Parkell v. Senato et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 12/10/14. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

DONALD D. PARKELL,
Plaintiff,

)

)
)
)

v.
CHRISTOPHER SENATO, et aI.,
Defendants.

) Civ. No.14-446-SLR
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
1. Background. Plaintiff Donald Parkell ("plaintiff'), an inmate housed at the
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center ("VCC"), Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act. He proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff filed two motions for preliminary injunctive relief to compel defendants to
provide him with a religious diet. (0.1. 12,22) Defendants oppose the motions.
2. Injunctive relief. A preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary remedy that
should be granted only if: (1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial
will result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff; (3) granting the injunction will not result in
irreparable harm to the defendant; and (4) granting the injunction is in the public
interest." NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enterprises, Inc., 176 F .3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999)

("NutraSweet II"). "[F]ailure to establish any element in [a plaintiffs] favor renders a
preliminary injunction inappropriate." NutraSweet II, 176 F.3d at 153. Furthermore,
because of the intractable problems of prison administration, a request for injunctive
relief in the prison context must be viewed with considerable caution. Rush v.

Correctional Med. SelVices, Inc., 287 F. App'x 142, 144 (3d Cir. 2008) (unpublished)

(citing Goffv. Harper, 60 F.3d 518,520 (8th Cir. 1995)).
3. Discussion. Plaintiff has requested a kosher diet as part of the practice of
his Jewish beliefs. (0.1. 2, ex. 1) The Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC") has
a policy that provides inmates with religious diets upon request. (ld. at ex. 5) Plaintiff
was advised that he would receive kosher meals upon verification by a rabbi that he is
an Orthodox Jew. (ld. at ex. 1) Plaintiff adds that defendants will not approve his
request for a kosher diet unless a rabbi tells defendants that he is of Jewish ancestry or
has "properly" converted to Judaism. In plaintiff's institutional file, he identifies himself
as either Roman Catholic or Wicca. (Id. at ex. 2) Plaintiff was asked to answer some
questions and told that, upon receipt of his answers, he would be provided with a
change of faith form for processing per the DOC's procedures. Plaintiff was provided a
form on February 25, 2014. (Id.)
4. Plaintiff submitted a grievance on March 11, 2014 over the issue and stated
that he is "a Jewish faith adherent but his view of God having a female partner does not
qualify him to be proclaimed Jewish by a rabbi." (Id. at ex. 3) Plaintiff goes on to state
that he must eat kosher and live according to Kashrut law. 1 Plaintiff believes that non­
kosher food violates his soul's purpose to celebrate and worship God and the Goddess
through rituals demanded within Hebrew texts. (Id.) Plaintiff believes himself to be

1Kashrut is the body of Jewish law dealing with what foods can and cannot be
eaten and how those foods must be prepared and eaten. See http://www.jewfaq.org/
kashrut.htm (Dec. 8, 2014).
2

Jewish, but not of the exact sect as that qualified by defendants as deserving to keep a
kosher diet.
5. In his affidavit, plaintiff describes his religion as "not in agreement with many
of the modern-day Jewish ideologies" because basic, fundamentally necessary tenants
have been removed from the Jewish faith including feminine deity, magical rites and
practices, and open mindedness. (0.1. 14, pJ.'s aff.) Plaintiff has requested "stronger
instruction" from defendants in Judaic law, but his requests have not been answered.
(Id.) Plaintiff states that his request for a kosher diet was not granted because "there is
an informal policy ... to refuse any request for a religious diet of kosher food unless
Jewish heritage is 'verified' based on race or formal conversion that satisfies the
purpose of the prison's choice of rabbL" (Id.) Plaintiff states that the informal policy
does not take into account that plaintiff does not "parallel" his beliefs to those of the
rabbi, and the informal policy does not corroborate the actual DOC policy for religious
diet plans. (Id.)
6. Defendants note that plaintiff has attempted to resolve his religious struggle
to be recognized as Jewish through informal "in house" letters, and he does not fit the
criteria to receive a kosher diet. (0.1. 25) They further note that plaintiff identifies with
values and beliefs associated with both Wiccan and Jewish faiths. (Id.) Finally,
defendants note that the DOC has not made a determination concerning whether
plaintiffs change of faith is sincere but, rather, is asking him to comply with the change
of faith process required to convert to Judaism. (Id.)
7. There is no indication that plaintiff is prohibited from practicing his faith. In
addition, the record reflects that he has not converted to Judaism, a requirement to

3

receive a kosher diet. Finally, the court is mindful that providing kosher meals for all
non-Jewish inmates could have a negative effect on the administration of the prison.
8. Upon review of the allegations made by plaintiff and the evidence submitted,
the court concludes that plaintiff has not met the requisites for injunctive relief. Plaintiff
has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits. Nor does the record
reflect that denial of his motions will result in irreparable harm. Finally, granting
injunctive relief is in contravention of the public's interest in the effective and orderly
operation of its prison system. Carrigan v. State of Delaware, 957 F. Supp. 1376, 1385
(D. Del. 1997).
9. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the court will deny the motions for
injunctive relief (0.1. 12, 22). A separate order shall issue.

Dated: December

Jf)

I

, 2014

4