Hall v. Klemm, Civil Action No. 15-20 E
| Decision Date | 01 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 15-20 E |
| Parties | ERIC WILDCAT HALL, Plaintiff, v. REV. ULRICH KLEMM, Administrator for Religion, Volunteer, and Recreational Services, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that Defendants' motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 34] be denied. It is further recommended that Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 38] be granted as to the issue of Defendants' liability under Counts I and II of the complaint.
This civil action was filed by Plaintiff Eric Wildcat Hall, an inmate at SCI-Forest, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc-1 et seq. In this action, Plaintiff seeks redress for violations of his rights under the First Amendment and RLUIPA which allegedly occurred when the Defendants denied his requests for a modified Kosher diet. According to Plaintiff, the Defendants' denial was based on: (a) their personal perceptions that the diet he requested was inconsistent with his professed religion, and (b) the Department of Corrections' blanket prohibition on providing a kosher diet to individuals of non-Jewish faiths.
Plaintiff is an inmate who was previously incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Albion ("SCI-Albion"). He is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Forest ("SCI-Forest"). (PSMF ¶1.)1
At times relevant to this lawsuit, Defendant Shawn Kephart ("Kephart") was the Director of the Bureau of Treatment Services ("BTS") for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC"). (PSMF ¶4.) As BTS Director, Kephart's job duties included overseeing the BTS's treatment division, which includes all religious programming. (Id. ¶5.)
Defendant Reverend Ulrich Klemm ("Klemm") is the DOC's Religion, Volunteer, and Recreational Services Program Director. (PSMF ¶2.) Klemm's job duties include overseeing religious programming within all of the DOC's institutions, drafting and revising the DOC's Religious Accommodation Policy, and administering the Religious Accommodations Review Committee ("RARC"). (Id. ¶3.)
Defendant Reverend John Dugan ("Dugan")2 was, at times relevant to this lawsuit, the Facility Chaplaincy Program Director ("FCPD") at SCI-Albion. (PSMF ¶6.) Defendant Reverend Glenn McQuown ("McQuown") is and was the FCPD at SCI-Forest. (Id. ¶7.) The FCPD's job duties include supervising all religious department staff, handling religious accommodation requests, and coordinating all permitted religious services, activities, and programs within the facility. (Id. ¶8.)
Plaintiff is an individual who identifies as Native American with Arapaho, Cherokee, and Seneca tribal ancestry. (PSMF ¶¶ 9, 10.) He was not raised within the confines of a tribal community and does not profess to be an expert on the heritage of the Arapaho, Cherokee, and Seneca tribes. (Hall Dep. at 9:13-17, ECF No. 41-6.) He admits that, while incarcerated at SCI-Albion, he did not participate in any of the religious programming offered, and he quit going to cultural classes at SCI-Forest. (PSMF ¶ 11; Hall Dep. at 9:13-17, 32:4-6, 33:4-7.) However, he claims to practice his faith independently by praying, burning sage and tobacco, and reading books by Native American authors. (Hall Dep. at 33:12-34:11.) He attends religious services at SCI-Forest when they are offered. (Id. at 30:10-25.)
A central tenet of Plaintiff's faith is that all animate and inanimate things, such as plants and animals, have a divine spirit which can be transferred to objects and people. (PSMF ¶12.) He believes that respect and thankfulness should be given to the spirit of the dietary food source, whether plant or animal. (Id. ¶13.) Plaintiff further states that animals should be treated humanely, with a prayer and offering of thanks being made to the spirit of an animal before and after taking its life; without humane treatment and a prayer and offering of thanks, the divine spirit is not properly respected and is placed into a state of anger and turmoil. (Id. ¶¶14-15.) Plaintiff views modern industrial animal breeding and slaughtering processes as inhumane in their treatment of animals; he feels these practices fail to show proper respect for the animal's divine spirit. (Id. ¶16.) Plaintiff believes that, when he consumes animal product from an animal that was not appropriately respected, its angry spirit will transfer to him and negatively impact his body and mind; this can include situations where he consumes food prepared with the same utensils or cookware that were used in connection with food product from a disrespected animal.(Id. ¶¶18-20.) Recognizing that the realities of incarceration prevent him from raising his own food and ensuring that the animals he consumes have received proper respect, Plaintiff believes his religion compels him to maintain a vegan lifestyle. (Id. ¶¶21-22.)
The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections employs a Religious Activities Procedures Manual ("DC-ADM 819"), to address requests by prisoners for religious accommodations. (Pl.'s Ex. G, ECF No. 41-7.) When an inmate requests a "non-grooming" religious accommodation, the first step he or she must take is to complete and submit a "Religious Accommodation Request Form-Non-Grooming Form." (PSMF ¶23.)
According to DC-ADM 819, the FCPD must schedule an interview with the inmate within twenty working days thereafter regarding the request. (Pl.'s Ex. G at 4-9 to 4-10, ECF No. 41-7 at 63-64.) After interviewing the inmate, the FCPD makes a recommendation as to whether to grant the request and circulates that recommendation to representatives of various departments within the facility -- including the Major of the Guard, Corrections Care Program Manager, and Facility Manager -- for their approval. (Id. ¶26.) All religious diet and other food-related accommodation requests must also be reviewed and approved by the Food Service Manager. (Id. ¶27.) In assessing the sincerity of the inmate's request, the FCPD considers a number of factors, including the inmate's religious practice both prior to and during incarceration, his knowledge of the faith, any changing of faiths, some demonstration of his beliefs in a consistent way, and his explanation as to how the requested accommodation will further the faith practice. (PSMF ¶25.)
After the FCPD's recommendation is circulated among facility staff, it is forwarded to the Central Office for a final determination by the Religious Accommodation Review Committee("RARC"), which is chaired by Klemm.3 (PSMF ¶¶ 28, 30.) The RARC consists of various faith group representatives, as well as representatives from food service and security. (Id. ¶30.) Klemm is responsible for coordinating the discussion and evaluation of religious accommodation requests by the RARC, as well as drafting the response of the RARC to these requests. (Id. ¶32.) The RARC relies upon the information presented by the inmate in order to make the determination regarding the accommodation request. (DSMF ¶¶133-34, Klemm Dep. at 148:19-149:1, ECF No. 41-2.)4 The decision process can also be aided by information obtained from the prison facility. (DSMF ¶135; Klemm Dep. at 149:1-4.)
Following the RARC meeting, the Bureau of Treatment Services prepares a formal suggested response to the inmate's request for the religious accommodation, which is subject to the approval of the Regional Deputy Secretary. (PSMF ¶37.) The final decision is sent to the FCPD, who then provides the inmate a copy of the final decision letter. (Id. ¶38.)
When the FCPD receives a request for a religious diet, the FCPD gives the inmate the document "Religious Diets in the Department," which explains which diets are available and the rules regarding them. (PSMF ¶39.) According to written DOC policy, an inmate seeking a religious diet other than one currently offered by the DOC must explain on his Religious Accommodation Request Form how he thinks the DOC can best accommodate his religious dietary requirements. (Id. ¶40.)
In practice, the DOC offers only three meal accommodations for religious diets: the "Alternative Protein Source Entree," the "No Animal Products Diet," and the "Kosher Diet." (PSMF ¶42.) The Alternative Protein Source Entree (at times referred to herein as the "Alternative Protein Diet") does not contain animal flesh or animal by-products and can be obtained by an inmate without submitting a religious accommodation request. (Id. ¶43.) However, the Alternative Protein Source Entree is cooked in the same kitchen as the prison's mainline diet, which does contain animal flesh and by-products. (Id. ¶44.) In addition, the side dishes for the Alternative Protein Source Entree are the same as those on the mainline diet and may or may not contain animal product. (Id. ¶45.)
The No-Animal Products Diet is approved for bona-fide religious reasons only and can only be obtained by submitting a religious accommodation request. (PSMF ¶46.) The food items on this diet are free from all animal flesh and contain no animal derived food sources or by-products; however, these food items - like the Alternative Protein Source Entree -- are cooked in the same kitchen as the mainline diet, which does contain animal flesh and by-products. (Id. ¶¶ 47-48.)
The Kosher Diet is approved for bona fide religious reasons, and can only be obtained by submitting a religious accommodation request. (PSMF ¶49.) The dietary menu typically consists of the following: (1) breakfast: fresh fruit, cold cereal, bread, peanut butter, jelly, and milk; (2) lunch: raw vegetables, fresh...
To continue reading
Request your trial