Harris v. Broomfield

Background

Maurice Lydell Harris, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court screened his amended complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Harris alleged that he practices Soka Gakkai International Nichiren Buddhism and believes that eating meat containing genetically modified ingredients pollutes his body. Because the prison did not offer a Buddhist diet, a chaplain had authorized him to participate in the Religious Meat Alternate Program. Harris alleged that prison officials sometimes substituted vegetarian meals for the approved meat alternatives and restricted his purchase and consumption of ramen soups. He also alleged that he had prediabetes and prehypertension, had experienced dizziness and lethargy, and had previously fainted from a lack of nutrients.

The amended complaint named former correctional food manager Roy Maerse, current correctional food manager Martha Garcia, assistant correctional food manager A. Gary, and correctional lieutenant and Christian chaplain Jackson. The opinion refers to another defendant as Muhammad (Fasish) and, in one passage, as Mohammad; the conclusion identifies that defendant as Muhammad (K. Fasish).

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court found cognizable claims against Muhammad (K. Fasish) and Jackson under four legal theories:

- Free Exercise Clause: The court allowed Harris to proceed on his allegation that these defendants conditioned his ability to receive a genetically modified organism-free diet on giving up ramen soups that he says he needs for his health. The court did not recognize a claim merely because vegetarian meals were provided or because the meals allegedly violated state regulations or prison policies. - Eighth Amendment: The court found a cognizable claim based on allegations that Harris was not provided food adequate to meet his nutritional and health needs. However, it did not find that Muhammad or Jackson could be liable for deciding which meals made up the program diet, because the complaint did not allege that they made those decisions. - Equal Protection Clause: Construing the complaint broadly, the court allowed Harris to claim that Muslim and Jewish prisoners received meals consistent with their beliefs without the additional requirements imposed on him to obtain a genetically modified organism-free diet. - Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: The court allowed a claim that Muhammad and Jackson substantially burdened Harris’s religious exercise by conditioning the genetically modified organism-free diet on giving up ramen soups. The court did not recognize a claim based only on allegedly violating state regulations or prison policies.

Claims and Defendants Dismissed

The court dismissed the Establishment Clause claim with prejudice because requiring Buddhist prisoners to choose between the available genetically modified organism-free diet and ramen soups did not, as alleged, endorse Islam, even if it burdened religious exercise.

The court dismissed with prejudice the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claim against Maerse, Garcia, and Gary. Their alleged involvement consisted of responding to Harris’s grievances and stating that vegetarian meals were allowed under the program; the court held that those responses did not burden Harris’s religious exercise. The court also dismissed Maerse, Garcia, and Gary with prejudice as defendants in the action.

The court dismissed Harris’s state-law claims with prejudice. It held that alleged violations of state regulations or prison policies do not create liability under Section 1983. It also held that the religious diet card issued by the chaplain did not establish an enforceable contract with the prison or its officials on the allegations presented.

Claims Dismissed With Leave to Amend

The court dismissed with leave to amend two claims:

1. The claim that the failure to provide a nutritionally adequate diet consistent with Harris’s religious beliefs violated the First Amendment. The court stated that Harris needed to identify the proper defendant responsible for failing to provide that diet. 2. The claim that replacing religious meat alternatives with vegetarian meals constituted deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment. The court stated that Harris needed to identify the proper defendant responsible for ordering that substitution.

The court gave Harris 28 days from the date of the order to file a second amended complaint. If he did not do so, the amended complaint would remain operative and the action would proceed against Muhammad and Jackson on the claims found cognizable.

Other Orders

The court ordered the defendants to answer the operative complaint within 21 days. It also ordered defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days, with briefing deadlines for Harris’s opposition and defendants’ reply. The court authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provided instructions about service, address changes, and requests for extensions of time.

Ruling

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. screened the amended complaint rather than deciding the ultimate merits of the claims. The order allowed specified claims against Muhammad (K. Fasish) and Jackson to proceed, dismissed specified claims and defendants with prejudice, and dismissed two claims with leave to amend.