Moussazadeh v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26206
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Moussazadeh, an inmate at Eastham Unit, filed Step 1 grievance July 15, 2005 seeking kosher meals due to Jewish faith; grievances denied with policy explanation rather than reasons.
- He pursued Step 2 grievance; responses denied further action. After years of litigation, kosher meals began at Stringfellow Unit in 2007, but later he was moved to Stiles where free kosher meals were not provided.
- District court granted summary judgment on PLRA exhaustion and RLUIPA sincerity grounds; case remanded for remand issues.
- On remand, the district court found no re-exhaustion was required and held for TDCJ on sincerity grounds.
- The majority reverses and remands for further consideration of substantial burden, compelling interest, and least restrictive means under RLUIPA; plenary factual development may be needed for those issues.
- Moussazadeh has continued to pursue relief, while TDCJ contends continued accommodation would be impractical due to security and cost concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether re-exhaustion was required after changed circumstances | Moussazadeh exhausted in 2005; no re-exhaustion required. | Changed circumstances (Stringfellow vs Stiles) required re-exhaustion. | No re-exhaustion required; exhaustion satisfied as a matter of law. |
| Whether Moussazadeh's religious belief sincerity was properly assessed | Moussazadeh sincerely believes kosher food is essential; conduct shows sincerity. | Record evidence shows insincerity as a matter of law. | Sincerity established; question remanded for substantive RLUIPA analysis. |
| Remand framework for RLUIPA after sincerity is established | Remand should apply substantial burden, compelling interest, least-restrictive means with deference to prison officials. | Court should uphold least restrictive means and defer to security/cost concerns. | Three-step inquiry to be applied on remand; district court to assess alternatives and compelling interests. |
| Whether denial of free kosher meals constitutes a substantial burden | Free kosher meals denial imposes substantial burden where generally available benefit exists. | Provision of kosher meals is discretionary; impact weighed against interests. | To be determined on remand; substantial burden recognized with proper analysis. |
| Whether TDCJ's program is least restrictive means to achieve interests | There are less restrictive alternatives available. | Current methods (purchasing, transfer) are least restrictive given security/cost concerns. | Remand needed to evaluate four proposed alternatives for less restrictive means. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007) (RLUIPA precedent; denial of kosher food as potentially burdensome but not requiring provision of meals)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 F.3d 709 (6th Cir. 2005) (RLUIPA context; deference to prison interests, context matters)
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1963) (substantial burden concept from unemployment-benefits case)
- Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2004) (substantial burden requires substantial pressure to modify religious conduct)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2004) (ongoing harms can suffice for exhaustion without new grievances)
- Baranowski v. Hart (repeat citation), 486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007) (context of recurring harms and exhaustions; administrative deference)
- Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Tex., 560 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2009) (sincerity as part of the sincerity inquiry under RLUIPA)
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (U.S. 2003) (context matters in applying compelling-interest standard)
- Caldor, Inc. v. Beatrice Foods, 472 U.S. 703 (U.S. 1985) (illustrative use cited in reasoning on balancing interests)