938 F.3d 21
2d Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Chamma Brandon, a Muslim inmate at Clinton County Jail (Jan–Dec 2012), alleged he was repeatedly served meals containing pork in violation of his religious diet and filed numerous grievances.
- Dispute whether the kitchen was notified of Brandon’s no‑pork diet on March 2, 2012 (defendants’ position) or not until late September/October 2012 (Brandon’s position); Brandon’s counsel estimated at least 63 noncompliant meals before notice.
- Specific incidents are alleged (May 28, June 21, July 4, Sept. 9, Sept. 24, Oct. 9, Oct. 10, Oct. 17, Oct. 29, Nov. 5, Dec. 25), with contested facts about whether meals contained pork or were replaced.
- Brandon also alleged retaliatory acts after he filed grievances: removal of his medical diet (Kinter, Laurin), intentional introduction of pork into his meals (Bedard), and placement/exposure to an aggressive inmate that resulted in being spat on (Clancy, Blaise).
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding only 10 noncompliant meals and that ten incidents did not constitute a substantial burden; Brandon appealed as to his First Amendment free‑exercise and retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of religiously compliant meals substantially burdened free exercise | Brandon: was "routinely and continuously" served pork (≥63 incidents), and even 10 incidents are a substantial burden | Defendants: evidence shows at most 10 incidents; that number is de minimis | Court: genuine dispute about number of incidents (jury question); even 10 incidents could be a substantial burden; summary judgment vacated in part (remand) |
| Personal involvement of individual defendants under §1983 | Brandon: supervisors knew of grievances and failed to remedy; some COs directly handled incidents | Defendants: lack of personal participation or responsibility | Court: sufficient evidence of personal involvement as to Kinter, Bedard, Laurin, Clancy; Webb and Perry implicated for specific incidents; Blaise and Wingler not personally involved (claims against them affirmed dismissed) |
| Required mental state and qualified immunity | Brandon: evidence supports deliberate indifference/retaliatory intent | Defendants: negligence insufficient; claimants entitled to qualified immunity | Court: deliberate indifference could be found by a jury; qualified immunity denied at summary judgment because the right to a religious diet is clearly established and disputed facts remain |
| Retaliation (adverse action + causation) | Brandon: filing grievances was protected; removal of medical diet, purposeful pork servings, and exposure to assault were retaliatory and temporally connected plus accompanied by hostile statements | Defendants: actions had legitimate bases (commissary rule, accidents, safety decisions) and lack causal link | Court: genuine disputes of adverse action and causation exist; summary judgment vacated as to retaliation claims against Kinter, Laurin, Bedard (and related defendants where evidence supports involvement); some retaliation claims affirmed dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582 (2d Cir. 2003) (prisoners retain some free exercise rights; religious diet protections)
- McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2004) (denial of religiously required diet during Ramadan can be a substantial burden)
- Holland v. Goord, 758 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2014) (compelled drinking during Ramadan imposed a substantial burden)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) (standards for supervisory personal involvement under §1983)
- Greenwich Citizens Comm. v. Cty. of Greenwich, 77 F.3d 26 (2d Cir. 1996) (retaliation claims require proof of retaliatory intent; deliberate indifference standard discussed)
- Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2003) (prison grievance filing is protected speech; adverse action standard)
- Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (temporal proximity probative for causation in retaliation claims)
- Bennett v. Goord, 343 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2003) (defense that adverse action would have occurred regardless of protected activity)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (§1983 contains no separate state‑of‑mind requirement; negligence sometimes insufficient)