Washington v. McKoy, 816 F. App'x 570

Background

Plaintiff Wayne Washington (pro se) and six other Nation of Islam (NOI) prisoners challenged DOCCS policies at Auburn concerning selection of kitchen workers for Muslim religious holidays and the adequacy/compliance of meals served during Ramadan 2014.
Plaintiffs alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and RLUIPA based on a policy allowing non-NOI kitchen workers to prepare NOI religious meals and on allegedly noncompliant Ramadan meals.
A magistrate judge recommended granting defendants’ summary judgment motion; the district court adopted the recommendation and entered judgment for defendants; Washington alone appealed.
The record includes DOCCS evidence (statement of the Director of Nutritional Services) that the meals were nutritionally sufficient and that plaintiffs could eat at least part of each meal; plaintiffs submitted no evidence of weight loss or nutritional deficiency.
Washington conceded that non-NOI status of kitchen workers was “not necessarily the issue,” focusing instead on hygiene concerns; plaintiffs’ evidence of unequal treatment relied on a single affidavit about a Rastafarian inmate.
The Second Circuit affirmed: RLUIPA claims were moot by transfer; Washington failed to show a substantial burden on Free Exercise or that defendants applied the policy unequally.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
RLUIPA claim viability	RLUIPA protects right to religious meals and practices; relief available for policy and meal violations	Washington’s transfer moots claims for injunctive/declaratory relief; RLUIPA does not permit money damages	Moot: transfer to another facility mooted RLUIPA claims; no challenge on appeal
Free Exercise — kitchen-worker policy	Policy allowing non-NOI kitchen workers to prepare NOI meals substantially burdens NOI prisoners’ religious exercise	Policy did not affect who actually prepared meals with respect to hygiene or religiously relevant practices	No substantial burden: Washington admitted non-NOI status not necessarily dispositive and produced no evidence linking policy to hygiene or religious violation
Free Exercise — Ramadan meal sufficiency	Noncompliant meals forced plaintiffs to choose between nutrition and religious observance (breaking fast or eating prohibited food)	Meals provided sufficient nutrition and plaintiffs could eat parts of meals; no evidence of compelled violation or nutritional harm	No substantial burden: nutritional sufficiency shown and plaintiffs provided no contrary evidence (e.g., weight loss)
Equal Protection — unequal application	Defendants treated NOI differently; offered example of a Rastafarian inmate allowed to prepare Rastafarian holiday food	Selection of non-kitchen co-religionists permitted by policy when no approved kitchen worker existed; affidavit insufficient to show disparate treatment or rule violations	No genuine dispute: affidavit alone did not show similarly situated treatment or rule deviation; equal protection claim failed

Key Cases Cited

Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2006) (prisoner transfer generally moots claims for injunctive or declaratory relief against officials of that facility)
Holland v. Goord, 758 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2014) (RLUIPA damages unavailable; discussion of substantial-burden framework)
Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582 (2d Cir. 2003) (Free Exercise rights of prisoners include right to religiously compliant meals)
McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2004) (discussion of prisoners’ First Amendment religious rights)
Thompson v. Holm, 809 F.3d 376 (7th Cir. 2016) (substantial burden where prisoner forced to choose between adequate nutrition and religious tenet)
Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1975) (prison must provide diet sufficient to sustain health without violating dietary laws)
Brandon v. Kinter, 938 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 2019) (declining to decide threshold substantial-burden requirement and applying that test where parties did not contest it)