Siddha v. Hogan

Decision Date21 April 2022
Docket NumberCivil Action ELH-21-2131
PartiesYIMOE N. SIDDHA, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNOR LARRY HOGAN, ANNIE D. HARVEY, Commissioner of Correction, WARDEN GREGORY A. WERNER, CHAPLAIN GARRY L. FELTON II, OFC. MICHAEL WILSON, KELLY PARTLOW, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ellen L. Hollander United States District Judge

On August 20, 2021, self-represented plaintiff Yimoe N. Siddha a prisoner committed to the custody of the Maryland Division of Correction and confined in the Maryland Correctional Institution Hagerstown (“MCIH”), filed this civil rights action (ECF 1), with exhibits. His motion to amend the suit (ECF 8) was granted by Order of February 4, 2022. ECF 18. Given the nature of the amendments, I shall consider both submissions collectively as the “Complaint.” In sum, Siddha asserts that his First Amendment rights to practice his religion and to access the courts were violated by defendants. ECF 1; ECF 8.

In response, defendants Governor Larry Hogan; Commissioner of Correction Annie D. Harvey; Warden Gregory A. Werner Chaplain Garry L. Felton II; CO II Michael Wilson; and APR Coordinator Kelly Partlow filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. ECF 22.[1] The Motion is supported by a memorandum (ECF 22-1) (collectively, the “Motion”) and exhibits totaling hundreds of pages.

Siddha opposes the motion (ECF 26), with exhibits. He also seeks a permanent injunction (ECF 15), a “Mandatory Injunction” and “Civil Mandamus” (ECF 25) and moves to strike defendants' motion for extension of time. ECF 24.

No hearing is necessary to resolve the matters pending before me. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons that follow, the claims against Governor Hogan, Commissioner Harvey, Warden Werner, and Partlow shall be dismissed. And, I shall grant summary judgment in favor of Chaplain Felton and Officer Wilson. Siddha's motions shall be denied.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Complaint Allegations

Siddha is a “Black Sunni Orthodox Muslim.” ECF 1 at 4. On December 7, 2020, he requested a Halal diet from Chaplain Felton. Id. at 3. Siddha asserts that Felton “is charged with providing all religious communities with their religious rights under the law.” Id. Notwithstanding that asserted duty, Siddha claims that Felton denied his request to be put on a Halal religious diet that includes a “meat protein source.” Id. at 4. Siddha explains that the Kosher diet offered at MCIH provides a meat protein source, but only inmates who are a part of the “Jewish Communities” are permitted to be placed on that diet. Id. In Siddha's view, the denial of a Halal diet that includes meat is a “State-imposed restriction” that does not apply equally to all religious groups and is not based on a security or safety concern. Id. He cites the Inmate Handbook for MCIH which states: “No inmate shall be deprived or denied his right to participate [in] any religious program already allowed, and the Religious Coordinator shall grant that request and Religious Freedom.” Id.

Siddha alleges that the Religious Diet Program implemented by the State of Maryland's Division of Correction “intentionally put[s] significant pressure on inmates . . . to abandon their religious beliefs” and “imposes a substantial burden on [the inmate's] religious practice.” ECF 1 at 6 (ellipses and brackets in original). He claims that the provision of a religious diet (i.e., Kosher) that includes meat for Jewish inmates violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and results in depriving him of “a spiritual[ly] required diet 365 days a year.” Id. Siddha concludes that “year after year” he has requested a Halal diet that includes a meat protein source similar to what is allowed on the Kosher diet, but he is continually refused. Id. at 7.

Siddha also claims that on December 11, 2020, Officer Wilson delivered mail to him in a brown paper bag that included legal mail. ECF 1 at 6. Pursuant to applicable policy, legal mail is only supposed to be opened in the presence of the inmate who is the intended recipient so that it can be checked for contraband. Id. at 6-7. Siddha claims that his attorney-client privilege was violated when his legal mail was opened outside of his presence. Id. at 7.

Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to the administrative remedy procedure. But, he claims that Partlow, who is the “ARP Coordinator” for MCIH, refused to investigate his claim and did not share any reports regarding the matter. Id.

Siddha contends that his constitutional right of access to the courts was violated as a result of the occurrence, and he claims that Partlow, the Warden, and the Commissioner of Correction “were fully aware” that his rights were violated but refused to acknowledge it. Id. Siddha adds that “Ms. Partlow used every means as ARP Coordinator to cover up any crime and violation reported to her” and that she stopped responding to his complaints. Id.

As relief, Siddha seeks compensatory and punitive damages. ECF 1 at 8. Additionally, he asks the court to order defendants to institute a Halal diet that includes a meat protein source. Id.

B. Defendants' Response

Chaplain Felton recalls that he met with Siddha on or about December 7, 2020, concerning Siddha's request to participate in the Religious Diet Program at MCIH. ECF 22-5 (Felton Decl.) at 1, ¶ 3. He states that Siddha requested to be placed on a Kosher diet and he denied the request “pursuant to COMAR 12.03.02.03 and DPSCS Executive Directive Number OPS.160.0002 because Siddha's religious designation is not included in the faith groups eligible for the Kosher diet. Id. at ¶¶3, 4. Felton recalls that he offered Siddha placement on the Halal diet but Siddha refused the offer. Id. at ¶ 4.

Scott Steininger, the Correctional Dietary Regional Manager for the Western Region, has been a Registered and Licensed Dietitian since 1980. ECF 22-6 (Steininger Decl.) at 2, ¶ 1. In his Declaration, Steininger provides the history of the Religious Diet program. ECF 22-6 at 2-6. He has also submitted several exhibits to support his factual recitation. Id. at 7-82.

Steininger states that “before the establishment of a formal religious diet program, the regular diet was modified to exclude pork and pork products to eliminate one menu component that was offensive to certain religious groups such as the Muslim and Jewish communities.” Id. at 2, ¶ 3. The “lacto-ovo vegetarian diet” is a vegetarian diet that “was intended to appeal to religious groups such as the various Islamic faiths, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Seventh Day Adventist, and others.” Id. Protein is sourced from soy, nuts, legumes, eggs, and dairy products. Id. at 3, ¶ 6.

The Religious Diet Program was subsequently developed, as reflected in the Code of Maryland Regulations (“COMAR”). See, e.g., COMAR 12.03.02.03. It is administered through the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (“DPSCS”) Religious Services and Food Services, with the goal of conforming with minimum nutritional standards established by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and providing reasonable accommodations for religious diets. ECF 22-6 at 3, ¶ 5. The Religious Diet Program “provides two platforms based upon the lacto-ovo vegetarian diet: the Halal diet and the Kosher diet.” Id. at 2, ¶ 4. He adds, id.: “These diets each have specific requirements established under COMAR” 12.03.02.11. Inmate participation is subject to request and approval. Id.; see COMAR 12.03.02.04 et seq.

Steininger points out that the lacto-ovo diet meets “varied religious dietary needs” and, without this option, “a religious inmate might abstain from eating a meat entree [from the regular diet menu] and be left with only side dishes.” Id. at 3, ¶ 6. Notably, the lacto-ovo diet was certified Halal by the Islamic Society of the Washington Area in 2011 and in 1995 it was found to be Halal by imams employed by the DPSCS. Id. at ¶ 7.

Steininger recalls that “DPSCS conducted a feasibility study in June of 1993, exploring availability and costs of Halal meat and other practical matters which would result from providing Halal meat, such as the need for additional kitchen space and storage space to keep the meats separate from non-Halal meat and the need for additional staffing and training.” ECF 22-6 at 4, ¶ 9. In a Declaration of Richard West (ECF 22-6 at 9-13), provided on January 24, 2012, in connection with the case of Turner-Bey v. Maynard, et al., Civil Action JFM-10-2816 (D. Md.), [2]West, then the Director of Correctional Food Services for the Division of Correction, averred that the additional estimated annual cost of providing Halal meats was $6, 344, 635.00. ECF 22-6 at 4, ¶ 9.

According to the feasibility study conducted by DPSCS, “providing Halal meat would be cost-prohibitive” and, in addition, it would require physical space that was not available. Notably, Steininger avers that DPSCS currently faces “the same barriers to providing Halal and Kosher meats to inmates” as was determined in 1993 and 2012, because the “available physical space for dedicated food preparation and storage has remained largely the same.” Id. at ¶ 10.

Steininger explains that the average cost of meals per inmate per year was somewhat higher in fiscal year (FY) 2021 than typical. ECF 22-6 at 4, ¶ 11. Without calculating any of the enhanced costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, the costs for the different diets per inmate per day are as follows: “Regular diet $3.13/inmate/day, Lacto-Ovo Vegetarian diet $3.99/inmate/day (including religious and non-religious participant inmates), Medical diet $3.92/inmate/day, and Religious/Kosher diet $3.84/inmate/day.” Id. Steininger states that he investigated the cost of offering a meal...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT