Barry v. The State of New York

Background

Mamadou Barry, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued Green Haven Correctional Facility officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged violations of his First Amendment right to practice his religion and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.

Barry alleged that Green Haven staff had approved a special diet consistent with his Rastafarian faith. During a five-day facility-wide lockdown, he allegedly did not receive 15 consecutive meals that complied with that diet. Barry said he told Captain Duncan S. Bey, Superintendent Jaime LaManna, and Sergeant Chantel K. Elmore about the missed meals and showed them his religious diet card. He also alleged that inmates of other religions received their religious meals during the lockdown.

Barry submitted a grievance, and the grievance committee split on whether the complaint had merit. Some committee members concluded that inmates should have received proper meals because inmate labor was being used to prepare food during the lockdown. The superintendent denied the grievance, stating that a lockdown might require changes to religious and therapeutic menus because of a shortage of inmate labor, while also stating that efforts should be made to meet religious and dietary needs.

Motion and Legal Standards

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Barry’s favor. The court also read Barry’s filings liberally because he was representing himself.

First Amendment Religious-Freedom Claim

The court denied dismissal of Barry’s First Amendment claim. An incarcerated person retains First Amendment protection for religious practice, including a right to a diet consistent with sincerely held religious beliefs. The court explained that a prison may restrict religious practice when the restriction is reasonably related to legitimate prison interests, such as security.

The defendants argued that denying religious meals for five days was too minor to support a claim and was justified by the lockdown. The court rejected dismissal at the pleading stage. It held that the alleged denial of 15 consecutive religious meals over five days could not be deemed minor as a matter of law. The court also stated that whether the lockdown was legitimate and whether substitute meals were reasonable involved factual and legal questions that were not suitable for resolution on this motion to dismiss.

Fourteenth Amendment Equal-Protection Claim

The court allowed Barry’s equal-protection claim to proceed. Barry alleged that inmates with other religious beliefs received religious meals during the lockdown while he did not. The court found those allegations plausibly suggested that Barry was treated differently from similarly situated inmates because of his religion and that the difference might not have been reasonably related to a legitimate prison interest.

The defendants had not specifically sought dismissal of, or addressed, an equal-protection claim. Nevertheless, the court treated the complaint as presenting a plausible claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Personal Involvement of the Defendants

The court granted dismissal as to Deputy Superintendent Melecio Phil. A claim for damages under Section 1983 requires personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that Barry had alleged only that Phil was responsible for Green Haven’s policies and failed to respond to Barry’s August 2, 2018, letter. The court held that merely receiving a letter or grievance, without personally investigating or acting on it, was insufficient to show personal involvement.

The court did not dismiss the claims against LaManna, Bey, or Elmore. Barry alleged that he personally spoke with each of them about the missed religious meals and asked for help. The court found those allegations sufficient at this stage to plausibly allege their personal involvement.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Barry requested permission to amend his complaint if the court granted the defendants’ motion. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti declined to grant leave to amend, finding that the problem with the allegations against Phil was substantive and that better pleading would not cure it.

The court’s conclusion states that the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The court directed LaManna, Bey, and Elmore to answer the complaint by December 31, 2019, and instructed the clerk to terminate Phil from the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Barry the ability to proceed without paying the fee for an appeal.