Kind v. Frank, 02-1969.
| Decision Date | 30 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-1969.,02-1969. |
| Citation | 329 F.3d 979 |
| Parties | Darrell Theodore KIND, Appellant, v. Sheriff FRANK; Sgt. Heinen; Dan Luke; Sgt. Alhgren; Sgt. Wanike, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Darrell Theodore Kind, pro se.
James R. Andreen, Minneapolis, MN, for appellees.
Before MELLOY, HEANEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Darrell Theodore Kind was incarcerated in the Washington County Jail in Minnesota for two and a half months in 1998. Kind brought a § 1983 action against employees at the jail because he claims they violated his First Amendment free-exercise-of-religion right by refusing to place him on a vegetarian diet to accommodate his Muslim faith. He also alleges that the jail retaliated against him for exercising his constitutional rights and denied him access to the courts. Upon the magistrate's recommendation, the district court granted summary judgment to the jail officials on all counts, concluding they were entitled to qualified immunity on the free-exercise claim, and that the other claims were without merit. The case was dismissed with prejudice. Kind appeals.
"In a claim arising under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, an inmate must first establish that a challenged policy restricts the inmate's free exercise of a sincerely held religious belief." Brown-El v. Harris, 26 F.3d 68, 69 (8th Cir.1994). When Kind arrived at the jail, he indicated he was Muslim and requested a vegetarian diet. Senior Program Director Dan Luke referred to instructional information provided to the jail by the Islamic Center of Minnesota, the Institute of Islamic Information in Chicago, and the Department of Islamic Affairs in Washington, D.C. regarding Kind's request. He also spoke with staff at the Islamic Center of Minnesota regarding the necessity of a vegetarian diet for Muslim inmates. All sources confirmed that a pork-free diet was essential to the practice of Islam, but that a vegetarian diet was not. Luke and Kind discussed his dietary needs on March 26, 1998, and Luke asked Kind to present some sort of documentation indicating that the exercise of Islam required a vegetarian diet. Kind did not produce any information. Luke placed Kind on a pork-free diet.
Kind filed a grievance with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, claiming that the Washington County Jail violated his right to religious freedom by failing to provide him with a vegetarian diet. After the Department found probable cause to support his grievance, Washington County agreed to adopt a new policy that would allow any inmate to request, for any reason, vegetarian meals. The county's new policy did not go into effect until after Kind had left the Washington County Jail.
"Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known." Yowell v. Combs, 89 F.3d 542, 544 (8th Cir.1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connor v. Ault, No. C01-4123-MWB (N.D. Iowa 8/6/2003)
...a constitutional right because it did not restrict the inmate's religious freedom in the first place). See also Kind v. Frank, 329 F.3d 979, 980-81 (8th Cir. 2003) (failure to provide Muslim inmate a meat-free diet restricted his free exercise of a sincerely held belief but defendants were ......
-
Beaulieu v. Ludeman
...occurred ‘but for’ the retaliation.” Webb v. Hedrick, 409 Fed.Appx. 33, 35 (8th Cir.2010) (unpublished per curiam) (citing Kind v. Frank, 329 F.3d 979, 981 (8th Cir.2003) (finding retaliation not a “but for” cause of transfer where record demonstrated that inmate was disciplined and transfe......
-
Brooks v. Roy
...would not have suffered the alleged retaliatory mistreatment at issue “but for” the defendant's retaliatory motive. See Kind v. Frank, 329 F.3d 979, 981 (8th Cir.2003) (prisoner's retaliation claim was properly dismissed where he “failed to show that but for his assertions of his constituti......
-
Biron v. Carvajal
...he would have filed would have been insufficient is speculative, and the district court properly dismissed this claim."); Kind v. Frank, 329 F.3d 979, 981 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. 343) ("Kind asserts he was denied his constitutional right of access to the courts because the j......
-
Muslims and Religious Liberty in the Era of 9/11: Empirical Evidence from the Federal Courts
...582 (2d Cir. 2003); Williams v. Morton, 343 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2003); Davis v. Clinton, 74 F. App’x 452 (6th Cir. 2003); Kind v. Frank, 329 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2003); Makin v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 183 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 1999); Mack v. O’Leary, 80 F.3d 1175 (7th Cir. 1996), vacated , 522 U.......
-
Kind v. Frank.
...Appeals Court DIET Kind v. Frank, 329 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2003). A county jail inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against jail officials, alleging violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, by their refusal to place him on a vegetarian diet. The district court g......