Brandon v. Kinter
| Decision Date | 06 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 9:13-cv-00939 (BKS/ATB) |
| Parties | CHAMMA K. BRANDON, Plaintiff, v. SUZANNE KINTER, LAWRENCE BEDARD, ROBERT WEBB, THOMAS PERRY, ERIC BLAISE, KEVIN LAURIN, and MARGARET CLANCY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
For Plaintiff: William S. Nolan Gabriella R. Levine Jennifer M Thomas Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP
For Defendants: April J. Laws Johnson & Laws, LLC
Plaintiff Chamma K. Brandon brings this action against the above-named Defendants, employees of Clinton County Jail (“CCJ”), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that during his 2012 incarceration, he was served meals containing pork in violation of his Muslim diet and retaliated against for filing grievances regarding his religious and medical diets. (Dkt. No. 17). Plaintiff pressed two claims at trial: (1) that Defendants Corrections Lieutenant Kevin Laurin, Registered Nurse and Healthcare Coordinator Suzanne Kinter, Corrections Sergeant Margaret Clancy, Food Service Manager Lawrence Bedard, and Corrections Officers Robert Webb and Thomas Perry violated Plaintiff's right to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment; and (2) that Defendants Lt. Laurin, Nurse Kinter, Sgt. Clancy, Bedard, and Corrections Officer Eric Blaise retaliated against Plaintiff for filing meal-related grievances in violation of the First Amendment. (Id.). The Court held a three-day bench trial at which Plaintiff and all Defendants, except Margaret Clancy,[1] testified.
After carefully considering the trial record, the credibility of the witnesses, and the submissions of the parties,[2] the Court finds Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) Lt. Laurin violated Plaintiff's First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion; (2) Officers Webb and Perry are entitled to qualified immunity; (3) Lt. Laurin and Nurse Kinter retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in conduct protected by the First Amendment; and (4) Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, and punitive damages are warranted. The Court further finds that Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) his free exercise claims against Nurse Kinter, Sgt. Clancy, and Bedard; and (2) his retaliation claims against Sgt. Clancy, Officer Blaise, and Bedard. The following constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Lt. Laurin was a “Corrections Lieutenant at CCJ whose duties included supervising corrections sergeants and the day-to-day activities throughout CCJ, as well as overseeing the grievance program at CCJ.” (Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation, ¶ 3(a)(vi)). Nurse Kinter, a registered nurse, “was the Jail Healthcare Coordinator whose duties included supervising Registered Nurses at CCJ and overseeing the medical treatment of inmates detained at CCJ.” (Id. ¶ 3(a)(viii)). Sgt. Clancy “was a Corrections Sergeant at CCJ whose duties included supervising Corrections Officers [and] documenting reports,” and assisting Lt. Laurin in overseeing the grievance program. (Id. ¶ 3(a)(vii); Trial Transcript, at 70 (“T. 70”)). Bedard “was the Food Service Manager at CCJ whose duties included supervising the cooks in the kitchen to make sure food was provided in compliance with the menu, recipes, and special diets that the inmates have on file with the kitchen.” (Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation, ¶ 3(a)(v)). Officers Webb, Perry, and Blaise were “Corrections Officer[s] whose duties included providing for the safety, security and order of the facility.” (Id. ¶¶ 3(a)(ix-xi)).
CCJ is a 300-bed facility that housed approximately 210 inmates in 2012, the time period relevant to this action. (T. 284). During the booking and intake process, the booking officer documented each inmate's religion, if any, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the inmate required a religious diet. (T. 293). If so, the booking officer would fill out a “Special Diet Notification” form for a religious diet and “physically bring that [form] to the kitchen.” (Dkt. No. 250, ¶ 12; T. 293-94, 446). A CCJ lieutenant, sergeant, and grievance coordinator were also authorized to fill out a Special Diet Notification form documenting an inmate's need for a religious diet. (Pl.'s Ex. 8; Defs.' Ex. 21; T. 343).[3] CCJ medical staff and facility nurses were responsible for approving medical diets and for notifying the kitchen of an inmate's need for a medical diet by sending a Diet Notification form specifying the medical diet to the kitchen. (T. 448).[4]
Inmates at CCJ received all their meals on trays that the kitchen staff delivered to them in their housing units, or “pods.” (T. 296-97). Unless the kitchen had been notified of a medical or religious diet, each inmate received a “regular” or “general population” meal. (T. 455). In addition to the general population diet, the CCJ kitchen prepared “approximately ten” special diets, including diabetic, lactose free, low fat/low cholesterol, low sodium, gluten-free, and “nopork” or religious diets. (Id.). Each day, to ensure each inmate received “the proper meal in [the] right area,” Bedard, as food service manager, reviewed the menu and the inmate housing report and prepared a list with each inmate's name, special diet, if any, and the inmate's pod. (T. 441-42). Bedard maintained inmate files and would place all special diet slips-religious or medical-in the inmate's file. (T. 293, 461).
Bedard, several cooks, and up to seven inmates worked in the kitchen. (T. 449). The cooks were responsible for making the meal designated by the menu that day-“whatever soup it is for the day, whatever sandwiches for that day,” for example. (T. 443). There was a “food line” in the kitchen, which Bedard described as “a conveyer-type line where the trays are placed on the conveyer from one end to the other end as the food is being served.” (T. 443). The cooks were responsible for placing the “main course” and other food items on the trays. (T. 444, 451). Bedard was “not always on [the] food line,” but he would, at times, work on the food line serving small items such as condiments, fruit, or a package of cookies. (T. 451). The inmate workers also served on the food line, and one inmate worker was “at the very end to put the trays into the cart” for delivery to the designated pod. (T. 443). Prior to each meal, “sticky note tabs” were prepared for each inmate receiving a special diet. (T. 444). The sticky notes listed the inmate's name and type of diet and were first placed above the food line and then onto the meal tray before the tray was placed onto the cart for delivery. (T. 444 ()).
Once the trays were placed onto the cart, a corrections officer and inmate worker would escort the cart to “particular pods.” (T. 43). The corrections officer in the pod would alert the inmates that meals had arrived and divide the inmates into two lines-“regular gen pop” and “special diet persons”-to receive their trays. (T. 44). If an inmate complained that his meal did not comply with a special diet, the pod corrections officer could check the inmate's file, a copy of which was contained “at the podium” in the inmate's pod, to verify the diet. (T. 487-88). The corrections officer could also call the kitchen, or send the tray back to the kitchen where Bedard or a cook would inspect the tray and, if the tray was not right, replace the incorrect item or the entire meal. (T. 451, 487-88).
Plaintiff, a born Muslim, grew up attending religious services with his father. (T. 35). The Quran prohibits Muslims from eating pork. (T. 38). Eating pork is “haram,” “a sin,” for which “you can be placed in hellfire.” (T. 39); see Brandon v. Kinter, 938 F.3d 21, 36 (2d Cir. 2019) . The practice of Islam also prohibits the eating of pork products, or “anything associated” with pork. (T. 39). For this reason, not only is the handling of pork prohibited, but a plate of food containing pork and non-pork products is considered contaminated and inedible. (T. 39).
Plaintiff was booked into CCJ twice during 2012. During all time periods relevant to this action, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee. Plaintiff's first stay at CCJ was from January 14, 2012 until March 2, 2012. (Pl.'s Ex. 5; Defs.' Ex. 2; T. 42, 191). No religion is noted on Plaintiff's January 12 booking sheet. (Pl.'s Ex. 5; Defs.' Ex. 2). “On January 14, 2012, Plaintiff was issued a ‘no shellfish diet' at CCJ.” (Joint Pre-trial Stipulation, ¶ 3(a)(xii)). Plaintiff did not request religious, no-pork meals during this stay. (T. 41-42). If Plaintiff received a meal with pork in it, he did not complain but he would not eat the meal, either. (T. 41-42). Some form of pork, i.e., sausage, ribs, salami, bologna, was featured on the menu for the general population diet two to four times each week. (T. 48-49, 72-73; Pl.'s Exs. 1, 2).
On March 2, 2012, Plaintiff was “released,” though for reasons that are not relevant here, he was never “physically” “released” from the facility, and he was, instead, arrested and booked into CCJ a second time. (T. 42, 191). Plaintiff's March 2 booking sheet lists his religion as Muslim. (Defs.' Ex. 3). However, the booking officer,...
To continue reading
Request your trial