Truidalle v. Godinez et al

Filing 12

MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 4/28/15. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order in which to file an amended complaint as to his allegations that his religious diet is not being accommodated and that Chaplain Kennell wrongly changed his religion on his identification card. Plaintiffs claim as to the form which designates his religion under "other" is DISMISSED, without leave to replead. 2) Plaintiffs amended complaint will be directed against Defendants Keim andKennell only as Defendants Godinez and Pfister are DISMISSED. 3) Failu re to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety. Accordingly, the amended complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted. 4) Plaintiffs Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders 5 and 8 , requesting that he be given a kosher diet are DENIED as it appears that he is being given the diet which comports with the dietary observances he, himself, has identified.( Rule 16 Deadline 6/29/2015). (See Full Written Merit Review Order).(VP, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 28 April, 2015 10:33:10 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
FREDEAL TRUIDALLE, #K79979

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SALVADOR GODINEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

No.: 15-cv-1083-JBM

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, pursues a § 1983 action against Director Godinez, Warden
Pfister, Chaplain Keim and Chaplain Kennell for restraint on the free exercise of his religion in
violation of his First Amendment rights. The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as
true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (7th
Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be
provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721
F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that he is a Rastafarian and has been denied a kosher diet by Chaplains
Kennell and Keim because he is not Jewish. When one reads the complaint and attachments
submitted by Plaintiff, however, this does not appear to be the case. Plaintiff points out that the
Dead Sea Scrolls identify the Rastafarian diet which he is to follow. This provides that members
of his faith are to abstain from animal flesh and blood and are to have their food blessed or
prayed upon before cooking. He admits he has been provided a vegan diet and that Defendants
have told him that this is the appropriate diet for Rastafarian-Jewish practitioners. Plaintiff

1 

attaches to his complaint Chaplain Keim’s letter of 1/26/15 in which the Chaplain notes, “In
good faith I cannot guarantee that there is no amount of fat or blood in a meat product in the
[kosher] diet you have requested. A VEGAN diet is consistent with your religious affiliation and
stated beliefs.” [ECF 1 p. 12]. Plaintiff appears to claim both that he wants a kosher diet and he
wants a diet free of blood and fat, which can’t be guaranteed with a kosher diet. Plaintiff also
claims, vaguely, that this food is not “prepared in the custom” and blessed by a priest before
Yahweh.
Plaintiff requests injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order so that he might
receive a kosher diet. He does not, however, address the issue that this diet will not follow the
religious observances he has identified. Does he want a kosher diet regardless of the potential
for tainting by blood or fat? Is he asking for a kosher diet “guaranteed” to be without blood or
fat? Is he asking that his food be blessed by a priest of his own sect? Is he claiming that a vegan
diet is not an acceptable “diet” for a Rastafarian who is to abstain from animal flesh and blood?
Plaintiff’s claimed injury and requested remedy are sufficiently unclear that they should be
denied with leave to replead.
Plaintiff also objects that his religion comes under the designation of “other” on the
prison Change of Religion Form. Plaintiff claims that this is a constitutional violation as his
religion is Rastafarian, not “other”. He also alleges that Chaplain Kennell changed the religion
identified on his prison I.D. He does not indicate the religion which was originally listed or the
religion to which it was allegedly changed.
Plaintiff fails to states a First Amendment claim regarding his receiving a vegan, rather
than kosher tray. He also fails to state a First Amendment claim regarding his religion being
designated as “other” on the Change of Religion Form. Plaintiff does not claim that this burdens

2 

the actual practice of his religion and the Court sees no set of circumstances, under these facts,
where he could successfully so do. As a result, this claim is DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s claim that
Chaplain Kennell changed the religion designated on his identification card also fails to state a
claim as he does not allege that this resulted in a burden on his free exercise of his religion. As
Plaintiff might, however, be able to successfully plead such a claim, he will be given leave to
replead this allegation.
Plaintiff does not allege that Director Godinez or Warden Pfister personally participated
in the alleged deprivation. Plaintiff complains that he filed an emergency grievance with
Warden Pfister who found that the grievance was not an emergency. This, however, is not
enough to implicate Warden Pfister in this deprivation, (prison administrators cannot be liable
under § 1983 simply because they participated in addressing inmate grievances). Burks v.
Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595–96 (7th Cir. 2009). Further, Director Godinez and Warden Pfister
cannot be held liable merely for their supervisory roles of others. Section 1983 does not allow
actions against individuals just for their supervisory role of others, and so individual liability
under Section 1983 can only be based upon a finding that the defendant caused the deprivation
alleged. Palmer v. Marion County, 327 F.3d 588, 594 (7th Cir. 2003)(internal quotations and
citations omitted). Defendants Godinez and Pfister are DISMISSED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)

Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order
in which to file an amended complaint as to his allegations that his religious diet is not being
accommodated and that Chaplain Kennell wrongly changed his religion on his identification

3 

card. Plaintiff’s claim as to the form which designates his religion under “other” is
DISMISSED, without leave to replead.
2)

Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be directed against Defendants Keim and

Kennell only as Defendants Godinez and Pfister are DISMISSED.
3)

Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case,

without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace
Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety. Accordingly, the amended complaint must contain
all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted.
4)

Plaintiff’s Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders [5] and [8], requesting that

he be given a kosher diet are DENIED as it appears that he is being given the diet which
comports with the dietary observances he, himself, has identified.

04/28/2015
ENTERED

s/ Joe Billy McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4