Slip Opinion
N.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiff Michael Jones, a pro se prisoner, alleges constitutional violations (First, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendments) and RLUIPA claims arising from treatment at Shawangunk and Eastern Correctional Facilities (2006–2009).
- After converting to Judaism, Jones claims he received only cold kosher meals and that requests for hot, low-sodium kosher meals (for hypertension) were denied; he later accepted non-kosher low-sodium meals.
- Jones was transferred to Eastern in May 2009; after complaining about a double cell/top bunk and injury risk, he alleges he was ticketed and placed in the SHU and had knee braces taken.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment after discovery; Magistrate Judge Baxter issued an R&R recommending: grant of partial summary judgment, sua sponte dismissal of First Amendment and RLUIPA claims, and denial of Jones’ motion to amend to add three parties.
- District Judge Sharpe reviewed objections and an appeal of the magistrate’s denial to amend; he adopted the R&R in full, granted defendants’ partial summary judgment, dismissed specified claims, and affirmed the denial of leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment claim re: denial of hot, low-sodium kosher meals | Jones: denial of hot/low-sodium kosher meals violated Eighth Amendment (serious deprivation) | Defs: Jones was not deprived of meals or exposed to contaminated food; no serious deprivation alleged | Court: Claim fails—no factual showing of deprivation or danger to health; Eighth Amendment not shown |
| First Amendment / RLUIPA religious diet claims | Jones: denial of hot kosher/low-sodium diet and related treatment violated Free Exercise and RLUIPA | Defs: summary judgment grounds and lack of necessary allegations/personal involvement | Court: RLUIPA and First Amendment religion claims against certain defendants dismissed sua sponte with prejudice |
| Motion to amend complaint (joinder of three parties) | Jones: should be allowed to add menu creators Schattinger & Culkin and Sgt. Todd (identified in discovery) | Defs: proposed amendment would be futile; lack of personal involvement; claims wouldn’t survive summary judgment | Court: Denial of leave to amend affirmed—no good cause under Rule 16(b) and amendment would be futile |
| Standard of review for magistrate R&R / non-dispositive appeal | Jones objected and appealed; sought de novo review on some points | Defs: magistrate’s recommendations correct | Court: applied de novo review where appropriate and clear-error/contrary-to-law standards for non-specific objections; adopted R&R in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Robles v. Coughlin, 725 F.2d 12 (prison food must be nutritionally adequate and safe)
- Gualandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236 (standard for "clearly erroneous" review)
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (definition of "clearly erroneous")
- Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80 (Rule 16(b) governs amendments after scheduling order)