Bruce Rich v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9642
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Bruce Rich, an Orthodox Jew prisoner in Florida, sued the Florida Department of Corrections and officials alleging RLUIPA violations based on the lack of a strictly kosher diet; he sought injunctive relief and damages.
- Florida historically offered non-kosher diets (master menu, alternate entrée, vegan), all non-kosher, and pork products were removed from prison meals; therapeutic diets exist for medical needs.
- From 2004–2007 Florida ran the JDAP kosher program with seven kitchens; it was discontinued in August 2007, though a pilot kosher program operated in 2010 at the South Florida Reception Center.
- Rich’s August 2010 complaint prompted summary judgment against him, based on affidavits addressing cost and security concerns of providing kosher meals.
- In 2012–2013 Florida announced and began implementing a new kosher meal plan with a sincerity test requiring ninety days on alternate/vegan meals before eligibility, creating a potential mootness issue.
- The district court’s decision was reversed and remanded to address the new policy’s impact on Rich’s RLUIPA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is moot given Florida’s new policy | Rich contends policy change moots claim | Florida argues mootness applies due to policy shift | Not moot; policy change not unambiguous or consistently applied enough to moot suit. |
| Whether Florida’s kosher-diet denial substantially burdens Rich’s religion | RLUIPA burden shown by Rich | Policy serves safety/cost interests; not substantially burdening | RLUIPA burden proven; court refrains from ruling on policy’s validity but finds summary judgment improper. |
| Whether Florida’s policy furthers a compelling interest and is least restrictive | Other jurisdictions provide kosher meals; less restrictive means exist | Safety and cost are compelling interests; plan is least restrictive | Defendants failed to demonstrate compelling interest or least restrictive means on record; reversal warranted. |
| Whether the new plan affects the merits on remand | Remand should consider new policy impact | Policy change may affect liability | Remand to district court to evaluate impact of new policy consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spratt v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections, 482 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2007) (relevance of evidence from other jurisdictions in Eighth Amendment/compelling-interest analysis)
- Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005) (whether policy changes undermine mootness and compelling interests)
- Harrell v. The Florida Bar, 608 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2010) (voluntary cessation factors in mootness for government actors)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Bds. of Pharmacy v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 633 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2011) (unambiguity, deliberation, and consistent application in cessation analysis)
- Four Parcels of Real Prop. in Greene & Tuscaloosa Cntys. in State of Ala., 941 F.2d 1428 (11th Cir. 1991) (summary-judgment standard and burden-shifting)
- Jager v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 862 F.2d 824 (11th Cir. 1989) (timing of policy changes and imminent threat considerations in mootness)
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U.S. 216 (2000) (voluntary cessation mootness principles (contextual))