Walker v Scott
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and civilly committed at Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility, brought the present lawsuit pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon the refusal to provide Plaintiff with a diet that complied with his religious beliefs. The matter comes before the Court for ruling on the Defendants' respective motions for summary judgment (Docs. 26, 28).
Plaintiff is civilly committed at Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility ("Rushville" or "TDF"), and has been a member of the Islamic faith since 1987. As a Muslim, Plaintiff believes that he is "required to eat all of the things God commands [him] to eat." Pl. Dep. 58:1-4. This includes, among other things, meat prepared in accordance with Islamic law, and the avoidance of certain foods, including pork, foods contaminated with pork, and processed food products. Foods that meet these requirements are referred to as "Halal."
Plaintiff made several requests to be served a Halal diet to comply with the requirements of his faith. In the alternative, Plaintiff requested the Kosher diet served to Jewish residents as, according to his interpretation of the Koran and his own inquiry into the diet served at Rushville, Kosher and Halal diets were similar in both the types of foods allowed and the manner in which they are prepared.
These requests were denied on the following basis: "[Defendant] Billingsley [the Religious Coordinator] has spoken with several religious coordinators from other facilities and they indicate that the Kosher diet . . . [is] a direct violation of the Koran. The lacto vegan diet is what [Muslim inmates] receive in [the Illinois Department of Corrections]." (Doc. 29-5). Accordingly, Plaintiff was given a choice between being served the standard diet, which included those foods proscribed by Plaintiff's religious beliefs; and the lacto-ovo vegan or vegetarian diet ("vegetarian diet"), which lacks foods Plaintiff believes he is required to eat (Halal meat).
Plaintiff's requests for a Kosher diet were denied because he does not identify as a member of the Jewish faith. (Doc. 29-7).
... ... ...
For the reasons discussed above, genuine issues of material fact exist with regards to whether the Defendants' denial of Plaintiff's request for a religious diet violates Plaintiff's rights as enumerated under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the First Amendment. Therefore, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1) Defendant Dredge's Motion for Summary Judgment [26] is DENIED. Defendants Scott, Billingsley, Blaesing, Houzenga, and Winters Motion for Summary Judgment [28] is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Defendants' Motion [28] is GRANTED in full as to Defendant Winters, and DENIED as to all other Defendants. Clerk is directed to dismiss Defendant Winters with prejudice. Defendant Scott is dismissed with regard to Plaintiff's First Amendment Claims.
2) A final pretrial conference is scheduled for January 20, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.. The Plaintiff shall appear by video conference and the Defendants' attorney(s) shall appear in person before the court sitting in Springfield, Illinois. The clerk is to issue a writ for the Plaintiff's participation in the video conference.
3) The Court will send out proposed jury instructions and intends to ask the standard voir dire questions published on the Court's website (ilcd.uscourts.gov/local rules and orders/orders and rules by Judge/Judge Myerscough/General Voir Dire Procedure). By December 16, 2015, the parties shall file: 1) an agreed proposed pretrial order; 2) alternate or additional jury instructions (no duplicates); 3) motions in limine; and, (4) additional voir dire questions (not duplicative of the Court's). All proposed instructions shall be clearly marked, identifying the party, the number, and whether the instruction is additional or alternate (i.e., Pl.'s 1, additional; Pl.'s 2, alternate to Court's 3).
4) The Plaintiff and Defendants shall appear in person at trial. Residents of Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility who are not parties to this case shall appear by video conference and Rushville TDF employees who are not parties may also appear by video conference at trial. Other nonparty witnesses may appear by video at the court's discretion. Therefore, the proposed pretrial order must include: (1) the name, resident number and place of incarceration for each inmate to be called as a witness; (2) the name and place of employment for each Department of Human Services employee to be called as a witness; and, (3) the names and addresses of any witnesses who are not residents or employees for whom a party seeks a trial subpoena. The party seeking the subpoena must provide the necessary witness and mileage fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.
5) A jury trial is scheduled for February 9, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. at the U.S. Courthouse in Springfield, Illinois. No writs to issue at this time.
