Harris v. Broomfield et al

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 17 REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MAURICE LYDELL HARRIS,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

CLERIC MUHAMMAD, et al.,

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Re: Dkt. No. 17

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 21-cv-00283-HSG

12
Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), filed this pro se civil rights

13
14

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a He

15

also brings a motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and for preliminary injunction

16

(“PI”). ECF No. 17. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a

17

TRO/PI.
DISCUSSION

18

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction

19
20

prohibiting Defendants from denying him the ability to supplement his GMO-free (RMAP) diet,

21

that is required by his religion, with non-Halal or non-Kosher food items from the prison canteen

22

or vendors. Dkt. No. 17.

23

I.

Factual Background

24

Below the Court reviews the relevant factual allegations set forth by the parties.

25

Plaintiff practices Soka Gakkai International (SGI) Nichiren Buddhism. According to

26

Plaintiff’s religious beliefs, his body is a temple that should not be polluted by consuming meat

27

that contains genetically modified ingredients (“GMOs”). Dkt. No. 8 at 3-4; Dkt. No. 17 at 4, 10-

28

11. In 2007, Plaintiff requested enrollment in a GMO-free Buddhist diet and was enrolled in

1

SQSP’s halal/Islamic diet, also referred to as the Religious Meat Alternate Program (“RMAP”).

2

Dkt. No. 8 at 4; Dkt. No. 17 at 4, 10-11. At the time he enrolled, Plaintiff was not required to

3

follow Islamic law to participate in this religious diet, and was only required to follow the dietary

4

restrictions set forth in his religion, Nichiren Buddhism. Dkt. No. 8 at 4; Dkt. No. 17 at 10.

5

Plaintiff did not sign a Religious Diet Agreement (CDCR Form 3030-A). Dkt. No. 17 at 7.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

Prison officials state that SQSP does not offer a GMO-free diet and that RMAP offers

7

inmates meat that has been certified as halal, and not meat/food that is GMO-free. Prison officials

8

further state that Plaintiff has never been offered GMO-free meals during his incarceration at

9

SQSP. Dkt. No. 20-1 (“Shleffar Decl.”), ¶ 27.

10

Since enrolling in the RMAP diet, when prison meals are inadequate, either in nutrition or

11

portion size, Plaintiff has supplemented his diet with non-Halal purchases from the canteen, such

12

as ramen soups, oysters, and beef products. Dkt. No. 8 at 5, 9-11; Dkt. No. 17 at 5. On May 16,

13

2019, defendant K. Fasih (Iman Muhammad) issued Plaintiff a religious diet violation for

14

purchasing ramen soups. Dkt. No. 8 at 7. These religious diet violations are based on a violation

15

of the Religious Diet Agreement (Form 3030-A) which Plaintiff did not sign. Dkt. No. 17 at 7.

16

Plaintiff had never received a religious diet violation prior to this date, despite consuming ramen

17

soups and other non-Halal items from the canteen. Dkt. No. 17 at 4. In summer 2020, COVID

18

impacted prison feeding procedures, reducing the portions by half. Plaintiff supplemented his diet

19

with ramen soups to maintain his health. Dkt. No. 8 at 10-11. On October 10, 2021, defendant

20

Jackson issued Plaintiff a religious diet violation for purchasing ramen soups during June, July,

21

and August 2020. Dkt. No. 8 at 11. She also informed him that if he wished to avoid the violation

22

being placed in his Central file, he could voluntarily withdraw from the program, and she handed

23

him a withdrawal form. Dkt. No. 8 at 11.

24

Plaintiff filed this case in January 2021, and has since received two additional religious

25

diet violations. On July 7, 2021, Catholic chaplain Chavira, who is not a named defendant, issued

26

a violation to Plaintiff on behalf of defendant Fasih for consuming beef steaks. Dkt. No. 17 at 6.

27

On March 15, 2022, Chaplain Ang issued a second religious diet violation, this time for

28

purchasing the following non-Halal items: ramen soups, beef salamis and oysters. Plaintiff was
2

1

informed that, unless he voluntarily withdrew from the RMAP diet, he would be expelled from the

2

RMAP diet if he continued to purchase non-Islamic foods. Dkt. No. 17 at 7.
Plaintiff’s inability to supplement the RMAP diet with items from the prison canteen has

3
4

resulted in light-headedness, lethargy, and brain fog. Dkt. No. 17 at 7.
The Court has found that the operative complaint states cognizable claims against Muslim

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5
6

chaplain Clerk Muhammed (K. Fasih) and Christian chaplain Jackson for violating Plaintiff’s

7

rights under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, the Eighth Amendment, the Equal

8

Protection Clause, and RLUIPA when they conditioned his ability to receive a GMO-free diet,

9

which is mandated by his religion, on giving up ramen soups needed to maintain his health

10

because of the deficiencies in the GMO-free diet provided via RMAP, yet allowed Jewish and

11

Muslim inmates to receive meals consistent with their religious beliefs without imposing

12

additional requirements. See generally Dkt. No. 13. Defendant Jackson has since retired. Dkt.

13

No. 20-1 at 4.

14

II.

15

Legal Standard
The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) restricts the power of the court to

16

grant prospective relief in any action involving prison conditions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).

17

Section 3626(a)(2) permits the court to enter a temporary restraining order or preliminary

18

injunction “to the extent otherwise authorized by law” but requires that such an order “be narrowly

19

drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary

20

relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” See 18 U.S.C.

21

§ 3626(a)(2). The court must give “substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or

22

the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief.” Id. “A plaintiff

23

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is

24

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities

25

tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,

26

555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (noting that such remedies are extraordinary, and not granted as of right).

27

The party seeking the injunction bears the burden of proving these elements. Klein v. City of San

28

Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009). “The Ninth Circuit weighs these factors on a
3

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

sliding scale, such that where there are only ’serious questions going to the merits’—that is, less

2

than a ‘likelihood of success on the merits’—a preliminary injunction may still issue so long

3

as ’the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor’ and the other two factors are

4

satisfied.” Short v. Brown, 893 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Shell Offshore, Inc. v.

5

Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original)). Even where the

6

balance tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, however, the plaintiff must still make the threshold

7

showing of likely success on the merits or a serious legal question. See Leyva-Perez v. Holder,

8

640 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[E]ven certainty of irreparable harm has never entitled one to

9

a stay.”) (emphasis in original). In addition, the issuance of a preliminary injunction is at the

10

discretion of the district court. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th

11

Cir. 2011). The standards for issuing a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction

12

are “substantially identical.” Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240

13

F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).

14

III.

15

Analysis
Plaintiff argues that he should be granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary

16

injunction prohibiting Defendants from denying him the ability to supplement the GMO-free

17

(RMAP) diet that his religion requires with non-Halal or non-Kosher food items from the prison

18

canteen or vendors for the following reasons. He argues that he is likely to succeed on the merits

19

because RLUIPA claims are subject to the strictest standard of review, thus indicating the highest

20

probability of success; Defendants have not articulated in their responses to his grievances a

21

compelling governmental interest as to why Plaintiff cannot supplement his GMO-free diet, as he

22

was allowed to prior to 2019; the fact that Plaintiff was supplementing his GMO-free diet prior to

23

2019 indicates that there is no penological interest served by restricting Plaintiff to Halal items to

24

receive the GMO-free diet; and an Equal Protection Clause violation makes the probability of

25

success on the merits high, citing to Monterey Mech. Co. v. Wilson, 125 F.3d 702, 715 (9th Cir.

26

1997). He argues that he is suffering irreparable harm because he is being threatened with being

27

expelled from a diet that meets his religious dictates; the threats cause him emotional stress which

28

can constitute irreparable injury; and, as a matter of law, the continued deprivation of
4

1

constitutional rights constitutes irreparable harm. He further argues that the balance of equities

2

favors him because granting the TRO/PI will maintain the status quo which Defendants have

3

endured for over a decade without suffering any harm whereas if Plaintiff is expelled from the

4

religious diet, he will suffer deprivation of his constitutional rights until at least 2023, which is

5

when this case is likely to reach its conclusion. Finally, Plaintiff argues that the TRO/PI will serve

6

the public interest because it is always in the public interest for prison officials to obey the law.

7

See generally Dkt. No. 17.

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Defendants argue that the Court should deny the TRO/PI request because the Court lacks
jurisdiction to grant the relief sought for the following reasons. First, none of the named

10

defendants issued the 2021 and 2022 violations, and the Court does not have jurisdiction over the

11

individuals who issued the violations (Chaplains Chavria and Ang). Second, Plaintiff will not

12

suffer irreparable injury because Plaintiff is not receiving, and SQSP does not offer, a GMO-free

13

diet; and Plaintiff has not provided evidence that anyone has threatened to remove him from

14

RAMP for the recent violations despite the fact that he continues to purchase non-halal meat items

15

from the canteen. Third, Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on the merits because

16

RMAP is not a GMO-free diet; prison regulations do not require SQSP to provide Plaintiff a

17

GMO-free diet; and SQSP’s decision to audit inmates’ eligibility to be retained in their religious

18

diets meets the legitimate penological objective of reducing unnecessary costs incurred by

19

providing specialized meals to inmates who are not sincere with their religious dietary restrictions

20

and who are simply using the program to control the food they receive while serving their

21

sentences. Finally, the balance of equities does not favor Plaintiff and the relief sought would not

22

serve the public interest because granting the TRO/PI request would require SQSP to provide

23

Plaintiff a GMO-free diet and permit Plaintiff to violate the terms of the RMAP diet by purchasing

24

non-halal food items.

25

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s TRO/PI request. Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the

26

merits of his claim because the RMAP diet is not the GMO-free diet Plaintiff contends is required

27

by his religion. Expulsion from the RMAP diet would therefore not affect Plaintiff’s ability to

28

observe his religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or by RLUIPA.
5

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Similarly, because the RMAP diet does not fulfill the asserted dictates of Plaintiff’s religion,

2

requiring Plaintiff to abide by the restrictions in the RMAP diet does not treat Plaintiff differently

3

from Jewish and Muslim inmates and does not require Plaintiff to abide by another religion’s

4

requirements to receive a diet compliant with his religion. Finally, there is no Eighth Amendment

5

violation because Plaintiff does not need to stay in the RMAP diet to observe his religion. He can

6

therefore choose a different diet – or exit the RMAP diet – and supplement his diet with purchases

7

from the canteen and other vendors to meet his nutritional and health requirements. For the same

8

reason, expulsion from the RAMP diet would not cause him irreparable harm because the RAMP

9

diet does not satisfy his religion’s dietary requirements. Given that participation in the RAMP diet

10

is not necessary for Plaintiff to fulfill what he represents to be his religious dietary requirements

11

and expulsion from the RAMP diet would not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, the balance

12

of equities does not tip in Plaintiff’s favor and the TRO/PI would not serve the public interest.

13

Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a

14

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from denying him

15

the ability to supplement the RMAP diet with non-Halal or non-Kosher food items from the prison

16

canteen or vendors. To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking a TRO/PI requiring prison officials to

17

provide him with a GMO-free diet, Plaintiff has not raised that claim in this action. This action

18

challenges Plaintiff’s inability to supplement the RMAP diet with non-Halal items. If Plaintiff

19

wishes to require prison officials to provide him with a GMO-free diet so that he may comply with

20

the dietary restrictions of his religion, he should amend the complaint accordingly. Plaintiff is

21

reminded that he must exhaust administrative remedies for any claims that he brings in a civil

22

rights action.

23
24

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a temporary

25

restraining order and preliminary injunction from denying him the ability to supplement his GMO-

26

free (RMAP) diet, that is required by his religion, with non-Halal or non-Kosher food items from

27

the prison canteen or vendors. Dkt. No. 17.

28

This order terminates Dkt. No. 17.
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1
2
3
4

Dated:

8/1/2022
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7