,2012,PlaintiffRodriguezfiledagrievancestatingthat“[t]hroughout

themonth ofRamadan theM.D.O.C. Food Service did not provide inmates onRamadanwith the

properdailycaloricandnutritionalvaluemandatedbytheU.S.D.Adietaryguidelines.Foodservice…


18

violatedandinfringeduponmyrecognizedConst.righttofreelyexercisemy1stAmend[sic]rightof

religion.”

103. OnAugust24,2012,DefendantKuseydeniedPlaintiffRodriguez’grievance.

104. OnSeptember12,2012,PlaintiffRodriguezfiledanappealstatingthat“’Fast’under

Islam,asstatedintheHolyQur’an(Surah2)clearlydoesnotlimitones[sic]dailycaloricintake.The

Qur’anonlymandatestheabstainingoffoodduringthedaylighthours.Outsidethedaylighthours,

oneonRamadancouldconsumetheMDOCallotted2600‐2900caloriesperdayifitwereprovided.”

105. On September 20, 2012, Defendant Warden Rapelje denied Plaintiff Rodriguez’

appeal stating that “Grievant chose to freely exercise their religious freedom by participating in

Ramadan.Partofthatchoicewastoforgotheirnoonmealasitisservedduringdailyhours.The

mealshewasservedatsundownandsun‐updidmeetthecaloricandnutritionalstandardforthose

twomeals.Hisdailyrequirementswouldhavebeenlackingduetotheirdecisiontoparticipatein

thefast.Grievantfreelymadeachoicewhichhadconsequences.Noreliefiswarranted.”Emphasis

supplied.

106. PlaintiffRodriguezfiledanappeal,whichwasalsodeniedonJanuary29,2013.

107. PlaintiffRodriguezhasexhaustedhisadministrativeremedies.

JeffreyBrown

108. Upon information andbelief,AlgerMaximumCorrectionalFacility,wherePlaintiff

Brown is confined, chose to implement theOption 3Ramadanmenu,whichprovides thatmeals

shouldbeservedtoMusliminmatesthroughbagbreakfastsand“segtrays”fordinner.

109. Uponinformationandbelief,“seg”isareferencetotheterm“segregation.”


Musliminmatesinsegregation,includingPlaintiffBrown,fromeatingatthemainlinewhereother

inmatesreceivetheirmeals.


19

111. Accordingly,PlaintiffBrownandotherMusliminmatesatthatfacilityinsegregation,

aredependentuponthefacilitytoprovidethemwiththeirfood.




113. Moreover,themealsPlaintiffBrownreceivesare“coldmeals”whereasotherinmates

atthesamefacilityarereceiving“hotmeals.”

114. Inadditiontoreceivingmealsthatarebelowcaloricandnutritionalstandards,often

timesduringthemonthofRamadan,PlaintiffBrown’sbagbreakfastwasbroughtaftersunriseand

accordingly Plaintiff Brownwas unable to eat themeal so as not to violate their sincerely‐held

religiousbeliefthatrequireshimtofastfromsunrisetosunsetduringthemonthofRamadan.

115. DuringthemonthofRamadan,onalmostadailybasis,PlaintiffBrown’sbagbreakfast

wasalsomissinganumberoffooditems,furtherreducingtheirdailycaloricandnutritionalintake

evenmore.

116. Plaintiff Brown wrote several letters to the Chaplain, Defendant Riccardi, and

DefendantWardenBaumanthatrequestedthattherepeatedissueofmissingfooditemsintheirbag

breakfastberesolved,includingonJuly21,2012;July25,2012;andJuly30,2012.

117. However,noactionwastakentoresolvetheissueofmissingfooditems.

118. OnJuly26,2012,PlaintiffBrownfiledagrievancestatingthat“[their]sincerelyheld

religiousbeliefsarebeingviolatedalongwith[their]rightsto…equalprotection,andtobefreefrom

cruel/unusualpunishmentbecausethebreakfastmealsarelateand/ormissingitemsandbecause

the lunchmeals are not beingmade up in to the breakfast or dinner. Muslims simply fast from

[sunrise]to[sundown]andinbetweenthosetwotimesweeatnormaldailyintake.”

119. Plaintiff Brown’s grievance was not assigned a number, nor did Plaintiff Brown

receivearesponsetothisgrievance.


20

120. Uponinformationandbelief,DefendantsRiccardiandWardenBauman’s failureto

takeaction,andDefendants’actions,orlackthereof,infailingtoassignPlaintiffBrown’sgrievancea

numberorrespondtoPlaintiffBrown’sgrievanceconstitutesadenialofPlaintiffBrown’sgrievance.

121. Accordingly,PlaintiffBrownhasexhaustedhisadministrativeremedies.

CountIPreliminaryInjunctionand/orPermanentInjunction

122. Plaintiffsherebyreallegeandincorporatebyreferencetheforegoingparagraphsof

thisAmendedComplaintasiffullysetforthherein.

123. Defendants’RamadanPolicy,wherebyDefendantsdonotprovidePlaintiffswitha

balanced nutritional diet containing between 2600 and 2900 calories on any given day during

Ramadan,causedandcontinuestocausePlaintiffsharmbecauseitforcesthemtochoose,onadaily

basis,betweenviolatingtheircorereligiousbeliefs(thatfirstrequiresthemtofastduringthemonth

ofRamadan;andsecond,requiresthemtoabstainfromfoodsthatviolatetheirreligioustenets)and

waivingtheirrighttoreceivingamenuthatmeetsminimumnutritionalstandards.

124. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy, denial of a halal food diet and above‐mentioned

unlawfulactionscausedandcontinuestocausePlaintiffsharmbecauseitforcesthemtochoose,on

adailybasis,betweenviolatingtheircorereligiousbeliefs(thatfirstrequiresthemtofastduringthe

month of Ramadan; and second, requires them to abstain from foods that violate their religious

tenets)andwaivingtheirrighttoreceivingamenuthatmeetsminimumnutritionalstandards.

125. RamadaniscurrentlyscheduledtocommenceonJuly9,2013.

126. Upon information and belief, it is unlikely that this case will be resolved before

Ramadan.

127. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration, pursuant to the First and Fourteenth

AmendmentstotheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,theReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalized

PersonsActof2000(“RLUIPA”)and42U.S.C.§1983that:


21

a. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to theConstitution of theUnited States, theReligious LandUse and

InstitutionalizedPersonsActof2000(“RLUIPA”),and42U.S.C.§1983;

b. Defendants’denialofabalancednutritionaldietcontainingbetween2600and2900

calories on any given day during Ramadan, and a halal food diet, constitutes a

violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and creates a

chillingeffectonPlaintiffs’freeexerciseofreligion;

c. Defendants’ denial of Plaintiffs’ request for a balanced nutritional diet containing

between2600and2900caloriesonanygivendayduringRamadan,andahalalfood

diet is a substantial burden to the free exercise of Plaintiffs’ religion and is not

justifiedbyacompellinggovernmentinterest;

d. TheRamadanPolicyandthehalalfooddietarypolicy,asappliedtoPlaintiffs,treats

these prisoners on less than equal terms with other religious and non‐religious

prisonersinMichiganDepartmentofCorrectionsfacilities;and,

e. Defendants’uniqueapplicationoftheRamadanPolicytoPlaintiffs,andotherMuslim

inmates similarly‐situated, treatsMuslimprisoners on less than equal termswith

other religious and non‐religious prisoners, thereby creating a denominational

preferenceagainstIslamasareligion.

128. Plaintiffsareentitledtoissuanceofapreliminaryandpermanentinjunctionpursuant

totheFirstandFourteenthAmendmentstotheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,theReligiousLand

UseandInstitutionalizedPersonsActof2000(“RLUIPA”),and42U.S.C.§1983:

a. Enjoining Defendants from denying Plaintiffs, and other Muslim inmates

similarly‐situated,abalancednutritionaldietcontainingbetween2600and2900calorieson

any given day during Ramadan, because Defendants’ denial of the proper caloric and

nutritionaldietforcesPlaintiffs,whohaveareligiousbasisforfastingduringthemonthof


22

Ramadan,tochoose,onadailybasis,betweenviolatingtheircorereligiousbeliefs(ie:fasting

during the month of Ramadan) and receiving a menu that meets minimum nutritional

standardsandfastingduringthemonthofRamadan.

b. Enjoining Defendants from denying Plaintiffs, and other Muslim inmates

similarly‐situated,ahalalfooddietbecauseDefendants’denialofthehalalfooddietforces

Plaintiffs,whohaveareligiousbasisforconsumingahalaldiet,tochoose,onadailybasis,

betweenviolatingtheircorereligiousbeliefs thatrequirethemtoabstain fromfoodsthat

violatetheirreligioustenetsandwaivingtheirrighttoreceivingamenuthatmeetsminimum

nutritionalstandards.

c. RequiringDefendantstoremedytheconstitutionalandstatutoryviolations

identified above, including, but not limited to, eliminating any existing policy whereby

Plaintiff,andotherMusliminmatessimilarly‐situated,aredeniedabalancednutritionaldiet

containingbetween2600and2900caloriesonanygivendayduringRamadanandahalal

fooddiet.

129. In the absence of injunctive relief, Plaintiffs, and otherMuslim inmates similarly‐

situated,willcontinuetosufferirreparableharm.

130. ThesubstantialburdenthatMichiganDepartmentofCorrectionsRamadanpolicies

imposeonPlaintiffsandotherMuslimprisoners isnotnecessarytoachieveanycompellingstate

interest.

131. Theissuanceofaninjunctionisnotlikelytocausesubstantialharmtoothersbecause

Defendantsarecapableofprovidingtheseprisoners,andotherMusliminmatessimilarly‐situated,

withabalancednutritionaldietcontainingbetween2600and2900caloriesonanygivendayduring

Ramadanandahalalfooddietastheyarealreadyprovidingotherprisonersapropercaloricand

nutritionaldietinadditiontoareligiousdiet,includingbutnotlimitedto,aKosherdiet.

132. Plaintiffshaveastronglikelihoodofsuccessonthemerits.


23

133. Thepublicinterestwouldbeservedbytheissuanceofaninjunction.

WHEREFORE,PlaintiffsrequestthisHonorableCourtgrantdeclaratoryreliefandinjunctive

reliefbarringDefendantsfromengaginginfurtherunconstitutionalpracticesinprohibitingPlaintiffs

andotherMuslimprisonersfromreceivingabalancednutritionaldietcontainingbetween2600and

2900caloriesonanygivendayduringRamadan,andprovidingthemwithahalalfooddiet.Further,

Plaintiffsrequestcompensatoryandpunitivedamagesagainst the individualcapacitydefendants,

plusallsuchotherreliefthisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurred

inthisaction.

CountIIViolationofReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalizedPersonsAct

(ReligiousExercise)



135. Defendants’RamadanPolicy,wherebyDefendantsdonotprovidePlaintiffswitha

balancednutritionaldietcontainingbetween2600and2900caloriesonanygivendayinRamadan

chillPlaintiffs’righttofreeexerciseofreligion.

136. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy, denial of halal food policy and above‐mentioned

unlawfulactionschillPlaintiffs’righttofreeexerciseofreligion.

137. DefendantshavedeprivedandcontinuetodeprivePlaintiffsoftheirrighttothefree

exerciseofreligionassecuredbytheReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalizedPersonsActof2000,

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a) et seq., by both imposing and implementing an unconstitutional and

discriminatoryRamadanPolicyanddenyingahalal fooddiet that substantiallyburdenPlaintiffs’

religiousexercise.

138. Defendants’RamadanPolicyanddenialofahalalfooddiet,inadditiontotheabove‐

mentionedunlawfulactionscausedandcontinuestocausePlaintiffsharmbecauseitforcesthemto

choose,onadailybasisbetweenviolatingtheircorereligiousbeliefs(thatfirstrequiresthemtofast


24

duringthemonthofRamadan;andsecond,requiresthemtoabstainfromfoodsthatviolatetheir

religious tenets) and waiving their right to receiving a menu that meets minimum nutritional

standards.

139. Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a Ramadan Policy requiring

Musliminmatestoreceivemealsthatdonotprovideabalancednutritionaldietcontainingbetween

2600and2900caloriesonanygivendayduringRamadan.

140. Defendantshavenotestablishedadietarypolicy requiring inmatesofother faiths

participatinginreligiousdietstoreceivemealsthatdonotmeetminimumnutritionalstandards.

141. TherestrictionsimposedonPlaintiffsandotherMusliminmateshavesubstantially

burdenedtheirreligiousexercise.

142. Byimposingandimplementingtheabove‐describedRamadanPolicyanddenyinga

halal food diet to Muslim inmates, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’

exerciseofIslamwithinthecorrectionalfacilities.

143. Impositionofsuchaburdenisnotinfurtheranceofacompellinggovernmentinterest

and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest, compelling or

otherwise.

144. PlaintiffsareentitledtoadeclarationthattheRamadanPolicyanddenialofthehalal

food diet is a substantial burden to the free exercise of Plaintiffs’ religion, is not justified by a

compellinggovernmentinterest,andisinviolationofRLUIPA.

145. RamadaniscurrentlyscheduledtocommenceJuly9,2013.


Ramadan.

147. Plaintiffsareentitledtoissuanceofapreliminaryandpermanentinjunctiongranting

thereliefdescribedinParagraph128.


25

148. Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiffs harm and Plaintiffs are entitled to

injunctiveanddeclaratoryrelief,aswellascompensatoryandpunitivedamages,inadditiontoall

suchotherreliefthisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesinthisaction.







inthisaction.

CountIIIViolationofReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalizedPersonsAct

(DiscriminationontheBasisofReligion)



150. TheRamadanPolicyanddenialofhalalfooddiettreatstheseprisonersonlessthan

equaltermswithotherreligiousandnon‐religiousprisonersinMichiganDepartmentofCorrections

facilities.






standards.

152. DefendantshavedeprivedandcontinuetodeprivePlaintiffsoftheirrighttobefree

fromreligiousdiscriminationassecuredbytheReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalizedPersonsAct


26

of2000,42U.S.C.§2000cc(a)etseq.,byimposingandimplementingaRamadanPolicyanddenying

ahalalfooddietinamannerthatdiscriminatesonthebasisofreligion.

153. Defendants have imposed onerous restrictions on Plaintiffs that have not been

imposedonprisonersofotherfaithsatMichiganDepartmentofCorrectionsfacilities.


Musliminmatestoreceivemealsthatdonotmeetminimumnutritionalstandardsduringthemonth

ofRamadan.




fooddietconstitutesdiscriminationonthebasisofPlaintiffs’religion,isnotjustifiedbyacompelling

governmentinterest,andisinviolationofRLUIPA.



Ramadan.



160. Plaintiffsareentitledtoissuanceofapreliminaryandpermanentinjunctionenjoining

DefendantsfromdenyingPlaintiffsapropercaloricandnutritionaldietandahalalfooddiet.


injunctiveanddeclaratoryrelief,compensatoryandpunitivedamages,inadditiontoallsuchother

reliefthisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesinthisaction.





27




inthisaction.

CountIVViolationofFirstandFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution

(FreeExerciseofReligion)








standards.

164. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy, denial of halal food policy and above‐mentioned

unlawfulactionschillPlaintiffs’righttofreeexerciseofreligion.

165. DefendantshavedeprivedandcontinuetodeprivePlaintiffsoftheirrighttothefree

exercise of religion as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,made

applicable to theStatesby theFourteenthAmendment to theUnitedStatesConstitution,byboth

imposingandimplementingaRamadanPolicyanddenyingahalalfooddietthatsubstantiallyburden

Plaintiffs’religiousexercise.



ofRamadan.


28



168. Defendants’halalfooddietarypolicyprohibitsPlaintiffsfromexercisingtheirreligion

onadailybasis.

169. TherestrictionsimposedonPlaintiffsandotherMusliminmateshavesubstantially




exerciseofIslamwithinthecorrectionalfacilities



otherwise.



compellinggovernmentinterest,andisinviolationofPlaintiffs’FirstandFourteenthAmendment

rightstotheirfreeexerciseofreligion.



Ramadan.






29










inthisaction.

CountVViolationofFirstandFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution

(EstablishmentClause)



179. Defendants’uniqueapplicationoftheRamadanPolicytoPlaintiffs,andotherMuslim

inmatessimilarly‐situated,treatsMuslimprisonersonlessthanequaltermswithotherreligiousand

non‐religiousprisoners,therebycreatingadenominationalpreferenceagainstIslamasareligion.






standards.

181. DefendantshavedeprivedandcontinuetodeprivePlaintiffsoftheirrighttobefree

fromreligiousdiscriminationassecuredbytheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendmenttothe


30

UnitedStatesConstitution,madeapplicabletotheStatesbytheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnited

StatesConstitution,bybothimposingandimplementingaRamadanPolicyanddenyingahalalfood

dietthatsubstantiallyburdenPlaintiffs’religiousexercise.



ofRamadan.



184. Defendants’ denial of a halal food diet prohibits Plaintiffs from exercising their

religiononadailybasis.

185. The restrictions imposed on Plaintiffs are unconstitutional and have substantially


186. By imposingand implementing theRamadanPolicyanddenyingahalal fooddiet,

Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of Islam within Michigan

DepartmentofCorrectionsfacilities.



otherwise.



compelling government interest, and is in violation of the Establishment Clause to the First and

FourteenthAmendmentstotheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates.



Ramadan.


31














inthisaction.

CountVIViolationofFirstandFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution

(EqualProtection)



195. TheRamadanPolicyanddenialofhalalfooddiettreatstheseprisonersonlessthan

equaltermswithotherreligiousandnon‐religiousprisonersinMichiganDepartmentofCorrections

facilities,therebycreatingadenominationalpreferenceagainstIslamasareligion.






32


standards.

197. DefendantshavedeprivedandcontinuetodeprivePlaintiffsoftheirrighttoequal

protectionofthelawsassecuredbytheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution,by

imposing and implementing a Ramadan Policy and denying a halal food diet in a manner that

discriminatesonthebasisofreligion.

198. Defendants have imposed onerous restrictions on Plaintiffs that have not been

imposedonprisonersofotherfaithsatMichiganDepartmentofCorrectionsfacilities.



ofRamadan.



201. Defendants’halalfooddietarypolicyprohibitsPlaintiffsfromexercisingtheirreligion

onadailybasis.

202. The restrictions imposed on Plaintiffs are unconstitutional and have substantially




exerciseofIslamwithinthecorrectionalfacilities.



otherwise.




33

compelling government interest, and is in violation of Plaintiffs’ FourteenthAmendment right to

equalprotectionofthelaws.



Ramadan.














inthisaction.

CountVIIViolationofEightandFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution

(CruelandUnusualPunishment)



212. UndertheEighthAmendment,prisonershavetherighttobefromcruelandunusual

punishment.


34

213. TheEightAmendmentimposesadutyonDefendantstoprovidehumaneconditions

ofconfinement,includinginsuring,amongotherthings,thatprisonersreceiveadequatefood.See

Farmerv.Brennan,511U.S.825(1994).

214. Upon information and belief, the Ramadan Policy does not provide Plaintiffs or

MusliminmateswhoobservetheholyfastduringRamadan,abalancednutritionaldietcontaining

between2600and2900caloriesonanygivendayduringRamadan.

215. Upon information and belief, the daily caloric intake under the Ramadan Policy

rangesfromapproximately1,100caloriestoapproximately1,400calories,onanygivendayduring

Ramadan.

216. Thenutritionalandcaloric intakeundertheRamadanPolicy isapproximately less

thanhalftheamountofcaloriesthatotherinmatesreceiveonanygivendayduringRamadan.

217. Defendants, acting under color of state law, took Plaintiffs into physical police

custody.Indoingso,theyestablishedaspecialcustodialrelationshipwithPlaintiffs,givingriseto

affirmativedutiesontheirparttosecureandensurethatPlaintiffswouldbegivenadequatefoodand

tosecureforPlaintiffstheconstitutionallyprotectedrightsidentifiedabove.

218. Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated Plaintiffs’ above stated

constitutionallyprotectedrightsbywrongfullydenyingthemadequatefood.

219. Specifically,Defendants,actingundercoloroflaw,owedPlaintiffsthedutytofollow,

implement,andcomplywithPolicyDirective04.07.100“OffenderMeals,”whichmandatedthatall

menusandmealsatcorrectionalfacilitiesprovidePlaintiffsabalancednutritionaldietcontaining

between2600and2900caloriesonanygivenday.

220. Defendants, acting under color of law, violated the Policy Directive 04.07.100

“Offender Meals,” by deliberately failing to provide Plaintiffs and other Muslim prisoners who

observedtheholyfastduringRamadan,abalancednutritionaldietcontainingbetween2600and

2900caloriesonanygivendayduringRamadan.


35

221. Defendants’depravationofabalancednutritionaldietcontainingbetween2600and

2900caloriesonanygivendayduringRamadanisobjectivelysufficientlyseriousinthatitfailsto

providePlaintiffsadequatefood(i.e.ahumaneconditionofconfinement).

222. Despite Plaintiffs’ repeated pleas and requests for a balanced nutritional diet

containingbetween2600and2900caloriesonanygivendayduringRamadan,Defendantsfailedto

takeadequatemeasurestoensurethatPlaintiffswerereceivingadequatefood.

223. Defendantssubjectivelyperceived,orshouldhavesubjectivelyperceived,Plaintiffs’

complaints,regardingtheinadequacyoffood.

224. Defendants’actsandomissionsweresufficientlyharmfultoevidenceasubstantial

riskofseriousharm.

225. Defendants’ acts and omissions were sufficiently harmful to offend evolving

standardsofdecencyinviolationoftheEighthAmendment.

226. Defendant’actsandomissionsindeprivingPlaintiffswithabalancednutritionaldiet

containingbetween2600and2900caloriesonanygivendayduringRamadanweresuchthatthey

deniedPlaintiffsandotherMusliminmatestheminimalcivilizedmeasureoflife’snecessities.

227. Defendants’ actions while acting under color of state law, in denying Plaintiffs a

balanced nutritional diet containing between 2600 and 2900 calories on any given day during

Ramadan, amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and excessive force in violation of their

constitutionallyprotectedrightsasstatedabove.

228. Defendants’conductasoutlinedabove,wassogrosslyincompetent,inadequate,or

excessivesoastoshocktheconscienceortobeintolerabletofundamentalfairnessandviolatesthe

EightAmendmentprohibitionagainstcruelandunusualpunishment.

229. Defendants, acting under the color of state law, authorized, tolerated, ratified,

permitted,oracquiescedinthecreationofpolicies,practices,andcustoms,establishingadefacto

policyofdeprivingPlaintiffsandotherMuslimprisonersobservingtheholyfastduringRamadan


36

withabalancednutritionaldietcontainingbetween2600and2900caloriesonanygivendayduring

Ramadan.

230. Defendants’ policies, customs and practices were carried out willfully and with

wantondisregardandwiththespiritofgrossnegligence,andwerethedirectanddeliberatecauseof

theconstitutionaldeprivationsPlaintiffs’liberty,dueprocess,andthedirectcauseofPlaintiffs’cruel

andunusualpunishmentandexcessiveforce.

231. Asadirectandproximate resultof thesepolices,practicesandcustoms,Plaintiffs

weredeprivedoftheirconstitutionallyprotectedrightsasdescribedabove,byDefendants.

232. Asaresultoftheirconductdescribedabove,Defendantsarealsoliableunder42U.S.C.

§1983.



compelling government interest, and is in violation of Plaintiffs’ FourteenthAmendment right to

equalprotectionofthelaws.



Ramadan.









37







inthisaction.

PrayerforRelief

WHEREFORE,PlaintiffsrequestthatthisHonorableCourtenterjudgmentintheirfavorand

againstDefendants on each and every count in this complaint, and enter anOrder awarding the

followingrelief:

1. Adeclaratoryjudgmentthat:

a. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate the First and Fourteenth

AmendmentstotheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,theReligiousLandUseand

InstitutionalizedPersonsActof2000(“RLUIPA”),and42U.S.C.§1983;

b. Defendants’denialofabalancednutritionaldietcontainingbetween2600and

2900caloriesonanygivendayduringRamadanandahalalfooddietconstitutes

aviolationoftheFirstAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandcreates

achillingeffectonPlaintiffs’freeexerciseofreligion;

c. Defendants’denialofPlaintiffs’requestforabalancednutritionaldietcontaining

between2600and2900caloriesonanygivendayduringRamadanandhalalfood

diet isasubstantialburdentothefreeexerciseofPlaintiffs’religionandisnot

justifiedbyacompellinggovernmentinterest;


38

d. TheRamadanPolicy and the halal food dietary policy, as applied to Plaintiffs,

treats these prisoners on less than equal termswith other religious and non‐

religiousprisonersinMichiganDepartmentofCorrectionsfacilities;and,

e. Defendants’ unique application of the Ramadan Policy to Plaintiffs and other

Muslimprisoners treatsMuslimprisonerson less thanequal termswithother

religious and non‐religious prisoners, thereby creating a denominational

preferenceagainstIslamasareligion.

2. Aninjunctionthat:

a. Enjoining Defendants from denying Plaintiffs a balanced nutritional diet

containingbetween2600and2900caloriesonanygivendayduringRamadan,

because Defendants’ denial of the proper caloric and nutritional diet forces

Plaintiffs,whohaveareligiousbasisforfastingduringthemonthofRamadan,to

choose,onadailybasis,betweenviolatingtheircorereligiousbeliefs(ie:fasting

during the month of Ramadan) and receiving a menu that meets minimum


b. Enjoining Defendants from denying Plaintiffs a halal food diet because

Defendants’denial of thehalal fooddiet forcesPlaintiffs,whohavea religious

basisforconsumingahalaldiet,tochoose,onadailybasis,betweenviolatingtheir

corereligiousbeliefs thatrequirethemtoabstain fromfoodsthatviolate their

religioustenetsandwaivingtheirrighttoreceivingamenuthatmeetsminimum


c. Requiring Defendants to remedy the constitutional and statutory violations

identified above, including, but not limited to, eliminating any existing policy

wherebyPlaintiffsandotherMuslimprisoners,andotherssimilarly‐situated,are


39

deniedabalancednutritionaldietcontainingbetween2600and2900calorieson

anygivendayduringRamadanandahalalfooddiet.

3. Anawardofattorneys’fees,costs,andexpensesofalllitigation,pursuantto42U.S.C.

§1988;and,

4. SuchotherandfurtherreliefastheCourtmaydeemjustandproper.

JURYDEMAND

NOWCOMEPlaintiffs,byandthroughtheirundersignedcounsel,andherebydemandatrial

byjuryoftheabove‐referencedcausesofaction.

Respectfullysubmitted,AKEEL&VALENTINE,PLLC /s/ShereefAkeel________________ SHEREEFH.AKEEL(P54345)

SYEDH.AKBAR(P67967)MUNEEBAHMAD(70391)AttorneysforPlaintiffs888W.BigBeaverRd.,Ste.910Troy,MI48084Phone:(248)269‐[email protected]

COUNCILONAMERICAN‐ISLAMICRELATIONS,MICHIGAN /s/LenaMasri__________________ LENAF.MASRI(P73461)

AttorneyforPlaintiffs21700NorthwesternHwy.,Ste.815Southfield,MI48075Phone:(248)559‐2247

Dated:April24,2013 [email protected]


40

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE

AcopyofthisAmendedComplaintforDeclaratoryRelief,InjunctiveReliefandDamagesand

Jury Demand was electronically filed with the United States District Court, Eastern District of

Michigan,onApril24,2013.

/s/LenaF.Masri_____________


2:13-cv-10271-PJD-PJK Doc # 16-1 Filed 04/24/13 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 151

2:13-cv-10271-PJD-PJK Doc # 16-1 Filed 04/24/13 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 152

2:13-cv-10271-PJD-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 01/22/13 Pg 35 of 50 Pg ID 352:13-cv-10271-PJD-PJK Doc # 16-1 Filed 04/24/13 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 153




Documents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DIVISION …virtuecenter.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2013-04-25-10/prisonerlawsuit.… · 2:13-cv-10271-PJD-PJK Doc # 16 Filed 04/24/13 Pg 1 of 40