Thompson v. Holm
809 F.3d 376
7th Cir.2016Background
- Thompson, a Muslim inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution, fasted for Ramadan and ordinarily received daily “Ramadan meal bags” (post-sunset dinner + pre-sunrise breakfast) as accommodation determined by the chaplain.
- From August 11–20, 2010 Thompson received meal bags; on August 21–22 he received none and went ~55 hours without the Ramadan meal bags.
- Jail staff (Guard Lashock, Captain Holm, Sergeants Bleich and Larson) gave conflicting explanations: Lashock alleged Thompson stole an extra meal bag and said he filed a conduct report (no report found); others variously attributed removal to Holm or said only the chaplain could remove names.
- Thompson complained through grievances and to staff; investigations produced inconsistent reports, but Thompson was restored to the Ramadan list on August 23 and received meal bags thereafter.
- Thompson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting a First Amendment free-exercise violation; defendants moved for summary judgment, which the magistrate judge granted on the ground that two days without meal bags was not a substantial burden.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed the record in Thompson’s favor, vacated summary judgment, and remanded, finding disputed facts sufficient for a jury to find a constitutional violation and denying qualified immunity at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Ramadan meal bags for two days substantially burdened free exercise | Thompson: being forced to choose between adequate nutrition and Ramadan observance is a substantial burden; caused hunger, anxiety, missed prayer | Defendants: two days is de minimis; Thompson continued fasting and praying | Held: Yes — 55 hours without proper meals and uncertainty created substantial pressure to abandon religious practice |
| Whether withholding was justified by legitimate penological interest (punishing theft) | Thompson: no evidence supports a theft finding; charge fabricated; denial not reasonably related to penological goals | Defendants: acted to punish suspected theft; justified removal of accommodation | Held: Not justified on this record — no conduct report, evidence supports inference charge fabricated, belief alone insufficient |
| Whether defendants were personally involved | Thompson: Lashock, Holm, Bleich, Larson personally participated or misled him to deprive him of meal bags | Defendants: lacked personal involvement/authority to remove him from list | Held: Sufficient evidence for a jury to infer personal involvement by each defendant (denial, false statements, or override) |
| Availability of damages / qualified immunity | Thompson: intentional denial supports nominal and punitive damages; right to religious diet is clearly established | Defendants: damages unavailable absent physical injury; qualified immunity shields them | Held: Damages may be available if intentional conduct proven; qualified immunity not appropriate at summary judgment because right was clearly established |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. Comm’n of Internal Revenue, 490 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1989) (substantial-burden test for free exercise)
- Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707 (U.S. 1981) (substantial pressure to modify behavior constitutes substantial burden)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (prison regulation review: burden must be reasonably related to legitimate penological interest)
- Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2009) (forcing nutrition–religion choice is substantial burden)
- Hunafa v. Murphy, 907 F.2d 46 (7th Cir. 1990) (failure to accommodate Muslim dietary restrictions imposes substantial burden)
- Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582 (2d Cir. 2003) (prisoner’s right to diet consistent with religious scruples is clearly established)
- McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1987) (inmates entitled to sufficient food consistent with religious dietary laws)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (dishonesty can be considered affirmative evidence of culpability)
- Gilbert v. Cook, 512 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2008) (official belief in guilt insufficient to impose punishment without due process)
- Thomas v. Ill., 697 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2012) (availability of nominal/punitive damages for intentional violations)