Al-Bukhari v. Correction et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 12 Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Ja Qure Al-Bukhari. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/10/2017. (Buttrick, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JAQURE AL-BUKHARI,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et
al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-1267 (SRU)

RULING ON EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiff JaQure Al-Bukhari, currently incarcerated at Northern Correctional Institution in
Somers, Connecticut, filed this case pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his amended complaint
Al-Bukhari claims that the defendants violated of his First Amendment right to freely exercise
his religion and his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, by denying him various religious accommodations. AlBukhari has now filed this motion for a temporary restraining order, asking the Court to order the
defendants to remove his leg shackles while he showers, allow the water in his cell to run for five
minutes at a time to accommodate ritual washing, and to permit him to buy Halal items from the
commissary.1 For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.

1

Al-Bukhari also complains about the alleged establishment of Christianity through prisonendorsed Christmas parties and food; however, those issues do not appear to be time sensitive.

I.

Allegations
Al-Bukhari is confined at Northern Correctional Institution (“Northern”). As a practicing

Muslim, Al-Bukhari is required to perform Wudu, or ritual cleaning. The water in the sinks at
Northern automatically shuts off after one minute and cannot be restarted for four minutes. This
is not sufficient time for Al-Bukhari to complete the Wudu. Al-Bukhari also is required to
perform Al-Ghusl, a religious bath. Inmates at Northern are required to shower wearing shackles.
Al-Bukhari contends that he cannot perform Al-Ghusl while shackled.
Al-Bukhari alleges that the defendants will not provide him Halal food and will not
permit him to purchase Halal food from the commissary or allow his family to purchase it for
him from an approved vendor. As a result of disciplinary sanctions for his many disciplinary
infractions, Al-Bukhari has lost commissary privileges until November 2020.

II.

Standard
District courts may grant interim injunctive relief in the form of a preliminary injunction

or temporary restraining order “where a plaintiff demonstrates irreparable harm and meets one of
two related standards: either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (b) sufficiently serious
questions going to the merits of its claims to make them fair ground for litigation, plus a balance
of the hardships tipping decidedly in favor of the moving party.” Otoe-Missouria Tribe of
Indians v. New York State Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 769 F.3d 105, 110 (2d Cir. 2014) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted). When the moving party seeks mandatory relief that “alters the
status quo by commanding some positive act,” as opposed to prohibitory relief that simply
maintains the status quo, however, the burden is higher. Cacchillo v. Insmed, Inc., 638 F.3d 401,
2

406 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court should not grant
mandatory injunctive relief absent “a clear showing that the moving party is entitled to the relief
requested, or where extreme or very serious damage will result from the denial of preliminary
relief.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, Al-Bukhari seeks mandatory relief requiring the defendants
to make changes to the prison administration and to override valid disciplinary sanctions. Thus,
he must meet the higher standard.
Prison officials must be afforded broad discretionary authority because the “operation of
a correctional institution is at best an extraordinarily difficult undertaking.” Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). Prison officials must balance their responsibilities for maintaining
internal order and discipline, securing the correctional facilities, and rehabilitating the inmates.
The problems faced by prison officials are “complex and intractable,” and “not readily
susceptible of resolution by decree.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405 (1974), overruled
on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515
U.S. 472, 482 (1995) (reiterating that federal courts should “afford appropriate deference and
flexibility” to state prison officials). The Prison Litigation Reform Act also imposes restrictions
on preliminary injunctive relief. Any relief must be “narrowly drawn” and “extend no further
than necessary to correct the harm;” it must be “the least intrusive means necessary to correct the
harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

III.

Analysis
A.

Halal Meals

3

Al-Bukhari contends that the defendants have denied him permission to purchase Halal
food from the commissary or an outside vendor. He argues that, as a practicing Muslim, he must
eat Halal food. In opposition to this motion, the defendants have submitted the declarations of
three Imams, all of whom state that the Common Fare menu offered by the Department of
Correction is Halal. See Docs. ## 16-3, ¶¶ 4-5; 16-6, ¶¶ 4-5; & 16-15, ¶¶ 6-20. Thus, Al-Bukhari
can meet his religious dietary requirements by registering for the Common Fare menu. He has
not done so. See Docs. ## 16-3, ¶ 5; 16-6, ¶ 5. See also, Vega v. Lantz, 2009 WL 3157586, at *8
(D. Conn. Sept. 25, 2009) (Common Fare menu includes no items forbidden by Muslim
religion). Because Al-Bukhari has an available vehicle to meet his religious dietary requirements,
he cannot demonstrate irreparable harm if his motion is denied.

B.

Water

Al-Bukhari states that the water in his cell is on a timer. Water runs for one minute and
then will not run again for four minutes. He argues that he cannot perform Wudu, a ritual
washing in one minute. The Imams concur. See Docs. ## 16-3, ¶ 6 & 16-6, ¶ 6 (“Both Imam
Salem and [Imam Usman] agree that 60 seconds may be too short for a complete Wudu”).
However, the Imams suggested a way to complete wudu with the current water availability. They
recommended that Al-Bukhari fill two cups with water before starting the Wudu. The minute of
running water plus the two cups of water would be sufficient to complete the ritual. See Docs.
##16-3, ¶ 7; 16-6, ¶ 7. In addition, Captain Jackson submitted a declaration suggesting that, as an
alternative to filling cups with water, Al-Bukhari could cover the drain in the sink as other
inmates do when taking a sponge bath or washing clothing. In this way, Al-Bukhari could
4

accumulate a sufficient amount of water to complete the Wudu. See Doc. #16-7, ¶¶ 13–15.
Although this is not the method he would prefer, the defendants have identified ways that AlBukhari can complete his ritual washing under current conditions. Thus, Al-Bukhari has not
shown that he will suffer irreparable harm if his motion is denied.

C.

Showers

Finally, Al-Bukhari argues that he cannot complete Al-Ghusl, which requires a complete
washing of the body, while wearing shackles. Shackles are not applied so tightly that they cannot
be moved up and down to wash above and below the restraint. See Doc. #16-7, ¶ 11. Imams
Salem and Usman state in their declarations that Al-Bukhari can perform Al-Ghusl while
showering in shackles. The ritual requires only complete washing, which can be completed by
washing above, below, in and around the shackles. See Docs. ## 16-3, ¶ 9, 16-6, ¶ 9. Because he
can perform the ritual under current conditions, Al-Bukhari has not shown that he will suffer
irreparable harm if his motion is denied.
In addition, Captain Jackson states that Phase I Administrative Segregation inmates, like
Al-Bukhari are required to be in full restraints when going to the showers for reasons of safety
and security. The configuration of the shower door permits handcuffs, but not shackles, to be
removed once the inmate is secured in the shower. See Doc. # 16-7, ¶¶ 4, 7-10. As noted above,
correctional officials are afforded great deference in matters of prison administration. Thus, the
Court will not intercede in matters of prison administration where Al-Bukhari has not
demonstrated that he is suffering irreparable harm.

5

IV.

Conclusion
The defendants have presented evidence that the ability to eat only Halal food is within

Al-Bukari’s control and he can perform his religious washing rituals under current conditions.
Although current conditions do not meet his preferences, Al-Bukhari has not shown that he will
suffer irreparable harm, one of the requirements for an award of preliminary injunctive relief.
The Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. #12] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 10th day of February 2017 at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
/s/ Stefan R. Underhill
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge

6