Allen v. Twaddell

Filing 61

OPINION: Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied 54 . By October 31, 2013, Defendants are directed to file a supplemental summary judgment motion. A final pretrial conference is scheduled for January 14, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. Plaintiff shall appear by video conference. Defense counsel shall appear in person. THE CLERK IS DIRECTED to issue a video writ to secure Plaintiff's appearance at the final pretrial conference. SEE WRITTEN ORDER. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 8/20/2013. (ME, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 20 August, 2013 09:23:43 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MARSHAN TERRELL ALAN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM TWADDELL and
RICHARD YOUNG,
Defendants,

No. 10-CV-3285

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff, incarcerated in Western Illinois Correctional Center,
practices the African Hebrew Israelite religion. Consistent with his
religious beliefs, Plaintiff is provided a vegan diet and permitted to
participate in Yom Kippur, a day of prayer and fasting. At the end of
Yom Kippur, after sunset, meals are delivered to the cells of
participants for breaking the fast.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is before the Court.
Because facts essential to resolving this case are not in the record,
the summary judgment will be denied with leave to renew.

1

FACTS
Plaintiff asserts that, in addition to fasting on Yom Kippur, he
sincerely believes that his religion also requires him to fast every
Sabbath—from sunset every Friday night to sunset the following
Saturday night. Because dinner is served before sunset Saturday
night, Plaintiff has requested to be served his dinner in his cell after
sunset, as he had been permitted to do in Stateville Correctional
Center. Plaintiff is the only inmate at Western Illinois Correctional
Center who has made this request.
Defendants move for summary judgment, arguing that
Plaintiff's desire to break his Sabbath fast after sunset on Saturday
is not based on Plaintiff's sincere religious belief but rather on
Plaintiff's non-religious personal preference. Defendants contend
that Plaintiff can adhere to the Sabbath fasting requirement by
waiting until breakfast to eat. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff
has alternative means of breaking the fast after sunset, such as
eating commissary food or smuggling food from the cafeteria.
Plaintiff counters that when and how he breaks his fast is just
as important to the practice of his religion as the fast itself. Plaintiff
contends that the breakfast served does not offer the foods required
2

by his religion to break the fast, namely fruits and vegetables.
Plaintiff acknowledges that he is sometimes able to buy food from
the commissary to break his fast. However, according to Plaintiff,
only “junk food” is available at the commissary. Eating junk food to
break his fast is inconsistent with Plaintiff's religious beliefs, Plaintiff
explains, because a healthy diet is central to the practice of his
religion, and thus the fast must be broken with a nutritional meal.
Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that waiting until breakfast to end his
fast is too difficult for him. Therefore, Plaintiff continues to eat his
Saturday dinner before sunset, even though that practice violates
his religious beliefs.
ANALYSIS
Construing factual inferences in Plaintiff's favor, a trier of fact
believing Plaintiff's testimony could find that Plaintiff holds a sincere
religious belief that his Sabbath fast must be broken after sunset on
Saturday evenings by a nutritious meal. See Koger v. Bryan, 523
F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2008)(inmate's professed religious belief of needing
a non-meat diet could be sincere even though inmate's religion had
no dietary requirements). Whether Plaintiff's professed belief is
pretextual is for the trier of fact to decide.
3

Plaintiff's inability to eat reliably a nutritious meal after sunset
on Saturdays allows an inference that his right to the free exercise of
his religion is substantially burdened, both under the First
Amendment and the Religious Land and Institutionalized Persons
Act (RLUIPA). Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago,
342 F.3d 752 (760-61 (7th Cir. 2003)(a restriction which makes
religious exercise "effectively impracticable" is a substantial burden).
However, questions remain. Defendants’ denial of Plaintiff’s
request is permissible under RLUIPA if the denial is in furtherance
of a compelling interest and the least restrictive means of achieving
that interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). And, even if the denial
violates RLUIPA, the denial could still be permissible under the First
Amendment, the only claim under which Plaintiff can seek damages.
Under the First Amendment, the denial need only be rationally
related to a legitimate penological interest. Maddox v. Love, 655
F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2011); Ortiz v. Downey, 561 F.3d 664, 669 (7th
Cir. 2009).
Defendants argue that movement, safety, staffing, and
security concerns justify denying Plaintiff's requests, but the
argument made is perfunctory. Defendants do not address whether
4

granting Plaintiff's request would impose a burden on prison
resources or result in any adverse consequences to the prison.
Additionally, Defendants do not provide their own affidavits, which
would be necessary to gain summary judgment on the retaliation
claim.
Questions also remain regarding the application of qualified
immunity. The qualified immunity analysis on the First Amendment
claim and the RLUIPA claim differs because of different legal
standards. Lewis v. Sternes, 712 F.3d 1083, 1085 (7th Cir.
2013)("Whether there is a constitutional as distinct from a statutory
right to a religious accommodation is an open question . . . . "); see
also Easterling v. Pollard, 2013 WL 3787486 (7th Cir. 2012)(prison
officials were entitled to qualified immunity on inmate's request to
observe Ramadan at a different time from the other inmates
observing Ramadan).
In light of these questions, Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment is denied with leave to renew. The case will be set for a
final pretrial conference to keep the case moving.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied (d/e 54).
5

2. By October 31, 2013, Defendants are directed to file a
supplemental summary judgment motion which addresses the
following issues with admissible evidence, including but not
limited to affidavits from Defendants and others with personal
knowledge:
a. Whether Defendants have a compelling governmental
interest for denying Plaintiff's request;
b. Whether the denial of Plaintiff's request is the least
restrictive means of furthering that governmental interest;
c. Whether the denial of Plaintiff's request is based on a
neutral rule of general applicability, and, if so, how the
Supreme Court case of Employment Div. Dept. of Human
Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) contributes to
the legal analysis. See Lewis v. Sternes, 712 F.3d 1083,
1085 (7th Cir. 2013).
d. Whether the denial of Plaintiff's request is reasonably
related to a legitimate penological interest, analyzing all
the factors set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78
(1987).

6

e. Whether jury trials are available in actions pursuant to
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
f. Whether the Illinois Court of Claims has exclusive
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's IRFRA claim.
g. Whether other inmates at Western Correctional Center or
any other IDOC prison receive or received in the past two
years post-sunset meals in their cells for religious or other
reasons. If so, state the name of the prison, how many
inmates in that prison received post-sunset meals, for
how long, for which religion, and for what reason.
3. A final pretrial conference is scheduled for January 14, 2014 at
10:30 a.m. Plaintiff shall appear by video conference. Defense
counsel shall appear in person. The parties are directed to
submit an agreed, proposed final pretrial order at least seven
days before the final pretrial conference. Defendant bears the
responsibility of preparing the proposed final pretrial order and
mailing the proposed order to Plaintiff to allow Plaintiff
sufficient time to review the order before the final pretrial
conference. See CD-IL Local Rule 16.3.

7

4. The proposed final pretrial order must include the names of all
witnesses to be called at the trial and must indicate whether
the witness will appear in person or by video conference.
Nonparty witnesses who are detained or incarcerated will
testify by video. Other nonparty witnesses may appear by
video at the Court's discretion. The proposed pretrial order
must also include the names and addresses of any witnesses
for whom trial subpoenas are sought. The parties are
responsible for timely obtaining and serving any necessary
subpoenas, as well as providing the necessary witness and
mileage fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.
5. The exhibit section of the proposed final pretrial order must list
by number all the exhibits a party may seek to introduce at the
trial and give a short description of the exhibit. (For example,
“Plaintiff’s Ex. 1: 11/10/12 health care request”). The parties
must prepare their own exhibits for introduction at the trial,
marking the exhibits with the same number that is on the list
submitted to the Court. Exhibits that are introduced at trial
will be kept in the Court record. Therefore, the party offering
the exhibit is responsible for making a copy of the exhibit to
8

keep for the party’s own records. Additionally, the parties are
directed to exchange copies of their marked exhibits at least
ten days before the final pretrial conference. If a party intends
to object to the introduction of a proposed exhibit, that party
must provide the Court a copy of the exhibit and an
explanation of the grounds for objection at least five business
days before the final pretrial conference. Objections will be
argued orally at the final pretrial conference.
6. The Court will circulate proposed jury instructions, a
statement of the case, and proposed voir dire questions prior to
the final pretrial conference, for discussion at the final pretrial
conference. Proposed additional/alternate instructions and
voir dire questions must be filed five business days before the
final pretrial conference. The jury instructions, statement of
the case, and voir dire questions will be finalized at the final
pretrial conference, to the extent possible.
7. Motions in limine are to be filed at least five business days
before the final pretrial conference, to be argued orally at the
final pretrial conference.

9

8. The date for the jury selection and the jury trial will be
determined at the final pretrial conference. In light of the
Court’s busy trial calendar, the parties are reminded that they
may consent to a trial before Magistrate Judge Cudmore. 28
U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)(parties may consent to full time Magistrate
Judge conducting “any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury
civil matter). Consent is completely voluntary: the parties are
“free to withhold consent without adverse substantive
consequences.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3).
9. THE CLERK IS DIRECTED to issue a video writ to secure
Plaintiff's appearance at the final pretrial conference.
ENTER: 8/20/2013
FOR THE COURT:

s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10