629 F. App'x 52
2d Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Arrello Barnes, proceeding pro se, sued DOCS officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA alleging (1) denial of kosher meals for ~3–4 months in 2004 while he was registered as a "Hebrew Israelite," and (2) confiscation of his religious head covering (a Tsalot‑Kob) in 2007 when he was registered as "Jewish."
- District court granted summary judgment to defendants and denied Barnes’s cross‑motion; held kosher‑meal claim failed and defendants entitled to qualified immunity for the head‑covering confiscation. Barnes appealed.
- For the kosher meal claim, DOCS Southport policy in April 2004 limited kosher meals to inmates registered as "Jewish." Barnes filed grievances; on June 23, 2004 the Central Office Review Committee approved kosher meals for inmates self‑identifying as Hebrew Israelite, after which Barnes received kosher meals.
- For the head‑covering claim, DOCS policy at the time authorized Tsalot‑Kobs only for Rastafarians; officials confiscated Barnes’s Tsalot‑Kob and insisted Jewish inmates should wear yarmulkes based on advice from the NY State Board of Rabbis. DOCS later revised policy to remove faith‑specific limits.
- Barnes sought declaratory and injunctive relief to allow Hebrew Israelite and Jewish inmates to wear Tsalot‑Kobs; the district court found those requests moot because Barnes later changed religious designation and no longer had dreadlocks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Denial of kosher meals (April–July 2004) | Denial for 3–4 months violated right to diet consistent with sincere religious belief | DOCS: policy limited kosher meals to those registered as "Jewish"; reliance on registration was reasonable; qualified immunity | Court: District court did not assess this specific early period; on appeal defendants entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable to follow policy and rely on registration until Central Office reversed |
| 2) Confiscation of Tsalot‑Kob (2007) | Confiscation burdened sincerely held practice; refusal lacked legitimate penological justification | DOCS: followed established prison policy and relied on religious advisors; no clearly established right to arbitrary choice of headwear | Court: Qualified immunity inappropriate as a matter of law for policy makers; pre‑2007 law clearly required justification for religious burdens and courts look to sincerity, not ecclesiastical determinations; remand for factual development |
| 3) Scope of qualified immunity | Officials violated clearly established free‑exercise rights; immunity should not apply | Officials argue rights were not clearly established and actions were objectively reasonable | Court: For kosher claim, immunity applies given facts; for head‑covering policy makers, immunity denied because no legitimate penological reasons shown and law was clearly established |
| 4) Injunctive/declaratory relief | Requests seek institutional policy change allowing Tsalot‑Kobs for Hebrew Israelite/Jewish inmates | Mootness and changed circumstances | Court: Requests are moot (Barnes changed designation and hairstyle); district court affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003) (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity prongs and judicial discretion)
- Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582 (2d Cir. 2003) (prisoners retain free exercise rights; substantial burden analysis)
- Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2006) (prison officials must justify substantial burdens with legitimate penological interests)
- Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1975) (prisoner entitled to kosher meals)
- Jackson v. Mann, 196 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 1999) (prison official cannot deny kosher meals based solely on rabbinical determination)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard)