129 F.4th 1043
7th Cir.2025Background
- Jack William Morgan, an inmate and self-identified Messianic Jew, was approved for a kosher diet while incarcerated at FCI Thomson.
- In May 2021, Morgan purchased a turkey log from the commissary, a violation of the prison’s kosher diet program, resulting in a 30-day suspension from the kosher diet by the chaplain.
- Morgan claims he fasted for the entire 30-day suspension, being forced to choose between starvation or violating his religious beliefs.
- After unsuccessfully pursuing administrative remedies, Morgan sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and Warden Ciolli, seeking an injunction to change BOP dietary policies and damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
- The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice at the screening stage (28 U.S.C. § 1915A) for failure to state a claim; Morgan was later transferred to another facility.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviewed issues of standing and sovereign immunity, as well as the merits of the underlying RFRA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for Injunctive Relief | Morgan faces ongoing threat as he may purchase commissary items again and be removed from the kosher diet | No sufficient likelihood of future injury; past harm not enough for prospective relief | No standing for injunctive relief; risk of future injury too speculative |
| Sovereign Immunity for Damages | RFRA’s "appropriate relief" language waives immunity for damages against BOP/federal officials | No unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity in RFRA; damages barred | Sovereign immunity bars damages against BOP and BOP officials in their official capacity |
| Failure to State a Claim on RFRA | His religious exercise was substantially burdened by suspension after one commissary purchase | Suspension was the result of Morgan’s own actions; no substantial burden by BOP policy | Complaint failed to state a claim under RFRA; also lacked allegations against Ciolli individually |
| Amendment of Complaint | Sought opportunity to further amend to clarify warden’s involvement | Further amendment would be futile given sovereign immunity and lack of personal involvement | No leave to amend granted; defects would not be cured |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements under Article III)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (past injury insufficient for prospective injunctive relief)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (plaintiff must allege facts showing standing)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (federal sovereign immunity must be expressly waived)
- Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 ("appropriate relief" does not waive state sovereign immunity for damages)