Lyle Heyward v. Heather Cooper, 88 F.4th 648

Lyle Heyward, an incarcerated Muslim, alleged prison officials at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution (AOCI) interfered with his 2018 Ramadan observance and retaliated against him for filing grievances.
Heyward claimed officials: (1) allowed non-Muslims to prepare/serve Ramadan food, (2) denied Muslims congregation and breaking fast with dates, and (3) provided inadequate nutrition during Ramadan, amounting to religious discrimination.
Heyward alleged retaliation for his grievances, including threats of transfer, false drug test results, and expulsion from a prison organization (CAA) after a grievance against a staff member.
The district court dismissed all Heyward's claims, ruling he failed to plausibly allege rights violations.
On appeal, Heyward challenged dismissal of his claims under RLUIPA, First Amendment retaliation, and Equal Protection; defendants also raised procedural arguments about appeal forfeiture and service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
RLUIPA claims for Ramadan interference	Officials unlawfully burdened his religious practice; sought money damages and injunctive relief	Damages not allowed individually and claims for injunctive relief are moot as Heyward no longer at AOCI	Affirmed dismissal; claims moot and money damages unavailable
First Amendment—Retaliation	Officials retaliated (threats, discipline, expulsion from CAA) for filing grievances	Plaintiff failed to plead facts showing motivation and causal connection for most incidents; no protected conduct when assisting others	Reversed dismissal only as to claim against Guise (CAA), affirmed dismissal for other retaliation claims
Fourteenth Amendment—Equal Protection	Muslims denied religious accommodations afforded to other faiths	Claims lack specificity regarding defendants’ roles/authority; not similarly situated	Reversed dismissal for claims against four officials plausibly alleged disparate treatment, remanded
Forfeiture of appeal/Service of process	Heyward can challenge ruling on legal grounds addressed below; service was sufficient	Claims forfeited by not responding to motion below; improper service preserved	Heyward can challenge legal grounds; service objections waived

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility in motions to dismiss)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state plausible legal claim)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (less stringent standards for pro se complaints)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (injunctive relief requires present/future injury)
Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (elements for First Amendment retaliation in prison)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (standard for prison regulations impinging on constitutional rights)
Siggers-El v. Barlow, 412 F.3d 693 (defendant liability extends to foreseeable retaliation consequences)