David Schlemm v. Matthew Frank
784 F.3d 362
7th Cir.2015Background
- Schlemm, a Navajo inmate in Wisconsin since 1999, sues under RLUIPA for religious accommodations including food and headgear.
- District court dismissed some claims for failure to exhaust intra-prison remedies; that ruling is affirmed only on exhausted claims.
- Schlemm argues Ghost Feast venison is central to Navajo religious practice and seeks venison or outside vendor meat; prison offers kosher/halal and some outside provisions but not venison.
- Prison refused Schlemm’s proposed outside venison platter and mandated cafeteria stew; claimed venison costs and USDA-inspected meat requirements prevent accommodation.
- Court acknowledges Ghost Feast is religiously significant and that the rule limiting foods to USDA-inspected items is a potential barrier; notes district court used Holt/Hobby Lobby framework but that standard has evolved.
- Court recognizes two other circuits have held denial of traditional foods may impose a substantial burden under RLUIPA and that the district court’s reliance on cost/least-restrictive means is flawed, remanding for further proceedings and possible preliminary relief for headband and venison accommodations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a substantial burden under RLUIPA from denying venison for the Ghost Feast? | Schlemm asserts the absence of venison imposes a substantial burden. | Prison contends cost and logistics negate substantial burden. | District court erred; record creates potential substantial burden; remand for trial. |
| Are USDA-inspected-meat requirements and cost considerations a compelling interest and least-restrictive means? | Schlemm’s claim should prevail given availability of alternatives. | State argues cost/safety justify restrictions. | State has not shown a compelling interest with evidence; remand for trial. |
| Does the headband color restriction impose a substantial burden on religious exercise? | Schlemm seeks color-agnostic headbands with religious significance. | Restriction prevents gang signaling and is narrowly tailored. | Not resolved; remand for proceedings to determine burden and tailoring. |
| Were exhaustion requirements and procedural posture properly addressed; should court grant relief? | Exhaustion satisfied for at least some claims; some merits unresolved. | Some claims unexhausted; dismissal appropriate for those. | Reversed as to remaining merits; remanded for further proceedings; preliminary relief possible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (U.S. 2015) (substantial-burden standard under RLUIPA applied to beard accommodation)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (U.S. 2014) (RLUIPA framework and centrality of religious beliefs)
- Eagle Cove Camp & Conf. Ctr. v. Woodboro, 734 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2013) (limits of RLUIPA scope; central to substantial burden analysis)
- Haight v. Thompson, 763 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2014) (two circuits finding denial of traditional foods can be substantial burden)
- Abdulhaseb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 2010) (recognition that religious practice burdens may be substantial even with general rules)
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (court-related support for counsel appointment in protracted cases)
- Young v. Lane, 922 F.2d 370 (7th Cir. 1991) (color headgear prior permissible restriction to combat gang identification)