753 F. Supp. 2d 768
S.D. Ind.2010Background
- Willis represents a class of Indiana DOC inmates asserting a right to kosher meals under RLUIPA and First Amendment.
- DOC contracts with Aramark; kosher meals were previously billed separately and sometimes pre-packaged or offsite prepared.
- DOC shifted to vegan meals and Hallal options to cut costs, discontinishing pre-packaged kosher meals in 2010.
- 75-percent participation policy suspended kosher diets if inmates failed to eat at least 75% of meals, triggering diet-card revocation.
- Willis alleged the policy and its application denied kosher meals, burdening sincere religious practice and violating RLUIPA and the First Amendment.
- Plaintiff Willis faced suspension of his kosher diet after breakfast meals were not kosher, leading to administrative appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RLUPIA violation from terminating kosher diets | Willis contends termination substantially burdens religion. | DOC argues vegan meals suffice and costs are compelling interests. | Plaintiffs win; termination violated RLUIPA. |
| Is vegan meals the least restrictive means under RLUIPA? | Alternative measures exist but were not adequately considered. | Cost concerns justify vegan substitution as least restrictive. | No; DOC failed to prove least restrictive alternatives. |
| First Amendment impact of the 75-percent policy as applied to Willis | Policy burdens Willis's kosher observance and is not reasonably related to penological interests. | Policy valid for preventing abuse and reducing costs. | Policy as applied violated Willis's First Amendment rights. |
| §1983 nominal damages against Hall and Hodges | Hodges liable for enforcing policy; Hall liable for implementing it. | Hall not personally liable; Hodges acted within duties. | Nominal damages against Hodges; none against Hall. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (deference to prison administration but sincerity of religiosity may be examined)
- Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2009) (religious diet burden analyzed; substantial burden if nutrition compromised)
- Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2008) (dietary accommodations; substantial burden not deemed reasonable unless stricter tests)
- Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007) (cost plus other factors in compelling-interest analysis)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (Turner factors for inmate rights restrictions)
- Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 1995) (personal responsibility for constitutional deprivation under §1983)
- Hunafa v. Murphy, 907 F.2d 46 (7th Cir. 1990) (religious dietary rights and contamination concerns)
- Barzanowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007) (see Baranowski v. Hart (duplicate in text) — cost as factor)