Rufus West v. Gregory Grams, 607 F. App'x 561

Background

Plaintiff Rufus West, a Muslim Wisconsin inmate, sued Columbia Correctional Institution staff and the DOC Secretary under § 1983 and RLUIPA, alleging interference with Islamic services and retaliation over Ramadan meal timing.
DOC policy (since 2001) prohibits inmates from leading congregate religious services; services must be led by approved clergy, volunteers, or chaplains. Defendants cite security reasons for the rule.
Columbia often lacked Muslim outside volunteers, causing cancellations of Jumu’ah and Talim over many weeks across several years; Christian services were rarely cancelled.
West contends Jumu’ah is mandatory in Islam and that cancellations and late scheduling of Eid and Ramadan meals (meal time set at 8:30 p.m.) substantially burdened his religious exercise and were retaliatory after he complained.
The magistrate judge granted summary judgment for defendants, relying on qualified immunity for free-exercise and RLUIPA theories and rejecting the retaliation claim; later dismissed the RLUIPA claim as moot after West’s transfer to another prison.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of First Amendment and retaliation claims but vacated the dismissal of the RLUIPA claim and remanded for merits consideration and possible additional evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether policy barring inmate-led services substantially burdens religious exercise under RLUIPA	West: policy and repeated cancellations made Jumu’ah and Talim effectively impracticable	Defs: volunteers used when available; alternative accommodations exist; policy furthers security and is least restrictive means	Remanded — court declined to resolve; magistrate erred treating claim as moot and on qualified immunity; RLUIPA merits to be addressed below
Whether inmates have a First Amendment right to lead group worship and whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity	West: denial of inmate-led services violates free exercise	Defs: policy is neutral, reasonably related to security; precedent supports denial; qualified immunity applies	Affirmed for defendants; no clearly established First Amendment right to inmate-led services on these facts
Whether scheduling evening meals at 8:30 p.m. during Ramadan was retaliatory (First Amendment retaliation claim)	West: chaplain set latest possible meal time after West complained; conduct deterred future complaints	Defs: meal time changes were not likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness; timing sometimes before sunset	Affirmed for defendants; not actionable retaliation (would not deter ordinary inmate); appeal frivolous on this claim
Whether West’s transfer mooted his RLUIPA claim for injunctive relief	West: transfer intended to moot claim; claim still affects him because DOC policy is systemwide and applies at Green Bay	Defs/magistrate: transfer mooted injunctive claim	Reversed — transfer did not moot a systemwide RLUIPA challenge; claim not decided on merits and must proceed; substitute current DOC director as defendant for injunctive relief

Key Cases Cited

Johnson-Bey v. Lane, 863 F.2d 1308 (7th Cir. 1988) (rejecting inmate-led worship claim where security justification present)
Hadi v. Horn, 830 F.2d 779 (7th Cir. 1987) (similar rejection of inmate-led services claim)
Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding inmate-led worship claim not viable where security concerns exist)
Surita v. Hyde, 665 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2011) (retaliation requires showing likely deterrent effect on a person of ordinary firmness)
Bart v. Telford, 677 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1982) (First Amendment harassment rule — not every harassment is actionable)
Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651 (2011) (RLUIPA limited to declaratory/injunctive relief)
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (recognizing compelling governmental interests in prison security under religion claims)
Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (RLUIPA substantial-burden framework explained)