Ricky Pendleton v. Betsy Jividen

96 F.4th 652

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2024
• Docket: 23-6334
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6334 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 1 of 12

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6334

RICKY VINCENT PENDLETON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

BETSY C. JIVIDEN, Commissioner WV Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation; CLARENCE J. RIDER, Religious Service Director, WV Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation; DONNIE AMES, Mount Olive Correctional Complex and Jail,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00178)

Argued: January 23, 2024 Decided: March 20, 2024

Before HEYTENS and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Heytens wrote the opinion, which Judge Benjamin and Judge Motz joined.

ARGUED: Helen E. White, MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Spencer James Davenport, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Samuel David Kinder Weiss, RIGHTS BEHIND BARS, Washington, D.C.; Ginger D. Anders, MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Patrick Morrisey, USCA4 Appeal: 23-6334 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 2 of 12

Attorney General, Lindsay S. See, Solicitor General, Michael R. Williams, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Jodi B. Tyler, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE WEST VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6334 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 3 of 12

TOBY HEYTENS, Circuit Judge:

An inmate in the West Virginia prison system brought statutory and constitutional

claims stemming from the denial of his request for a prison to accommodate his religious

dietary restrictions. Because the inmate’s pro se complaint states a claim for relief, we

vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.

I.

Ricky Pendleton follows the “Sufi Original Traditions” of Islam. His beliefs require

a diet that “aids in the purification of the mind, body and the reparation of [the]

mental/inner self ” and does so while promoting “compassion and harmlessness to l[i]ving

creatures.” JA 40. Pendleton says, according to those beliefs, he can eat “vegetables, fruits

and certain fish.” Id.

In 2014, however, prison officials introduced a new diet program for those with

religious dietary restrictions. Under that program, a single “religious special diet” is

served—one designed to meet the needs of all faiths by following the rules of the most

diet-restrictive ones. With all forms of meat off the table, the diet uses soy as its primary

protein source.

The problem is that Pendleton’s body has problems digesting soy. And—for reasons

more fully explained below, see Part III(A)(1), infra—Pendleton’s digestive issues are not

simply a matter of medicine or comfort. They also are of “religious significance.” JA 40.

Concluding he could eat neither the meat served as part of the regular diet nor the

soy served as part of the religious special diet, Pendleton made several tries to secure a

religiously appropriate and nutritionally complete diet. Pendleton sought a religious

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6334 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 4 of 12

accommodation. That request was denied. Later, Pendleton filed two grievances, asserting

that he was “being coerce[d] and substantially pressured . . . to eat soy texturized protein

which is forbidden in [his] way of life of Islam” and that this treatment violated his “First

Amendment rights” and “discriminated against . . . [his] religious dietary tenet.” JA 13, 64.

As relief, Pendleton asked “[t]o be severed from” the religious diet program. JA 13. Those

grievances were denied as well.

Using a form seemingly provided by the district court, Pendleton filed a pro se

complaint against three prison officials. In the space provided on the form, Pendleton

briefly summarized his allegations and asserted that the defendants’ actions violated—as

relevant here—“[his] first amendment rights to practice [his] sincerely held belief [s].”

JA 9. 1 At the end of a section captioned “statement of claim,” there is a handwritten note

that reads: “See Attached Memorandum of Law in Support of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; First

Amendment Violation, the Establishment Clause; RLUIPA Violation.” Id. Along with the

form, Pendleton filed a typewritten document labeled “Memorandum of Law” and 53 pages

of exhibits, including medical records, grievance forms, and an affidavit.

The defendants moved to dismiss, contending Pendleton failed to allege facts

showing the religious diet program substantially burdened his religious practice. While the

motion to dismiss was pending, Pendleton—still pro se—filed a motion asking again to be

“severed” from the diet program.

In a single opinion, the district court resolved both motions in the defendants’ favor.

1 The form also asserted Equal Protection and Establishment Clause violations. The district court dismissed those claims, and Pendleton does not renew them on appeal.

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6334 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 5 of 12

The court dismissed Pendleton’s complaint, concluding he had not adequately alleged he

was being forced to consume any foods forbidden by his religion. The district court

construed Pendleton’s motion to be severed from the dietary program as a request for

preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and it denied that motion because its dismissal

of Pendleton’s claims meant he had “not sufficiently established a right to his requested

injunctive relief.” JA 108.

Having secured counsel, Pendleton appeals both the dismissal of his complaint and

the denial of his motion to be severed from the diet program.

II.

Before addressing whether Pendleton has stated a claim on which relief can be

granted, we must resolve a dispute over what precisely we should be looking at in deciding

that question. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) says: “A pleading that states a claim

for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief.” The defendants appear to admit that the relevant “pleading” whose

sufficiency we are assessing is not limited to the pre-printed complaint form but also

includes the exhibits Pendleton filed with that form. But the defendants say it does not

include the memorandum of law Pendleton filed at the same time—even though that

memorandum is specifically referenced in Pendleton’s “Statement of Claim.” JA 9.

We disagree. Even when parties are represented by counsel, they may

“incorporate[ ]” other documents “into the complaint by reference.” Goines v. Valley Cmty.

Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016). And though Pendleton has a lawyer now, he

was proceeding pro se when he filed this lawsuit. Pendleton is thus entitled to “a liberal

5 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6334 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 6 of 12

construction of the documents he deposited with the clerk,” Allen v. Atlas Box & Crating

Co., 59 F.4th 145, 149 (4th Cir. 2023) (quotation marks removed), and we must not put too

much weight on the “legal label[s]” he used, Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381

(2003).

None of this is revolutionary. Indeed, courts routinely look beyond what pro se

litigants identify as their “complaint” and analyze the substance of any included documents

in considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 244 n.1 (4th Cir. 2017). We do the

same here.

III.

With that, we turn to the merits. We review the district court’s grant of a motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim de novo, applying the same standards as the district

court. See, e.g., Nadendla v. WakeMed, 24 F.4th 299, 304–05 (4th Cir. 2022). We review

the denial of both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for abuse of discretion.

See Frazier v. Prince George’s Cnty., 86 F.4th 537, 543 (4th Cir. 2023) (preliminary

injunction); Mayor of Baltimore v. Azar, 973 F.3d 258, 274 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc)

(permanent injunction). A ruling that rests on an error of law is necessarily an abuse of

discretion. See, e.g., Jordan v. Large, 27 F.4th 308, 311 (4th Cir. 2022). Applying those

standards here, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.

A.

The district court dismissed Pendleton’s RLUIPA claim because it concluded he had

not alleged “a substantial burden on the exercise of his religious beliefs.” JA 91. We

6 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6334 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 7 of 12

disagree.

RLUIPA forbids any “person acting under color of State law” from “impos[ing] a

substantial burden on” an incarcerated person’s “religious exercise” “unless the [defendant]

demonstrates that the imposition of the burden” “is in furtherance of a compelling

government interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that” interest. 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000cc-1(a), 2000cc-5(4)(A)(iii).

“RLUIPA itself does not define ‘substantial burden.’ ” Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d

174, 187 (4th Cir. 2006). Lacking a statutory definition, this Court has understood the

substantial burden requirement to be satisfied “when a state or local government, through

act or omission, puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to

violate his beliefs.” Id. (alterations and quotation marks removed). As relevant here, a

government imposes a substantial burden on religious practice when it puts a person

“between a rock and a hard place”—forcing them to choose between a government-

provided benefit and their religious convictions. Incumaa v. Stirling, 791 F.3d 517, 525

(4th Cir. 2015).

Pendleton has plausibly alleged that he faces exactly that predicament. Start with

the religious belief at issue. Pendleton alleges that, according to his religious beliefs, his

diet must primarily “aid[ ] in the purification of the mind, body and the reparation of [the]

mental/inner self ” and do so while promoting “compassion and harmlessness to l[i]ving

creatures.” JA 40. For that reason, Pendleton may not eat the standard diet because those

meals regularly include meat. But Pendleton claims his religious beliefs also prevent him

from eating the only special religious diet on offer. Although Pendleton’s religious beliefs

7 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6334 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 8 of 12

do not forbid consumption of soy as such, the complaint alleges that Pendleton experiences

vomiting, abdominal pain, constipation, and other digestive issues when he does so. And

this, the complaint asserts, is of “religious significance” to Pendleton because his inability

to properly digest soy renders such foods “Haram” for him. JA 40.

Pendleton also plausibly alleges that the defendants’ refusal to provide any other

dietary options imposes a substantial burden on those beliefs. “[I]n its most elemental

form,” RLUIPA provides an incarcerated person with the “right to a diet consistent with

his . . . religious scruples.’” Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 198–99 (quotation marks removed);

accord Carter v. Fleming, 879 F.3d 132, 140 (4th Cir. 2018) (RLUIPA implicated where

prison-provided diet “prevented” an inmate plaintiff “from complying with his religion’s

dietary requirements”). But, according to the complaint, Pendleton “cannot maintain an

adequate diet” because the defendants refuse to give him “a substitute” for the regular diet’s

meat or the religious diet’s soy, both of which his religious beliefs forbid him from

consuming. JA 73. Indeed, Pendleton alleges that he currently consumes—at most—about

60% of the calories per day that are available to other prisoners.

The rock against which Pendleton says the defendants have put him, then, is the

prospect of going without adequate food. That predicament is even more severe than the

substantial burden of choosing between government benefits and religious convictions.

See Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 187. Food is not a government “benefit” from which Pendleton

could choose to abstain. Because “society” has “take[n] from” Pendleton “the means to

provide for [his] own needs,” he is “dependent on the” defendants “for food.” Brown v.

Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 510 (2011).

8 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6334 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 9 of 12

The defendants say none of this matters because Pendleton does not allege that

“returning to the regular diet and avoiding meat would leave him malnourished.” Defs.

Br. 25. But neither Rule 8 nor RLUIPA requires a plaintiff—much less a pro se prisoner—

to incant magic words to adequately state a claim. Pendleton asserts that the current

circumstances leave him without “adequate nutrition” (JA 58), and that assertion is

plausible. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pendleton alleges that the

religious special diet uses soy as a protein source “95% of the time” and that meat is served

with most (if not all) meals for the regular diet. JA 67, 70–71. It is more than plausible that

subtracting a major component from a diet designed to be nutritionally sound would render

that diet no longer nutritionally sound.

Alternatively, the defendants suggest that Pendleton’s RLUIPA claim fails as a

matter of law because he could get nutritionally complete meals by avoiding the items to

which he has religious objections and then supplementing his diet by purchasing items

from the prison commissary. We firmly reject that notion.

To be sure, “RLUIPA does not require a State to pay for an inmate’s devotional

accessories” like holy books or prayer oils. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 720 n.8

(2005). But food is no accessory, and providing a religiously compliant diet is not optional.

Our sister circuits have repeatedly rejected claims that prison officials may escape liability

under RLUIPA because a plaintiff could, in theory, replace or supplement religiously

noncompliant meals through commissary purchases. See, e.g., Jones v. Carter, 915 F.3d

1147, 1150 (7th Cir. 2019) (“[W]hen the state forces a prisoner to give away his last dime

so that his daily meals will not violate his religious practice, it is imposing a substantial

9 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6334 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 10 of 12

burden.”); Moussazadeh v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just., 703 F.3d 781, 794 (5th. Cir. 2012)

(“Every prisoner [ ] receives a nutritionally sufficient diet. . . . [Plaintiff ] is denied that

benefit, because he is forced to pay for his [compliant] meals. This practice substantially

burdens his ability to exercise his religious beliefs.”). We reject any such argument as well.

Finally, the defendants insist that Pendleton could obtain a meat-free and soy-free

diet by obtaining test results showing he has a medically significant allergy to soy. And,

the defendants continue, because Pendleton has refused to submit to allergy testing and

because the medical testing that has been done suggests he does not have a soy allergy, he

has not plausibly alleged a substantial burden on his religious practice.

That argument fails too. Pendleton need not produce documentation of his alleged

soy allergy to survive a motion to dismiss. Instead, it is enough that he has plausibly alleged

that he cannot digest soy and that he suffered gastrointestinal distress after switching to the

religious special diet. More to the point, Pendleton does not assert he is religiously

forbidden only from eating foods to which he is allergic in a medical sense. Instead,

Pendleton claims that his religion requires him to avoid foods that he has trouble digesting

regardless of whether any resulting distress is medically significant or would be enough

for a doctor to tell him he should avoid soy for health reasons. Even if Pendleton took an

allergy test and that test was negative, it would not eliminate his religiously based

objections to eating soy. 2 For that reason, Pendleton has plausibly alleged a substantial

2 In truth, the defendants’ willingness to provide a soy-free diet to inmates with allergies makes the problem worse, not better. Saying Pendleton’s religiously based objections to eating soy will be accommodated only if he takes an allergy test is no more acceptable than telling religiously observant Jewish inmates they will be served shrimp

10 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6334 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 11 of 12

burden on his religious practices, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise.

B.

Our conclusion that the district court erred in dismissing Pendleton’s RLUIPA claim

resolves the other two issues in this appeal as well. As the defendants conceded at oral

argument, the district court’s rejection of Pendleton’s Free Exercise Clause claim was based

solely on its conclusion that Pendleton failed to establish a substantial burden for purposes

of his RLUIPA claim. See Oral Arg. 27:41–28:40. So too with the district court’s denial of

Pendleton’s request for injunctive relief, which relied on the court’s conclusion that

Pendleton’s “complaint does not plausibly state any violation of ” his constitutional or

statutory rights. JA 108.

Before this Court, the defendants offer several reasons why Pendleton’s Free

Exercise Clause claim and his motion to be severed from the prison’s diet program may

ultimately fail. Although we have the power to consider those alternative arguments for

affirmance, we remain “mindful that we are a court of review, not of first view.” Cutter,

544 U.S. at 718 n.7. We thus vacate the district court’s dismissal of Pendleton’s Free

Exercise Clause claim and its denial of his motion to sever and remand for further

proceedings, including consideration of any renewed motions for injunctive relief that

Pendleton may file.

* * *

unless they can produce evidence of a shellfish allergy. See, e.g., Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 367–68 (2015) (prison policy allowing beards for medical reasons but not for solely religious ones violated RLUIPA).

11 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6334 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/20/2024 Pg: 12 of 12

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

SO ORDERED