Kyles v. WCC et al

Filing 22

OPINION AND ORDER re 18 the court GRANTS Brandon D. Kyles leave to proceed on an official capacity claim for injunctive relief against David Liebel for denying him a Kosher Diet in violation of his First Amendment and RLUIPA rights; GRANTS Brando n D. Kyles leave to proceed on an official capacity claim for injunctive relief against Chaplain Blummer for denying him Jewish services in the Westville chapel in violation of his First Aendment and RLUIPA rights; GRANTS Brandon D. Kyles leave to pr oceed on an individual capacity claim for compensatory and punitive damages against David Liebel for preventing him frompracticing his religion by denying him a Kosher diet in violation of his First Amendment rights; GRANTS Brandon D. Kyles leave to proceed on an individual capacity claim for compensatory and punitive damages against Chaplain Blummer for preventing him from practicing his religion by denying him Jewish services in the Westville chapel in violation of his First Amendment rights; DISMISSES all other claims; DIRECTS the clerk and the U S Marshals Service to issue and serve process on Chaplain Blummer and David Liebel with a copy of this order and the amended complaint and ORDERS that Chaplain Blummer and David Liebel respond only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 6/19/2017. (Copy mailed as directed in Order)(lpw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
BRANDON D. KYLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHAPLIN BLUMMER, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16 CV389

OPINION AND ORDER
Brandon D. Kyles, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint alleging that he
is being prevented from practicing his religion at the Westville Correctional Facility
(“Westville”). “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Kyles is a practitioner of Orthodox Judaism. On August 26, 2016, he made a
request to have Jewish services at Westville’s chapel. Chaplain Blummer1 denied this
request and informed Kyles that the chapel only conducts Christian and Muslim
services. Kyles alleges that this prevents him from practicing his religion. In addition,

1

Misidentified as “Chaplin Blummer” in the caption.

Kyles requested a Kosher diet. However, David Liebel, the Indiana Department of
Correction Religious Director, denied his request. Kyles alleges this denial also prevents
him from practicing his religion. Kyles seeks money damages and injunctive relief.
First, Kyles alleges that the defendants are violating his First Amendment right
to practice his religion. Prisoners have a right to exercise their religion under the Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Vinning-El v. Evans, 657 F.3d 591, 592-93 (7th
Cir. 2011). Nevertheless, restrictions that limit the exercise of religion are permissible if
they are reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives, which include safety,
security, and economic concerns. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987). At this stage
of the litigation, it is unclear why Kyles is being denied the ability to practice his
religion. It appears as though David Liebel has authority to provide Kyles a Kosher diet
and Chaplain Blummer has authority to provide Kyles with Jewish services at the
Westville chapel. Therefore he will be granted leave to proceed for injunctive relief
against them in their official capacities for violating the First Amendment.
Kyles also asks for monetary damages in regard to his First Amendment claims.
Based on his allegations, Kyles will be granted leave to proceed for monetary damages
against David Liebel and Chaplain Blummer for violating the First Amendment right to
practice his religion.
Next, Kyles alleges that the defendants are preventing him from practicing his
religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(“RLUIPA”). This statute affords even broader protections than the First Amendment

2

by providing that “No government shall impose . . . a substantial burden on the
religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . unless the
government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person – (1) is in
furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means
of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). See also
Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. __, __; 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015). However, the statute does not
authorize an award of money damages against state officials; an inmate may only
obtain injunctive relief under RLUIPA. Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. __, __; 131 S. Ct.
1651, 1658-59 (2011). Therefore, Kyles will only be granted leave to proceed for
injunctive relief against David Liebel and Chaplain Blummer in their official capacities
for violating RLUIPA.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Brandon D. Kyles leave to proceed on an official capacity claim for
injunctive relief against David Liebel for denying him a Kosher Diet in violation of his
First Amendment and RLUIPA rights;
(2) GRANTS Brandon D. Kyles leave to proceed on an official capacity claim for
injunctive relief against Chaplain Blummer for denying him Jewish services in the
Westville chapel in violation of his First Amendment and RLUIPA rights;
(3) GRANTS Brandon D. Kyles leave to proceed on an individual capacity claim
for compensatory and punitive damages against David Liebel for preventing him from

3

practicing his religion by denying him a Kosher diet in violation of his First
Amendment rights;
(4) GRANTS Brandon D. Kyles leave to proceed on an individual capacity claim
for compensatory and punitive damages against Chaplain Blummer for preventing him
from practicing his religion by denying him Jewish services in the Westville chapel in
violation of his First Amendment rights;
(5) DISMISSES all other claims;
(6) DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service to issue and serve
process on Chaplain Blummer and David Liebel with a copy of this order and the
amended complaint (DE # 18) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and
(7) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that Chaplain Blummer and
David Liebel respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D.
Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to
proceed in this screening order.
SO ORDERED.
Date: June 19, 2017
s/ James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4