Barrett v. Brown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

ANTHONY LOGAN BARRETT PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:20-CV-02025

SHERIFF RON BROWN DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2011), the Honorable P. K. Holmes, III, United

States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and

Recommendation. Currently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

(ECF Nos. 27-29).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his complaint on February 27, 2020. (ECF No. 1). His application to proceed

in forma pauperis (IFP) was granted that same day pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act

(“PLRA”). (ECF No. 3). On April 2, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended

Complaint, which he did on April 8, 2020. (ECF Nos. 6, 7). Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in

the Oklahoma State Reformatory in Granite, Oklahoma. Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights

were violated by Defendant during his incarceration in the Crawford County Justice Center

(“CCJC”) in Crawford County, Arkansas. (ECF No. 7).

Plaintiff alleges his right to practice his religion of Islam was violated on January 30, 2020.

(ECF No. 7 at 4). He also alleges that on February 7, 2020, he was exposed to a deadly disease

when was put in a cell with a man who had HIV and TB. (ECF No. 7 at 6).

First, Plaintiff alleges that his First Amendment right to practice his religion was violated

because the Defendant failed to provide him with a Quran or Kosher meals. (ECF No. 7 at 4). He

claims the library provides Bibles for Christian inmates but does not provide the Quran for Muslim

inmates. (Id.). He acknowledges that a pocket-sized Quran was placed for sale in the commissary,

but he alleges he should not have to pay for a Quran when others do not have to pay for Bibles.

(ECF. No. 9 at 1). He states that the staff claimed the facility is a Kosher facility, but he was

offered bologna and vegan meals. (ECF No. 7 at 4). He also alleges that although the kitchen

provides vegan meals, they are not true Kosher meals. (ECF No. 7 at 5).

Second, Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to deadly diseases when he was placed in the

same holding unit with a man who claimed to have HIV and TB. (ECF No. 7 at 5). Plaintiff

claims that during this time he had an open wound in his mouth, and he had yet to receive an HIV

or TB test even though he had requested them. (Id.). Plaintiff claims that placing an inmate who

claims to have TB in a unit that is not quarantined is dangerous to the other inmates at the facility.

(ECF No. 7 at 6).

Plaintiff proceeds against Defendant in his official capacity for both claims. (ECF No. 7

at 4-5). He seeks compensatory damages. (ECF No. 7 at 7).

Defendant filed a Summary Judgment Motion on November 19, 2020. (ECF Nos. 27-29).

On November 20, 2020, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file a Response to the

Motion. (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff filed his Response on December 16, 2020. (ECF No. 32).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), the record “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

“Once a party moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with

the non-moving party to set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a

genuine issue of material fact exists.” National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., 165

F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 1999).

The non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical

doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. “They must show there is sufficient

evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor.” National Bank, 165 F.3d at 607 (citing Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). “A case founded on speculation or suspicion is

insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment.” Id. (citing Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d

621, 625 (8th Cir. 1985)). “When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is

blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not

adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott

v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Denial of Quran and Kosher Meals

Plaintiff claims his First Amendment rights were violated when the Defendant failed to

provide him with a Quran and Kosher meals. (ECF No. 7 at 4).

Inmates retain protections under the First Amendment, including its directive that no law

shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987).

“The free exercise right is limited insofar as a prisoner’s adherence to religious practices may be

regulated by prison authorities, so long as such regulations are ‘reasonably related to legitimate

penological interests.’” Murphy v. Carroll, 202 F. Supp. 2d 421, 424 (D. Md. 2002) (quoting

Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987); O’Lone, 482 U.S. at 348–349; Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S.

319, 321-22 (1972). Under the Free Exercise Clause, a Plaintiff must first raise a material question

of fact regarding whether a substantial burden was placed on his ability to practice his religion.

Weir v. Nix, 114 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 1997). A substantial burden “must significantly inhibit

or constrain conduct or expression that manifests some central tenet of a person’s individual

religious beliefs; must meaningfully curtail a person’s ability to express adherence to his or her

faith; or must deny a person reasonable opportunities to engage in those activities that are

fundamental to a person’s religion.” Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807, 813 (8th Cir.

2008). Providing a prisoner with the opportunity to purchase an item for his religious practice

does not restrict the prisoner from practicing his religion. Id. at 811.

Here, Plaintiff claims his First Amendment rights were violated when the Defendant failed

to provide him with a copy of the Quran. Crawford County Justice Center’s policy provides

religious texts free of charge only when these texts are donated; otherwise, they are available for

purchase through the commissary. Plaintiff was not denied religious texts because a Quran was

made available to him for purchase through the commissary. Additionally, Plaintiff did receive a

Quran as soon as one was donated.

For a First Amendment claim based on failure to provide a prisoner with Halal meat to

succeed, a prisoner must show that the defendant placed a substantial burden on his ability to

practice his religion. Pratt v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 267 F. App’x 482, 482-84 (8th Cir. 2008).

The Eighth Circuit has held that a prison’s meal plan regulations do not substantially burden a

Muslim inmate’s free exercise rights where the inmate had access to only vegetarian entrees. See

Patel, 515 F.3d at 814 (finding that a Muslim prisoner’s ability to practice his religion was not

substantially burdened when he had access to vegetarian entrees, and some of those entrees he had

to pay for himself); Pratt, 267 F. App’x at 482-83 (no claim under First Amendment, RFRA or

RLUIPA when Muslim inmate provided vegetarian meals with no access to Halal meat). Other

circuits have held that a prisoner who receives vegetarian or vegan meals that do not violate his

religion is not entitled to be served Kosher or Halal entrees. See Robinson v. Jackson, 615 F.

App’x 310 (6th Cir. 2015); Lineham v. Crosby, 346 F. App’x 471 (11th Cir. 2009); Williams v.

Morton, 343 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2003); Abdullah v. Fard, 173 F.3d 854 (6th Cir. 1999).

Here, Plaintiff was provided with vegan meals as well as meals that meet the standard

approved by the Chicago Rabbinical Council.1 Plaintiff does not show that he was substantially

burdened by having to eat vegan meals. Even if Plaintiff was not provided with meals that met

the Chicago Rabbinical Council Standard, the availability of vegan or vegetarian meals is

sufficient to show that Plaintiff was not substantially burdened. Plaintiff’s access to vegan or

vegetarian entrees does not substantially burden his free exercise rights.

Plaintiff fails to show his ability to practice his religion has been substantially burdened

when a Quran was available for purchase in the commissary, and he was provided with a free

Quran when a copy was donated. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to show his ability to practice his

religion has been substantially burdened when he was provided with vegetarian and vegan meal

options. There is no question of material fact that Plaintiff was provided with vegetarian or vegan

meal options, had the option of purchasing a Quran, and was provided with a free Quran as soon

as one came available. Summary judgment in Defendant’s favor on this claim is appropriate.

B. Exposure to Tuberculosis and HIV

Plaintiff next alleges he was exposed to deadly diseases when he was placed in a holding

unit with a man who claimed to have HIV and TB. (ECF No. 7 at 5). More specifically, Plaintiff

alleges he was placed in a holding unit with a man who claimed to have HIV and TB while Plaintiff

1 Companies successfully certified by the Chicago Rabbinical Council are provided with a document certifying that

the products used are kosher-certified. A Basic Overview of Kosher, https://crckosher.org/a-basic-overview-of-

kosher/ (last visited April 22, 2021).

had an open wound in his mouth, and that he was denied medical testing for TB and HIV when

requested. (Id.).

Eighth Amendment claims consist of both an objective and a subject element. See Revels

v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 875 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)).

“The defendant’s conduct must objectively rise to the level of a constitutional violation by

depriving the plaintiff of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. The defendant’s

conduct must also reflect a subjective state of mind evincing deliberate indifference to the health

or safety of the prisoner.” Revels, 382 F.3d at 875 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Deliberate indifference is established when the Plaintiff shows “the defendant was substantially

aware of but disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Revels, 382 F.3d at 875.

The standards against which a court measures prison conditions are “the evolving standards of

decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976).

As is the case with all Eighth Amendment claims, a prisoner must suffer some actual injury to

receive compensation, and the injury must be greater than de minimis. Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d

441, 448 (8th Cir. 2008).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that he was put into a pod with a man who claimed to have TB and

HIV when he asked not to be placed there. Although Plaintiff alleges he may have been exposed

to TB and HIV, the summary judgment record shows Plaintiff never actually contracted either TB

or HIV. Vague statements that Plaintiff was exposed to TB and HIV are insufficient to raise a

question of material fact concerning an alleged exposure to either disease. See McLanahan, 2016

WL 520983, at *6 (citing Chavarriaga v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 806 F.3d 210, 222 (3d Cir. 2015).

There is no evidence that shows Plaintiff was injured by TB or HIV.

There is no genuine issue of material fact concerning Plaintiff’s claim that he was exposed

to TB or HIV when he was placed in a holding unit with a man who claimed to have TB and HIV,

and Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this claim as a matter of law.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is recommended that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF

No. 27) be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7), as supplemented

(ECF Nos. 8, 9, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21), be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 27th day of April 2021.

/s/

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE