Griffin v. Engelke
| Decision Date | 13 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 7:20CV00195 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
| Parties | CARL W. GRIFFIN, Plaintiff, v. MARK ENGELKE, et al., Defendants. |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Carl W. Griffin, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action against two defendants, Mark Engelke, the Director of Food Services, and "John or Jane Doe, Corrections Operations Administrator Legislative Liaison," now identified as J. Fritz. In his complaint, Griffin refers to himself as an Afrikan Hebrew Israelite and a Black Orthodox Jew, and he alleges that his religious beliefs require him to observe an Orthodox Jewish diet. He complains that at Red Onion, where he was housed at the time he filed his complaint,2 he was denied that diet and instead was told that the "Common Fare" diet offered by the Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC") met his faith requirements. He asserts claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, et seq., and a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights.
Pending before the court and addressed in this opinion are two motions: (1) a motion for preliminary injunction filed by Griffin; and (2) a motion to dismiss filed by Fritz. For the reason set forth herein, the court will deny the motion for preliminary injunction and deny the motion to dismiss. The court also will give defendants a deadline for filing any summary judgment motion supported by affidavits.3 If no such motion is filed, Griffin's claims will be set for trial.
Much of Griffin's complaint is devoted to background information about his religion. With regard to his dietary beliefs, he explains that he must eat a diet consisting of "kasrut,4 the body of Jewish dietary law through Rabbinical blessing." Compl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 1. In his complaint, his motion for preliminary injunction, and in affidavits he has filed, Griffin also explains some of the requirements of his religious diet, see, e.g., ECF No 34, although it is unnecessary to detail those here. In essence, though, he contends that his religion requires an Orthodox Jewish diet. See id. ¶¶ 12-15.
For their part, defendants state that "[u]pon information and belief, the Common Fare diet offered by Red Onion is considered [k]ashrut" and meets "the religious requirements as detailed in" Griffin's complaint. ECF No. 27 at 3. But Griffin disputes this. He insists that the "only safeguard" for him to know that his food is "ritualistically clean" is for it to be on a "sealed tray with a rabbinical stamp and the uncut fruit and vegetables." ECF No. 34 at 9.He further contends that the Common Fare diet does not satisfy his religious requirements because the kitchen where the food is prepared is not "ritualistically clean" and because prisoners working there do not adhere to kashrut standards. Id.
Defendants emphasize, though, that Griffin does not observe kosher dietary practices when given the choice. Specifically, defendants' response to Griffin's motion for preliminary injunction contains affidavit and documentary evidence showing that, from September 2019 through June 2020, when they filed their response, Griffin bought numerous non-kosher items from the commissary.5 These non-kosher items included, for example, various types of chips, candy, a product called "Texas beef ramen soup," chili with beans, hot and spicy summer sausage, and sliced pepperoni. Based on this, they contend that, in addition to what they call a "misunderstanding" about his religious dietary needs and the Common Fare's standards, ECF No. 27 at 3, there is doubt as to whether his religious beliefs about needing a kosher diet are sincere.
Griffin first requested to be placed on an Orthodox Jewish diet in October 2019. Defendant Engelke, VDOC's Director of Food Services, denied his request in a written memorandum that said:
I am denying your request because it does not meet the standard to be on the diet. Based on the information you submitted, the Common Fare diet will meet your requirements. You may appeal the decision through the Offender Grievance Procedure.
ECF No. 1-1 at 2. Griffin focuses heavily on the fact that the alleged "standard" is not defined, and he later sent a letter to Engelke inquiring about the "standard," to which he apparentlyreceived no response. Compl. ¶¶ 56-62. He also complains that Engelke's response was a "form" response, identical to the one sent to other offenders making the same request. ECF No. 1-1 at 7-12 ().
After receiving the memorandum from Engelke, Griffin filed a regular grievance, and Red Onion's Warden deemed the grievance "unfounded," stating that "Mr. Engelke is the final authority." Id. at 5. Griffin appealed to Level II, where defendant Fritz upheld the warden's decision. Mr. Fritz also explained that "[f]urther investigation determined certified Common Fare/Kosher produces are stored, prepared, and served separately from non-kosher produces except fresh vegetables and fruits." ECF No. 1-1 at 6.
This lawsuit followed. As noted, Griffin asserts that defendants' denial of his requested diet violated his rights under both RLUIPA and the First Amendment, and it continues to do so.
Griffin seeks a preliminary injunction directing defendants to provide him an Orthodox Jewish diet. Preliminary injunctive relief is an "extraordinary" remedy that courts should grant only "sparingly." Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 816 (4th Cir. 1991). The party seeking the preliminary injunction must demonstrate that: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits at trial; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 22 (2008); League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 249 (4th Cir. 2014). Theremedy may be granted only on a "clear showing" of entitlement to relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. Critically, the movant must satisfy all four requirements to obtain preliminary injunctive relief. Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342, 345-46 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1089 (2010). Also, Griffin seeks a mandatory injunction, in that he asks to change the status quo, and mandatory injunctions are "disfavored[] and warranted only in the most extraordinary circumstances." In re Microsoft Antitrust Litig., 333 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2003).
Turning to the first Winter factor, the likelihood of success on the merits, the court notes that, to establish either his First Amendment claim or his RLUIPA claim, Griffin will need to show that the denial of the Orthodox Jewish diet substantially burdens his ability to practice in accordance with his sincerely held religious beliefs. Incumaa v. Stirling, 791 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2015) (RLUIPA); Carter v. Fleming, 879 F.3d 132, 139 (4th Cir. 2018) (First Amendment). Given plaintiff's repeated non-kosher purchases at the commissary, there is at least a dispute as to whether his religious beliefs are sincerely held and qualify for protection under RLUIPA and the First Amendment. Notably, moreover, he has not filed anything explaining his non-kosher commissary purchases.
Instead, in Griffin's "response" to defendant's answer—which is not a permitted pleading but which the court has nonetheless reviewed and considered—Griffin states that there are "some prisoners" who have been approved for an Orthodox Jewish diet despite previously ordering non-kosher food from the commissary. He also provides affidavits from two so stating. ECF No. 30-1. Griffin thus contends that relying on his prior purchases to deny him a kosher diet is "arbitrary." He also argues that the mere fact that he has eaten non-kosher food does not mean that his belief and desire for a kosher diet is insincere. Instead, his religion teaches that his actions simply show that he is a sinner who "must struggle to live up right." ECF No. 29 at 8.
Shabazz v. Johnson, No. 3:12CV282, 2015 WL 4068590, at *10 (E.D. Va. July 2, 2015).
For support of his assertion that it does not matter that he purchases non-kosher meals, Griffin cites to several cases, but they do not convince this court that his regular non-kosher purchases are irrelevant. For example, he relies on Kuperman v. New Hampshire Dep't of Corr., No. 06-CV-420-JD, 2007 WL 1200092 (D.N.H. Apr. 18,...
To continue reading
Request your trial