96 F.4th 652
4th Cir.2024Background
- Ricky Pendleton, an inmate in West Virginia, practices the Sufi Original Traditions of Islam, requiring a diet that promotes purification and compassion to living creatures (vegetarian, no meat, limited fish).
- The prison instituted a single "religious special diet" for all faiths, largely dependent on soy as a protein source and omitting meat.
- Pendleton alleges he cannot digest soy (causing severe distress), and therefore cannot consume either the regular (meat-inclusive) or special (soy-based) diet; this is religiously significant for him because his religion forbids foods that cause him harm.
- Pendleton sought religious accommodation, which was denied by prison officials. His grievances challenging the diet policy as violating the First Amendment and RLUIPA were also denied.
- Pendleton filed suit pro se. The district court dismissed his complaint for failure to allege a substantial burden and denied his request to be "severed" from the religious diet; Pendleton appealed with counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Pendleton's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint stated a RLUIPA claim (substantial burden) | Diet options force violation of religious belief or inadequate nutrition | No forced consumption of forbidden foods; could supplement diet via commissary or medical proof | Pendleton plausibly alleged a substantial burden; dismissal was error |
| Inclusion of pro se memorandum and exhibits in Rule 8 pleading | All documents filed should be considered part of complaint, especially for pro se litigants | Only the form and attached exhibits, not the memorandum, count | Documents referenced in the complaint must be considered as part of the pleading |
| Viability of Free Exercise Clause claim | Same substantial burden as RLUIPA, leading to constitutional violation | Claim fails for same reasons as RLUIPA | District court erred; claim should proceed |
| Denial of injunctive relief (severance from diet program) | Entitled to preliminary/permanent relief to avoid violation of rights | No plausible statutory/constitutional violation pled | Denial vacated; pendency of claims entitles Pendleton to renewed motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006) (defining substantial burden under RLUIPA for religious exercise in prison)
- Incumaa v. Stirling, 791 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2015) (substantial burden exists where inmate must choose between religious convictions and government benefit)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Rule 8 pleading standard clarified; plausibility necessary to state a claim)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (RLUIPA does not require states to pay for devotional accessories but mandates compliance for dietary needs)