In Long v. Sugai, published February 5, 2024, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment in favor of correctional officers. The plaintiff, who is a practicing Muslim, alleged the defendants violated his 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion, and unconstitutionally retaliated against him for engaging in protected 1st Amendment activity. Among his claims was the allegation that during Ramadan, one of the officers served him his evening meal at 3:30 p.m., even though the plaintiff could not break his fast until sundown, four hours later. By the time he could eat, the plaintiff alleged, his food was cold, congealed, and unsafe to eat. He alleged the cold food aggravated his stomach ulcers, and on several occasions he was unable to eat the meal. He asked the officer if he could call the kitchen to request a hot meal or allow the plaintiff to use a staff microwave. The requests were refused. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant on this claim. The plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief were eliminated at the pro se prisoner screening stage.
The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions on most of the plaintiff's claims, but reversed on two grounds. It reversed the dismissal of the injunctive claims at the screening stage. Although the complaint referred to past events, the plaintiff remained incarcerated. He should have been allowed to amend the complaint to allege facts showing a need for injunctive relief. The district court also erred in granting summary judgment against the free exercise claim arising out of the early serving of the evening meal during the Ramadan fast. The district court relied on 8th Amendment cases holding that serving unappetizing or cold food is not cruel or unusual punishment. That case law does not control the question of whether serving food unconstitutionally burdened the plaintiff's free exercise of his religion. In determining a prisoner's free exercise claim, the court first determines whether the challenged prison policy or practice substantially burdened the prisoner’s free exercise of his or her religion. It then determines whether the burden was reasonably related to legitimate peneological interests. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the service of the meal at 3:30 p.m. during Ramadan substantially burdened the plaintiff's free exercise of his religion, by placing substantial pressure on a religious adherent to modify his behavior and violate his beliefs. Circuit precedent establishes that failure to provide food consistent with a prisoner’s sincerely held religious beliefs constitutes a substantial burden on the prisoner’s free exercise. This law clearly establishes that delivery of the prisoner's evening meal at a time that rendered it inedible and unsafe if the prisoner adhered to his fast substantially burdened his religion. The court remanded the claim to the trial court to determine whether the burden was justified, and whether the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity.
Comments