Ralston v. Cannon
884 F.3d 1060
10th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Craig Ralston, a Messianic Jewish detainee at Denver Detention Center (DDC), requested a kosher diet after booking in December 2013; DDC Chaplain Hosea Cannon coordinates religious accommodations.
- Ralston initially answered “no” on intake to whether his religion required a special diet but subsequently sent multiple kites and a grievance asserting he required strict kosher meals.
- On January 2, 2014 Cannon denied the kosher request, relying on the intake response and a Messianic-Jewish consultant’s advice that DDC’s non‑pork/non‑shellfish menu sufficed.
- Ralston filed this § 1983 suit alleging First Amendment free‑exercise violation; he later submitted a Religious Special Diet Application (Jan. 28, 2014).
- Cannon approved a kosher diet on February 4, 2014; the district court denied Cannon qualified immunity, finding a reasonable juror could infer Cannon intentionally or consciously interfered and that the denial could be a substantial burden.
- On appeal, Cannon challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of intent; the Tenth Circuit dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because it would require reweighing factual sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of kosher meals violated Free Exercise Clause | Ralston: repeated, specific requests and explanations show sincere belief and that denial substantially burdened practice | Cannon: denial was reasonable reliance on intake form and consultant advice; at most negligent, not intentional | Court did not reach merits on appeal; district court had found material facts supporting a claim for intentional interference |
| Whether Cannon acted with requisite intent (conscious/intentional interference) | Ralston: facts viewed favorably support an inference of conscious or intentional denial | Cannon: record shows reasonable belief he need not provide kosher meals; no evidence of intent to burden religion | Tenth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review district court’s factual conclusion about intent in interlocutory appeal |
| Whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time | Ralston: longstanding First Amendment protection for sincere religious practice; accommodation required when sincerely held and substantially burdened | Cannon: even if right existed, his reliance on available information made his conduct reasonable, so right was not clearly established as to him | Court did not decide; defendant’s clear‑law argument depended on disputed facts and thus was unreviewable on interlocutory appeal |
| Whether interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity is permissible here | Ralston: district court’s factual findings should stand for trial | Cannon: sought appellate review of denial | Tenth Circuit: appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because resolution would require reexamining factual sufficiency (Johnson v. Jones rule) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (interlocutory appeals on qualified immunity cannot challenge factual sufficiency; appellate review limited to abstract legal questions)
- Roosevelt-Hennix v. Prickett, 717 F.3d 751 (10th Cir. 2013) (describes scope of appellate review in qualified immunity denials and collateral order doctrine)
- Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2009) (discusses intent requirement for free‑exercise claims in prison context)
- LaFevers v. Saffle, 936 F.2d 1117 (10th Cir. 1991) (First Amendment protects sincerely held religious beliefs even if practice differs among sect members)
- Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 2010) (frequency of adverse meal incidents can establish substantial burden on religious practice)
- Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 2010) (distinguishes negligent or inadvertent meal denials from knowing denials that support constitutional claim)