Hayes v. Bruno

• Decision Date: 21 March 2016
• Docket Number: Civil No. 3:14-cv-1203 (AWT)
• Citation: 171 F.Supp.3d 22
• Parties: Steven J. Hayes, Plaintiff, v. Anthony Bruno, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

171 F.Supp.3d 22

Steven J. Hayes, Plaintiff,

v.Anthony Bruno, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 3:14-cv-1203 (AWT)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Signed March 21, 2016

Steven J. Hayes, Somers, CT, pro se.

Madeline A. Melchionne, Attorney General's Office, Steven R. Strom, Office of the Attorney General, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. #72] AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Doc. #91]

Alvin W. Thompson

, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Steven Hayes commenced this action by complaint against defendants Anthony Bruno, Edward Maldonado, Angel Quiros, Karl Lewis, Monica Rinaldi and Michael Bibens. He alleges that the defendants have denied him a kosher diet in violation of his religious beliefs. He asserts claims under the First and Eighth Amendments and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.

The defendants have moved for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the defendants' motion is being granted.

I. Legal Standard

A motion for summary judgment may be granted only where there are no issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(a), Fed. R. Civ. P

.; In re Dana Corp., 574 F.3d 129, 151 (2d Cir.2009). The moving party may satisfy his burden “by showing—that is pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. Coca – Cola Co., 315 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir.2002) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Once the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir.2009). He must present such evidence as would allow a jury to find in his favor in order to defeat the motion for summary judgment. Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.2000).

The nonmoving party “must offer some hard evidence showing that its version is not wholly fanciful.” D'Amico v. City of New York, 132 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir.1998)

. In addition, where the parties offer contradictory versions of the facts, one of which is “blatantly contradicted by the record,” the court should not adopt the unsupported version when ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007).

II. Factual Background¹

The plaintiff is confined at Northern Correctional Institution. Rabbi Robert Schectman is an ordained rabbi. He was employed as a Jewish Chaplain by the Department of Correction for over fourteen years, until he retired on May 1, 2013. His duties included providing religious services to Jewish inmates and consulting with the Director of Religious Services on Jewish religious issues, such as kosher dietary requirements. Rabbi Schectman also consulted with and advised the Director of Food Services regarding kosher requirements for foods and food products. Rabbi Schectman personally observes kosher dietary laws and has provided affidavits to the court on this subject on prior occasions. Rabbi Schectman has spoken with the plaintiff on numerous occasions during the plaintiff's incarceration.

Rabbi Schectman is familiar with the Common Fare meal program. He developed the program in conjunction with the Islamic chaplains and expert dietary officials. He was responsible for on-going compliance and monitoring issues relating to the Common Fare menu for over thirteen years. Periodically, Rabbi Schectman visited the production kitchen at York Correctional Institution and the kitchens in other correctional facilities. He inspected the kitchens and reviewed policies and procedures, food labels and kitchen operations. He also conferred with correctional food service supervisors and the Islamic expert who accompanied him on site visits.

All of the foods included on the Common Fare menu may be eaten by kosher inmates. Rabbi Schectman's duties included on-going monitoring for compliance with kosher dietary requirements. He is familiar with the requirements to maintain a kosher kitchen, including the requirement that all kosher items be kept separate and apart from non-kosher items. This separation extends to storage, handling, preparation and service. Rabbi Schectman has worked with the former and current Directors of Food Services regarding production of Common Fare meals. After reviewing the Common Fare menu and production kitchen, Rabbi Schectman advised Father Bruno, the Director of Religious Services, and the two Directors of Food Service, that the Common Fare menu, as produced in the Connecticut Department of Correction kitchens conforms to kosher requirements. Rabbi Schectman states that, in his opinion, to a reasonable degree of professional certainty the Common Fare meals provided to kosher inmates are prepared in a manner that maintains adequate separation of food groups and are in compliance with kosher dietary requirements.

Rabbi Praver, an ordained rabbi, is the current Jewish Chaplain for the Department of Correction. He assumed this position in October 2013. He provides religious services to Jewish inmates and consults with the Director of Religious Services on Jewish religious issues, including kosher dietary requirements. He also consults with the Director of Food Services regarding kosher requirements for foods and food production.

Rabbi Praver personally observes Jewish kosher dietary law. He is familiar with the Common Fare program, has inspected the production kitchen at York Correctional Institution, and has reviewed the procedures, menus and food labels on all items in the Common Fare program. On May 19, 2015, Rabbi Praver inspected the kitchen at Northern Correctional Institution and observed the food preparation and assembly of the individual meals that would be delivered to inmates at Northern Correctional Institution in individual styrofoam trays. He viewed the separate Common Fare food preparation area and the separate Common Fare refrigerator. He also inspected food labels, including the label for the kosher cheese used in the cheese sandwiches provided on the Common Fare menu.

Rabbi Praver observed that the dedicated Common Fare food production area has stainless steel surfaces. The pots and pans used to prepare Common Fare meals are all stainless steel as well. This area is separate from the Master menu food preparation area. The area is sterilized and washed with powerful chemicals prior to any food preparation. Rabbi Praver observed and confirmed that all Common Fare items were kept separate from items used in preparing food for the Master menu. The Common Fare trays were prepared first, placed in closed styrofoam containers and placed on the top shelves of the food serving carts to prevent contamination from food in the regular trays. The inmates working in the kitchen are properly trained in the need to keep Common Fare separate.

As part of his duties, Rabbi Praver monitors issues regarding the Common Fare menu and ensures compliance with all requirements as requested by the Director of Food Services. Periodically, Rabbi Praver inspects the production kitchens at York Correctional Institution to monitor the administration of the Common Fare policies, procedures and operations. He conducts these inspections on a random and unannounced basis to ensure compliance with Jewish dietary requirements. This level of supervision, called Hashgacha yotzei V'niknas, is an acceptable level of supervision of kosher food establishments, including jails and prisons. All rabbis working in the Department of Correction are authorized to supervise the kitchen in any correctional facility in which they are working on a random basis without prior notice.

In Rabbi Praver's opinion, the food served on the Common Fare menu is acceptable for inmates seeking to maintain a kosher diet in accordance with Jewish dietary law.² Rabbi Praver has inspected the food labels and food products used for Common Fare meals. He has consulted with the Chief of Food Services and ensured that the foods used complied with kosher dietary requirements.

Rabbi Praver avers that the requirement for tevila, or immersion, of kitchen vessels only applies to items owned by Jewish persons. As the Department of Correction is not a person of Jewish faith, the requirement does not apply. He has seen and approved the sanitization process used in the Northern Correctional Institution kitchen as acceptable for kosher food preparation.

Defendant Michael Bibens is the Chief of Food Services for the Department of Correction. He has held that position since 2007. The plaintiff receives regular food trays instead of choosing to eat the kosher foods on the Common Fare menu. For example, on May 19, 2015, the plaintiff chose to eat the regular menu for lunch. The meal included chicken hot dogs, vegetarian baked beans, sauerkraut, two slices of bread, mustard and milk. The Common Fare alternative did not include meat. Instead it included cheese sandwiches made with kosher cheese. The Common Fare menu does not include meat. Protein is provided by fish, cheese and other items. The Common Fare menu is nutritionally equivalent to the regular menu and contains only kosher items. Although Rabbi Praver has reviewed all Common Fare food items and determined that they are acceptable for inmates choosing to eat kosher meals, the plaintiff has elected to receive the regular menu which includes items that are not kosher.

As recently as May 2015, the kitchen at Northern Correctional Institution was inspected and monitored to ensure there is no cross-contamination. The plaintiff has never been in the kitchen at Northern Correctional Institution and has no personal knowledge to support his allegations of cross-contamination in the kitchen. Common Fare meals are prepared first. The preparation is in a separate area of the kitchen and...