Harris v. Broomfield
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-00283
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Harris v. Broomfield, Judge Gilliam stayed the case, vacated deadlines, and administratively closed it while Harris’s appeal was pending.
Maurice Lydell Harris, the defendants, the case deadlines, and the pending motions were affected. The case was stayed and administratively closed while Harris’s Ninth Circuit appeal was pending.
What happened
In Harris v. Broomfield, Maurice Lydell Harris, a state-prison inmate representing himself, challenged a rule requiring him to stop eating ramen soups to receive a religious meat-alternative diet. He alleged violations of religious-exercise, prison-conditions, equal-protection, and religious-land-use protections.
Harris asked the court for emergency orders requiring changes to his food options and diet. The court denied those requests, and Harris appealed the denial of his latest request to the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was still pending when this order was issued.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. stayed the case until the Ninth Circuit decides the appeal, vacated the briefing schedule, and directed the clerk to administratively close the case. The court also directed defendants to notify it when the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate and ordered pending motions terminated as moot.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Broomfield · No. 4:21-cv-00283
- Haywood Gilliam
- Aug. 19, 2024
Background
Maurice Lydell Harris, an inmate at Corcoran State Prison, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The operative complaint concerns a requirement imposed by prison religious officials that Harris refrain from consuming ramen soups in order to receive the Religious Meat Alternate Program diet. Harris alleged that ramen soups are consistent with his religious beliefs and necessary to maintain his health, and that the requirement violated the Free Exercise Clause, the Eighth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Prior Requests and Appeal
Harris filed a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction—emergency orders that can temporarily require or prohibit conduct—concerning his ability to supplement the Religious Meat Alternate Program diet with certain food items. The court denied that request on August 1, 2022. Harris later filed a renewed request, including a request to be reenrolled in the program. The court denied the renewed request on April 23, 2024.
Harris filed an interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit on May 15, 2024, challenging the April 23 denial. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal taken before the entire case is finished. The court stated that the appeal concerns the merits of the case and therefore transferred control over the aspects involved in the appeal to the Ninth Circuit while the appeal is pending.
Ruling
The court exercised its discretion to stay the case pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision on the appeal. It vacated the pending deadlines and briefing schedule, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions as moot, and ordered the clerk to administratively close the file. The court directed defendants to inform it within two business days after the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate. The order did not decide Harris’s underlying claims; it addressed how the case would proceed during the pending appeal. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.