1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MAURICE LYDELL HARRIS, Case No. 21-cv-00283-HSG
8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 9 v. AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
10 CLERIC MUHAMMAD, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 17 11 Defendants.
12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), filed this pro se civil rights 14 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a He 15 also brings a motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and for preliminary injunction 16 (“PI”). ECF No. 17. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a 17 TRO/PI. 18 DISCUSSION 19 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 20 prohibiting Defendants from denying him the ability to supplement his GMO-free (RMAP) diet, 21 that is required by his religion, with non-Halal or non-Kosher food items from the prison canteen 22 or vendors. Dkt. No. 17. 23 I. Factual Background 24 Below the Court reviews the relevant factual allegations set forth by the parties. 25 Plaintiff practices Soka Gakkai International (SGI) Nichiren Buddhism. According to 26 Plaintiff’s religious beliefs, his body is a temple that should not be polluted by consuming meat 27 that contains genetically modified ingredients (“GMOs”). Dkt. No. 8 at 3-4; Dkt. No. 17 at 4, 10- 1 SQSP’s halal/Islamic diet, also referred to as the Religious Meat Alternate Program (“RMAP”). 2 Dkt. No. 8 at 4; Dkt. No. 17 at 4, 10-11. At the time he enrolled, Plaintiff was not required to 3 follow Islamic law to participate in this religious diet, and was only required to follow the dietary 4 restrictions set forth in his religion, Nichiren Buddhism. Dkt. No. 8 at 4; Dkt. No. 17 at 10. 5 Plaintiff did not sign a Religious Diet Agreement (CDCR Form 3030-A). Dkt. No. 17 at 7. 6 Prison officials state that SQSP does not offer a GMO-free diet and that RMAP offers 7 inmates meat that has been certified as halal, and not meat/food that is GMO-free. Prison officials 8 further state that Plaintiff has never been offered GMO-free meals during his incarceration at 9 SQSP. Dkt. No. 20-1 (“Shleffar Decl.”), ¶ 27. 10 Since enrolling in the RMAP diet, when prison meals are inadequate, either in nutrition or 11 portion size, Plaintiff has supplemented his diet with non-Halal purchases from the canteen, such 12 as ramen soups, oysters, and beef products. Dkt. No. 8 at 5, 9-11; Dkt. No. 17 at 5. On May 16, 13 2019, defendant K. Fasih (Iman Muhammad) issued Plaintiff a religious diet violation for 14 purchasing ramen soups. Dkt. No. 8 at 7. These religious diet violations are based on a violation 15 of the Religious Diet Agreement (Form 3030-A) which Plaintiff did not sign. Dkt. No. 17 at 7. 16 Plaintiff had never received a religious diet violation prior to this date, despite consuming ramen 17 soups and other non-Halal items from the canteen. Dkt. No. 17 at 4. In summer 2020, COVID 18 impacted prison feeding procedures, reducing the portions by half. Plaintiff supplemented his diet 19 with ramen soups to maintain his health. Dkt. No. 8 at 10-11. On October 10, 2021, defendant 20 Jackson issued Plaintiff a religious diet violation for purchasing ramen soups during June, July, 21 and August 2020. Dkt. No. 8 at 11. She also informed him that if he wished to avoid the violation 22 being placed in his Central file, he could voluntarily withdraw from the program, and she handed 23 him a withdrawal form. Dkt. No. 8 at 11. 24 Plaintiff filed this case in January 2021, and has since received two additional religious 25 diet violations. On July 7, 2021, Catholic chaplain Chavira, who is not a named defendant, issued 26 a violation to Plaintiff on behalf of defendant Fasih for consuming beef steaks. Dkt. No. 17 at 6. 27 On March 15, 2022, Chaplain Ang issued a second religious diet violation, this time for 1 informed that, unless he voluntarily withdrew from the RMAP diet, he would be expelled from the 2 RMAP diet if he continued to purchase non-Islamic foods. Dkt. No. 17 at 7. 3 Plaintiff’s inability to supplement the RMAP diet with items from the prison canteen has 4 resulted in light-headedness, lethargy, and brain fog. Dkt. No. 17 at 7. 5 The Court has found that the operative complaint states cognizable claims against Muslim 6 chaplain Clerk Muhammed (K. Fasih) and Christian chaplain Jackson for violating Plaintiff’s 7 rights under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, the Eighth Amendment, the Equal 8 Protection Clause, and RLUIPA when they conditioned his ability to receive a GMO-free diet, 9 which is mandated by his religion, on giving up ramen soups needed to maintain his health 10 because of the deficiencies in the GMO-free diet provided via RMAP, yet allowed Jewish and 11 Muslim inmates to receive meals consistent with their religious beliefs without imposing 12 additional requirements. See generally Dkt. No. 13. Defendant Jackson has since retired. Dkt. 13 No. 20-1 at 4. 14 II. Legal Standard 15 The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) restricts the power of the court to 16 grant prospective relief in any action involving prison conditions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). 17 Section 3626(a)(2) permits the court to enter a temporary restraining order or preliminary 18 injunction “to the extent otherwise authorized by law” but requires that such an order “be narrowly 19 drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary 20 relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” See 18 U.S.C. 21 § 3626(a)(2). The court must give “substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or 22 the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief.” Id. “A plaintiff 23 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is 24 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 25 tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 26 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (noting that such remedies are extraordinary, and not granted as of right). 27 The party seeking the injunction bears the burden of proving these elements. Klein v. City of San 1 sliding scale, such that where there are only ’serious questions going to the merits’—that is, less 2 than a ‘likelihood of success on the merits’—a preliminary injunction may still issue so long 3 as ’the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor’ and the other two factors are 4 satisfied.” Short v. Brown, 893 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Shell Offshore, Inc. v. 5 Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original)). Even where the 6 balance tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, however, the plaintiff must still make the threshold 7 showing of likely success on the merits or a serious legal question. See Leyva-Perez v. Holder, 8 640 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[E]ven certainty of irreparable harm has never entitled one to 9 a stay.”) (emphasis in original). In addition, the issuance of a preliminary injunction is at the 10 discretion of the district court. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MAURICE LYDELL HARRIS, Case No. 21-cv-00283-HSG
8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 9 v. AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
10 CLERIC MUHAMMAD, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 17 11 Defendants.
12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), filed this pro se civil rights 14 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a He 15 also brings a motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and for preliminary injunction 16 (“PI”). ECF No. 17. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a 17 TRO/PI. 18 DISCUSSION 19 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 20 prohibiting Defendants from denying him the ability to supplement his GMO-free (RMAP) diet, 21 that is required by his religion, with non-Halal or non-Kosher food items from the prison canteen 22 or vendors. Dkt. No. 17. 23 I. Factual Background 24 Below the Court reviews the relevant factual allegations set forth by the parties. 25 Plaintiff practices Soka Gakkai International (SGI) Nichiren Buddhism. According to 26 Plaintiff’s religious beliefs, his body is a temple that should not be polluted by consuming meat 27 that contains genetically modified ingredients (“GMOs”). Dkt. No. 8 at 3-4; Dkt. No. 17 at 4, 10- 1 SQSP’s halal/Islamic diet, also referred to as the Religious Meat Alternate Program (“RMAP”). 2 Dkt. No. 8 at 4; Dkt. No. 17 at 4, 10-11. At the time he enrolled, Plaintiff was not required to 3 follow Islamic law to participate in this religious diet, and was only required to follow the dietary 4 restrictions set forth in his religion, Nichiren Buddhism. Dkt. No. 8 at 4; Dkt. No. 17 at 10. 5 Plaintiff did not sign a Religious Diet Agreement (CDCR Form 3030-A). Dkt. No. 17 at 7. 6 Prison officials state that SQSP does not offer a GMO-free diet and that RMAP offers 7 inmates meat that has been certified as halal, and not meat/food that is GMO-free. Prison officials 8 further state that Plaintiff has never been offered GMO-free meals during his incarceration at 9 SQSP. Dkt. No. 20-1 (“Shleffar Decl.”), ¶ 27. 10 Since enrolling in the RMAP diet, when prison meals are inadequate, either in nutrition or 11 portion size, Plaintiff has supplemented his diet with non-Halal purchases from the canteen, such 12 as ramen soups, oysters, and beef products. Dkt. No. 8 at 5, 9-11; Dkt. No. 17 at 5. On May 16, 13 2019, defendant K. Fasih (Iman Muhammad) issued Plaintiff a religious diet violation for 14 purchasing ramen soups. Dkt. No. 8 at 7. These religious diet violations are based on a violation 15 of the Religious Diet Agreement (Form 3030-A) which Plaintiff did not sign. Dkt. No. 17 at 7. 16 Plaintiff had never received a religious diet violation prior to this date, despite consuming ramen 17 soups and other non-Halal items from the canteen. Dkt. No. 17 at 4. In summer 2020, COVID 18 impacted prison feeding procedures, reducing the portions by half. Plaintiff supplemented his diet 19 with ramen soups to maintain his health. Dkt. No. 8 at 10-11. On October 10, 2021, defendant 20 Jackson issued Plaintiff a religious diet violation for purchasing ramen soups during June, July, 21 and August 2020. Dkt. No. 8 at 11. She also informed him that if he wished to avoid the violation 22 being placed in his Central file, he could voluntarily withdraw from the program, and she handed 23 him a withdrawal form. Dkt. No. 8 at 11. 24 Plaintiff filed this case in January 2021, and has since received two additional religious 25 diet violations. On July 7, 2021, Catholic chaplain Chavira, who is not a named defendant, issued 26 a violation to Plaintiff on behalf of defendant Fasih for consuming beef steaks. Dkt. No. 17 at 6. 27 On March 15, 2022, Chaplain Ang issued a second religious diet violation, this time for 1 informed that, unless he voluntarily withdrew from the RMAP diet, he would be expelled from the 2 RMAP diet if he continued to purchase non-Islamic foods. Dkt. No. 17 at 7. 3 Plaintiff’s inability to supplement the RMAP diet with items from the prison canteen has 4 resulted in light-headedness, lethargy, and brain fog. Dkt. No. 17 at 7. 5 The Court has found that the operative complaint states cognizable claims against Muslim 6 chaplain Clerk Muhammed (K. Fasih) and Christian chaplain Jackson for violating Plaintiff’s 7 rights under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, the Eighth Amendment, the Equal 8 Protection Clause, and RLUIPA when they conditioned his ability to receive a GMO-free diet, 9 which is mandated by his religion, on giving up ramen soups needed to maintain his health 10 because of the deficiencies in the GMO-free diet provided via RMAP, yet allowed Jewish and 11 Muslim inmates to receive meals consistent with their religious beliefs without imposing 12 additional requirements. See generally Dkt. No. 13. Defendant Jackson has since retired. Dkt. 13 No. 20-1 at 4. 14 II. Legal Standard 15 The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) restricts the power of the court to 16 grant prospective relief in any action involving prison conditions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). 17 Section 3626(a)(2) permits the court to enter a temporary restraining order or preliminary 18 injunction “to the extent otherwise authorized by law” but requires that such an order “be narrowly 19 drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary 20 relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” See 18 U.S.C. 21 § 3626(a)(2). The court must give “substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or 22 the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief.” Id. “A plaintiff 23 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is 24 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 25 tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 26 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (noting that such remedies are extraordinary, and not granted as of right). 27 The party seeking the injunction bears the burden of proving these elements. Klein v. City of San 1 sliding scale, such that where there are only ’serious questions going to the merits’—that is, less 2 than a ‘likelihood of success on the merits’—a preliminary injunction may still issue so long 3 as ’the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor’ and the other two factors are 4 satisfied.” Short v. Brown, 893 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Shell Offshore, Inc. v. 5 Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original)). Even where the 6 balance tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, however, the plaintiff must still make the threshold 7 showing of likely success on the merits or a serious legal question. See Leyva-Perez v. Holder, 8 640 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[E]ven certainty of irreparable harm has never entitled one to 9 a stay.”) (emphasis in original). In addition, the issuance of a preliminary injunction is at the 10 discretion of the district court. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th 11 Cir. 2011). The standards for issuing a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction 12 are “substantially identical.” Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240 13 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). 14 III. Analysis 15 Plaintiff argues that he should be granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary 16 injunction prohibiting Defendants from denying him the ability to supplement the GMO-free 17 (RMAP) diet that his religion requires with non-Halal or non-Kosher food items from the prison 18 canteen or vendors for the following reasons. He argues that he is likely to succeed on the merits 19 because RLUIPA claims are subject to the strictest standard of review, thus indicating the highest 20 probability of success; Defendants have not articulated in their responses to his grievances a 21 compelling governmental interest as to why Plaintiff cannot supplement his GMO-free diet, as he 22 was allowed to prior to 2019; the fact that Plaintiff was supplementing his GMO-free diet prior to 23 2019 indicates that there is no penological interest served by restricting Plaintiff to Halal items to 24 receive the GMO-free diet; and an Equal Protection Clause violation makes the probability of 25 success on the merits high, citing to Monterey Mech. Co. v. Wilson, 125 F.3d 702, 715 (9th Cir. 26 1997). He argues that he is suffering irreparable harm because he is being threatened with being 27 expelled from a diet that meets his religious dictates; the threats cause him emotional stress which 1 constitutional rights constitutes irreparable harm. He further argues that the balance of equities 2 favors him because granting the TRO/PI will maintain the status quo which Defendants have 3 endured for over a decade without suffering any harm whereas if Plaintiff is expelled from the 4 religious diet, he will suffer deprivation of his constitutional rights until at least 2023, which is 5 when this case is likely to reach its conclusion. Finally, Plaintiff argues that the TRO/PI will serve 6 the public interest because it is always in the public interest for prison officials to obey the law. 7 See generally Dkt. No. 17. 8 Defendants argue that the Court should deny the TRO/PI request because the Court lacks 9 jurisdiction to grant the relief sought for the following reasons. First, none of the named 10 defendants issued the 2021 and 2022 violations, and the Court does not have jurisdiction over the 11 individuals who issued the violations (Chaplains Chavria and Ang). Second, Plaintiff will not 12 suffer irreparable injury because Plaintiff is not receiving, and SQSP does not offer, a GMO-free 13 diet; and Plaintiff has not provided evidence that anyone has threatened to remove him from 14 RAMP for the recent violations despite the fact that he continues to purchase non-halal meat items 15 from the canteen. Third, Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on the merits because 16 RMAP is not a GMO-free diet; prison regulations do not require SQSP to provide Plaintiff a 17 GMO-free diet; and SQSP’s decision to audit inmates’ eligibility to be retained in their religious 18 diets meets the legitimate penological objective of reducing unnecessary costs incurred by 19 providing specialized meals to inmates who are not sincere with their religious dietary restrictions 20 and who are simply using the program to control the food they receive while serving their 21 sentences. Finally, the balance of equities does not favor Plaintiff and the relief sought would not 22 serve the public interest because granting the TRO/PI request would require SQSP to provide 23 Plaintiff a GMO-free diet and permit Plaintiff to violate the terms of the RMAP diet by purchasing 24 non-halal food items. 25 The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s TRO/PI request. Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the 26 merits of his claim because the RMAP diet is not the GMO-free diet Plaintiff contends is required 27 by his religion. Expulsion from the RMAP diet would therefore not affect Plaintiff’s ability to 1 Similarly, because the RMAP diet does not fulfill the asserted dictates of Plaintiff’s religion, 2 requiring Plaintiff to abide by the restrictions in the RMAP diet does not treat Plaintiff differently 3 from Jewish and Muslim inmates and does not require Plaintiff to abide by another religion’s 4 requirements to receive a diet compliant with his religion. Finally, there is no Eighth Amendment 5 violation because Plaintiff does not need to stay in the RMAP diet to observe his religion. He can 6 therefore choose a different diet – or exit the RMAP diet – and supplement his diet with purchases 7 from the canteen and other vendors to meet his nutritional and health requirements. For the same 8 reason, expulsion from the RAMP diet would not cause him irreparable harm because the RAMP 9 diet does not satisfy his religion’s dietary requirements. Given that participation in the RAMP diet 10 is not necessary for Plaintiff to fulfill what he represents to be his religious dietary requirements 11 and expulsion from the RAMP diet would not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, the balance 12 of equities does not tip in Plaintiff’s favor and the TRO/PI would not serve the public interest. 13 Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a 14 temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from denying him 15 the ability to supplement the RMAP diet with non-Halal or non-Kosher food items from the prison 16 canteen or vendors. To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking a TRO/PI requiring prison officials to 17 provide him with a GMO-free diet, Plaintiff has not raised that claim in this action. This action 18 challenges Plaintiff’s inability to supplement the RMAP diet with non-Halal items. If Plaintiff 19 wishes to require prison officials to provide him with a GMO-free diet so that he may comply with 20 the dietary restrictions of his religion, he should amend the complaint accordingly. Plaintiff is 21 reminded that he must exhaust administrative remedies for any claims that he brings in a civil 22 rights action. 23 CONCLUSION 24 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a temporary 25 restraining order and preliminary injunction from denying him the ability to supplement his GMO- 26 free (RMAP) diet, that is required by his religion, with non-Halal or non-Kosher food items from 27 the prison canteen or vendors. Dkt. No. 17. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 |} Dated: 8/1/2022 3 Aapued 3 dll. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
© 15 16 & = 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28