Harris v. Broomfield

Background

Maurice Lydell Harris, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. He asked to file a second amended complaint and submitted a proposed complaint.

Harris alleged that he practices Nichiren Buddhism through Sokai Gakkai International–USA. He said he believes his body is a Buddhist temple that should not be polluted by meat containing genetically engineered ingredients. He enrolled in the prison’s Religious Meat Alternative diet in 2007 because, according to the complaint, it did not use those ingredients.

The complaint alleged that the alternative diet was served only at dinner and that, when the standard menu contained only meat entrees, prisoners received Halal meat substitutes. When the standard menu offered vegetarian or fish food, no Halal substitute was provided. Harris alleged that some meals were not part of the Religious Meat Alternative diet, that the substitute and vegetarian meals had less nutrition, and that they caused light-headedness and affected his ability to practice his religion.

Harris also alleged that ramen soups purchased from the prison canteen were consistent with his religious beliefs and necessary for his health when meals were inadequate, replaced with vegetarian meals, not provided, or reduced during COVID-related changes to prison feeding procedures.

According to the complaint, Muslim cleric K. Fasish issued Harris a religious-diet violation on May 16, 2019, for purchasing ramen soups. The appeal was denied on the ground that the soups were non-Halal items under a California prison regulation. Harris alleged that this effectively required him to follow Islamic dietary rules to remain in his own religious diet. He further alleged that Christian chaplain Jackson issued another violation on October 10, 2020, for buying soups during the pandemic and told him he could withdraw from the diet to avoid having the violation placed in his prison file.

The complaint named SQSP Muslim cleric Muhammad, identified as K. Fasish; SQSP Christian chaplain Jackson; and Chaplain Charles Richey, identified as the Community Resources Manager of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Division of Adult Institution’s Religious Programs Oversight Unit. Harris alleged that Richey was involved in directing the violations and could provide the requested injunctive relief.

Screening and Claims

Because Harris is a prisoner seeking relief from governmental officials, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that self-represented complaints must be read liberally, while still providing enough facts to give defendants fair notice of the claims.

The court found that the second amended complaint stated cognizable claims under the Free Exercise Clause, the Eighth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The court based this conclusion on the allegations that requiring Harris to refrain from eating ramen soups to receive the Religious Meat Alternative diet burdened conduct consistent with his religious beliefs, threatened his health, required adherence to Islamic dietary rules, and involved a diet that Harris alleged was the only prison diet consistent with his beliefs.

“Cognizable” means that the allegations are sufficient for the claims to proceed at this preliminary stage. The court did not decide the ultimate merits of those claims.

Order

The court granted Harris leave to file the second amended complaint. It deemed the proposed complaint filed and made it the operative complaint. The court ordered service on Chaplain Charles Richey through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process for prisoner civil-rights cases.

The court reset the briefing schedule. Defendants must file and serve a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 91 days after the order was filed, unless they inform the court that summary judgment cannot resolve the case. Harris’s opposition will be due 28 days after the motion is filed, and any reply will be due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that no hearing would be held on the motion. The order also advised Harris about the evidence generally required to oppose summary judgment.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. did not enter judgment on the claims or determine whether Harris was entitled to damages or an injunction. The order granted leave to amend, found the specified claims cognizable, ordered service, reset the briefing schedule, and terminated the request for leave to amend.