-~LER!'I'S C;FF-:tl J1 .S. i)!Si A.T RQ.!,~·~:.':tf:E:. '/A FILF.D

GOURi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

OCT 11 2005

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA JOHN r-~r-~-[.;OAAN, CLERK

Roanoke Division

BY:

CLERK

WILLIAM R. COUCH, #186347, Plaintiff,
vs. JOHN JABE, Deputy Director Virginia Department Of Corrections, et. al.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: ](f_) (~,'·{{;(..if;<

COMPLAINT UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 USC § 1983

William R. Couch, No. 186347 Keen Mountain Correctional Center Post Office Box 710 Keen Mountain, Virginia 24624-0710
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 1 of 16 Pageid#: 1

JURISDICTION
The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND

INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT

APPLICABILITY

Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (b) 1, Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act applies in any case in which a substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance.
In the year 2002, the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Corrections (VDOC), received $4.72 million dollars-approximately 0.5 percent of its budget -- from the federal government. And in 2003 and 2004 VDOC received similar amounts from the federal government, thus triggering the statute's applicability.

-1-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 16 Pageid#: 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Roanoke Division

WILLIAM R. COUCH, #186347, Plaintiff,
vs. JOHN JABE, Deputy Director Virginia Department Of Corrections, et. al.

CIVIL ACTION NO.:

COMPLAINT UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 USC § 1983

A. Petitioner has not begun any other action in state or

federal court dealing with the same facts involved in this

action or otherwise relating to petitioner's imprisonment.

B. Petitioner has filed grievances regarding the facts of this

complaint, has attached evidence of his exhaustion of all

available grievance procedures, and has enclosed a verified

statement indicating the result.

C. PARTIES

1.

Defendant John Jabe was Deputy Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections, 6900 Atmore Drive, Richmond, Virginia

23261, and was responsible for establishing and authorizing

appropriatepolicygoverning the amount and content of daily meals

provided for those participating in the 2004 Ramadan Fast at all

times during the events described in this complaint. He is sued

both in his individual and official capacity.

-2Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 3 of 16 Pageid#: 3

2.

Defendant Larry Huffman was Regional Director, Western

Regional Office, Virginia Department of Corrections, 5427 Peters

Creek Road, Suite 250, Roanoke, Virginia 24019, was responsible

for reviewing Level-II Grievance complaints to insure that prison

officials at Keen Mountain Correctional Center ("the prison") adhere

to Department Of Corrections ("D.O.C.") departmental policies and

procedures, at all times during the events described in this com-

laint. He is sued both in his individual and offical capacity.

3.

Defendant Linda B. Shear was Chief Dietitian for the

Virginia Department of Corrections ("VADOC"), 6900 Atmore Drive,

Richmond, Virginia 23261, at all times during the events described

in this complaint and was responsible for preparing, reviewing,

and approving the VADOC Month Of Fasting Menu for all Ramadan Fast participants. She is sued both in her individual and official capacity.

4.

Defendant Kathleen Bassett was the Warden at Keen

Mountain Correctional Center, Post Office Box 860, Oakwood, Virginia 2463~ at all times during the events described in this complaint and was responsible for reviewing and responding to all Level-l

inmate grievance complaints filed by the prison's inmates, and

maintained primary institutional-level responsibility for the proper operation of the prison's Food Service Operation. She is sued both in her individual and official capacity.

5.

Defendant R. B. Phillips was Assistant Warden Of

Operations at the Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Post Office

Box 860, Oakwood, Virginia 24631, at all times during the events

described in this Complaint. And Defendant R. B. Phillips

-3-

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 4 of 16 Pageid#: 4

was responsible for reviewing and responding to Level-I inmate

grievance complaints filed by the prison's inmates, and was

responsible for the daily operations of the prison. He is sued

both in his individual and official capacity.

6.

Defendant K. Pickerel, Major, was the Chief of Security

at Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Post Office Box 860, Oakwood,

Virginia 24631, at all times during the events described in this

complaint and was responsible for all security-related matters

at the prison. He is sued both in his individual and official capacity.

7.

Defendant Mike Oslin was Food Service Director at

Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Post Office Box 860, Oakwood,

Virginia 24631, at all times during the events described and was

responsible for preparing, reviewing, approving, and implementing

all food service policies and activities at the prison. He is sued

both in his individual and official capacity.

D.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

8.

This is a Civil Rights Action filed by William R.

Couch, #186347, ("Couch"), a state prisoner incarcerated within

the Virginia Department of Corrections. Couch is a Sunni Muslim

and has been a Sunni Muslim for approximately 15 years. Couch has

been housed at the prison since June 12, 2002. At the prison, the

Sunni Muslim Community is referred to as the World Community and

is differentiated from the prison's other islamic group known as the Nation Of Islam Community ("N.O.I.").

9.

This Action is for punitive damages and injunctive

relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983, and alleges, 1) a violation of

-4-

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 5 of 16 Pageid#: 5

Couch's right to freedom of religious expression in violation of

the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the

Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") 42

U.S.C. § 2000cc; and 2) a violation of Couch's right to Equal

Protection and Due Process as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

10.

Couch alleges that these violations occurred when during

his participation in the Ramadan Fast in the year 2004, specifically,

October 15, 2004 through November 14, 2004, defendants, 1) limited

Couch's daily caloric intake to approximately 1000 calories,

2) deprived Couch of adequate daily nutrition, 3) deprived Couch

of all hot meals for 13 consecutive days, 4) prevented Couch from

engaging in the post-Ramadan Eid-Ul-Fitr Prayer and, 5) deprived

Couch of the post-Ramadan Eid-Ul-Fitr Feast. And Couch alleges

that these deprivations are part of a longstanding and continuous

pattern of deprivation by defendants of Couch's right to freely

exercise his religious beliefs.

E.

STATEMENT OF FACTS: CLAIM (I)

11.

DEFENDANTS DEPRIVED COUCH OF ADEQUATE NUTRITION, AND

CALORIES, AND HOT MEALS IN VIOLATION OF COUCH'S

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION UNDER THE

FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE RLUIPA, AND HIS RIGHT TO

DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE FIFTH

AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.

12.

Islam requires that during the Holy Month of Ramadan1

1 Ramadan is the ninth month of the Arabian lunar calendar. Ramadan is a very sacred month for Muslims because it was in this month that
the revelation of the Holy Qur'an began, and fasting as an obligatory institution was prescribed by God. (Holy Qur'an, Ch.2 v. 185; Sahib Muslim Hadith, Vol.2 (of 4), p.136, hadith #1079, n.l).

-5Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 6 of 16 Pageid#: 6

every Muslim fast between dawn and sunset for 30 consecutive days.

13.

During the fast of Ramadan, 2004, Couch was deprived

of one-half to two-thirds of the nutrition and caloriE~s the VDOC

would have provided Couch had he not fasted during Ramadan. Per

VDOC policy, general population prisoners are to be provided

approximately 2800 calories daily. (Exhibit (A): Inmate Request

(9/7/05)). Defendants provided to Couch about 1000 calories.

14.

During each of the 30 days of Ramadan, Couch (and all

fast participants) was provided the same refrigerated, pre-prepared,

predawn bag meal consisting of: 2 boiled eggs, 2 slices of bread,

1 eight-ounce cup Bran cereal, 1 orange or apple, an Boz bag of

low-fat milk, and 2 sweeteners.

15.

This cold predawn meal was substantially smaller than

the hot breakfast served to the nonfasting prison population, that

is, for example: 4oz apple juice or orange juice, 1 serving of

grits, 2 boiled eggs, 1 slice of turkey ham, 1 seving Home Fries

(potatoes), 3 pancakes, 1 pat margerine, one 2oz ladle of syrup,

fresh fruit, i.e.,cantelope, banana, orange, or apple, and coffee

and milk in unlimited quantity. (Exhibit (B): Menu (1/30/2005 to

2/5/2005).

16.

Prison officials did not provide a lunch meal to any

fast participant. And for the evening meal defendants asserted

that VADOC Departmental Operating Procedure ("D.O.P.") No. 601 and

611 required officials to provide Couch identical portions and

content as the evening meal served to the nonfasting prison popu-

lation, with the exception of pork items. (Exhibit (C): Inmate

Complaint (11/4/04)).

-6Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 7 of 16 Pageid#: 7

17.

Couch here contends that defendants provided him an

evening meal, too, that was nutritionally and calorically inadequate.

For example, on October 19, 2004, while the prison was on a scheduled

quarterly lockdown, defendants served Couch a Ramadan evening meal

consisting merely of: 3 slices of individually wrapped cheese, 1

serving of chopped beets, 1 serving of coleslaw 1 bun, 1 orange,

2 mustard packs, and 12oz grape koolaid. (Exhibit (D): Record of

Evening Meal~ 10/18/04 through 10/27/04). The aforementioned pre-

dawn meal and this evening meal totaled approximately 1000 calories

nearly one-third of the 2800 calories required by VDOC policy.

18.

And the nutritional and caloric deprivation was not

limited to the lockdown period. For example, on November 12, 2004,

after the lockdown period, defendants served Couch a Ramadan evening

meal consisting merely of: 1 serving pinto beans, 1 serving of diced

carrots, 1 sweetpotato, 2 slices of wheat bread, 1 orange and orange

koolaid. Again, the cold predawn bag meal and this evening meal,

together, failed to provide Couch adequate nutrition or calories.

19.

And defendants provided to Couch and the World Community

of Muslim fast participants only cold predawn and evening meals

throughout the lockdown period but served to the N.O.I. fast par-

ticipants a different, larger, hot evening meal each of the 30 days

of Ramadan. And defendants provided to the nonfasting inmates 2

hot meals during the lockdown and 3 hot meals after lockdown during

each day during the month of Ramadan.

20.

And, Couch was unable to supplement his diet with food

items purchased through the prison commissary because the prison

suspends all commissary food purchases throughout the lockdown

period.
-7-

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 8 of 16 Pageid#: 8

21.

Additionally, outside the lockdown period, during

Ramadan, Couch was required to work at his regular prison job as

a law-library clerk where he worked Mondays through Fridays at

least 6 hours daily. At his job, and because prison policy pro-

hibits law-library patrons themselves from retrieving any library

materials, Couch was required to, inter alia, retrieve and then

replace for patrons several hundred volumes of legal cases each day.

22.

Thus, during the month of Ramadan, 2004, and as a result

of defendants' actions in depriving Couch of adequate amounts of food, Couch lost approximately 13 pounds. 2 (See, Cambell v.

Cauthron, 623 F.2d 503 (1980), Two sweet rolls and coffee for

breakfast, and frozen "t.v." dinners for the noon and evening meals

are calorically and nutritionally inadequate. An average-sized

sedentary person on this diet could be expected to lose 9 pounds

per month. Id. 508).

23.

Moreover, for Couch the qualitative spiritual experience

of the fast was substantially diminished because Couch was con-

stantly hungry. Couch, in effect, was forced to fast twice during

each 24-hour period in that defendants provided Couch •{00 to 500

calories at the 5:00am predawn meal, then Couch fasted all day,

then defendants provided Couch another 400 to 600 calories at the

6:00pm evening meal, and then Couch, because he had no other food,

was forced to "fast" until the following predawn meal.

24.

And the Ramadan spiritual experience was further

diminished because Couch was forced contantly to fight to vindicate

2 Couch is 6 feet-2 inches tall and weighs 232 pounds

-8Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 9 of 16 Pageid#: 9

his right to exercise his religious beliefs.

F.

Couch Fought To vindicate His Rights.

25.

On about October 10, 2004, five days prior to the

beginning of Ramadan, Defendant Warden Bassett ("Warden") conducted

a walk-through of the B-1 housing unit where she sat at a table and

spoke with Couch. There, Couch, the liaison to the prison staff

for the World Community, advised the warden that if the prison

locked down during Ramadan, as it did during Ramadan 2003 and 2002,

those observing Ramadan would be deprived of all hot meals through-

out the lockdown, as had occurred in the preceding years. Couch

further complained that the prison's Food Service Department would

not provide adequate nutrition or calories to the fast participants.

The warden instructed Couch to document his concerns on an Inmate

Complaint form and send it to her.

26.

On October 15, 2004, the 30-day fast of Ramadan began.

On October 18, 2004, the prison locked down and all inmates were

confined to their cells.

27.

On lockdown the prison delivers to the inmates in

their cells a hot breafast meal and a hot lunch meal, but provides

a cold-bag dinner generally consisting of coldcuts. However, during

Ramadan the defendants provided to Couch and all World Community

fast participants the same cold bag predawn meal described earlier,

no lunch, and the same cold bag evening meal that was served to

the non-fasting prison population. The lockdown began on October 18,

2004, and ended on November 1, 2004, Thus, for 15 consecutive days

neither Couch nor any other World Community fast participant received

other than the sparse, cold, predawn and evening bag meals.

-9Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 10 of 16 Pageid#: 10

28.

On October 18, 2004, the first day of the lockdown,

Couch, pursuant to the warden's instruction, sent to the warden

a 3-page Inmate Complaint detailing Couch's dissatisfaction with the nutritionally and calorically inadequate cold food. (Exhibit (E): Inmate Complaint (10/18/04)).

29.

In the Complaint Couch noted that the prison's Institu-

tional Operating Procedure ("I.O.P") No. 4.22.4-7.3 (B) c, supported

Couch's request for hot food where the I.O.P. states: Institutional Lockdown; Food Services "As often as can be accomplished within

acceptable standards, hot meals -- as prescribed by the master menu -- would be served."

30.

Couch also proposed two possible alternatives to the

cold meals, namely, that prison officials could provide to Couch

the hot lunch meal as his evening meal, or officials could serve

Couch the same hot evening meal officials served the N.O.I. fast participants.

31.

The N.O.I. fast participants received a hot evening

meal throughout the 30 days of Ramadan, including during the lock-

down period when the World Community fast participants and the non-

fasting prison population were provided cold evening meals.

32.

In the Complaint Couch further explained that the

defendants could provide Couch, and all the World Community fast

participants, a hot evening meal at de minimus cost to defendants in light of the overall savings to the prison during Ramadan because, "There are 63 and 67 participants observing Ramadan for World Community and N.O.I. respectively. That is, 130 lunches* 20 days of Ramadan (excluding weekends when lunch is not served)

-10Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 11 of 16 Pageid#: 11

is 2,600 lunch meals saved by Food Service during Ramadan.'' (Exhibit (E), p.2) Id.

33.

Couch further explained that he was only requesting for

himself 15 hot evening meals (one for each day of lockdown during

Ramadan) but that even if the prison officials provided each of

the World Community fast participants a hot evening meal throughout
* the lockdown (63 people 15 evening meals = 945 hot meals) Food

Service would still realize substantial savings during Ramadan.

34.

And Couch further asserted, and asserts in this Action,

that defendants were unfair and punitive toward Couch when, during

lockdown, defendants provided the non-fasting prisoners 2 hot meals

and a cold bag dinner daily, and provided the N.O.I, participants

a cold predawn meal and a hot evening meal daily, but then elected

to feed Couch only cold food for 15 consecutive days.

35.

More importantly, however, Couch complained then,

and asserts now, that defendants violated Couch's constitutional

rights and acted punitively toward him when defendants in effect

forced Couch to choose either to fast during Ramadan or, instead,

to receive adequate nutrition and calories.

36.

Couch argued in his Complaint to the warden, and contends

now, that defendants could easily have compensated for the missed

nutrition and calories by increasing the portions in the predawn

meal and/or the evening meal.

37.

Indeed, defendants already tacitly acknowledge their

responsibility to insure inmates are provided compensatory nutrition

and calories in that defendants do increase the breakfast portions

for the non-fasting prisoners on weekends because the prison does

-11-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 12 of 16 Pageid#: 12

not serve lunch on weekends. And when the prison is locked down

defendants serve 3 meals even on the weekend because the lockdown

meal trays will not accommodatethe larger weekend breakfast meal.

(Exhibit (F): Inmate Request to Food Service Director (10/23/04)).

38.

And Couch attached to both his Complaint to the warden

and his formal Grievance of these matters page no.1208 of Makin v.

Colorado Dept. Of Corrections, 183 F.3d 1205, 1208 (lOth Cir. 1999),

wherein is reflected that the Colorado D.O.C., as part of a settle-

ment agreement resolving a lawsuit alleging that the D.O.C. was

inattentive to the needs of its Muslim inmates, agreed to provide

to Muslim inmates meals, "between sunset and dawn that were nutri-

tionall~ equivalent to the three meals provided each day at the

regu 1ar t1.mes. " And, "Inmates participating in the fast of Ramadan

shall be given the opportunity to receive at least two hot meals

during the time period between sunset and dawn for each ... day of

the fast." Id. at 1208.

39.

Thus, defendants were fully aware and were wholly on

notice that their actions in depriving Couch of adequate nutrition

and calories simply because Couch chose to fast during Ramadan was

in fact a violation of Couch's constitutional right to freely

exercise his religious beliefs.

40.

The Warden's response to Couch's Inmate Complaint

regarding inadequate nutrition, calories, and hot food was:

PpDIOAyTCfolhhnesoeueyplirayioulrnsowlRnteeiuyeacpiimltsschDoilao,aondivnonfarAeosnnetthalclslyefcmatosuontiewdrrCsrnetMi,tuonhamcwrgneMe.hmeritaorvOnw.st W heqsieJuFbllaaietelarbnhgedrsee,nenetuinoios.FiTDdtennwoeitsoodeldOibetnrRyvbeeScasigsameateahnrrtarvevesddaepiacinnDtfanercroegeM ftmpMoiaecotrgrahtifttrlhpemh.sRae.emobtaneymMrmet naerMubot.dnhufaure.n.t.,

-12Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 13 of 16 Pageid#: 13

(Exhibit (E), p.1 ) Id.

41.

The Warden's answer was nonresponsive in that it failed

to address Couch's complaint that defendants were depriving him

of adequate nutrition, calories, and hot food in violation of his

constitutional rights.

42.

Moreover, regarding the warden's reference to the Common

Fare Diet, 3 Couch has never received the diet, has never requested

to receive the diet, and nowhere in his Complaint to the warden

does Couch make any reference to a Common Fare Diet. Indeed, the

Common Fare Diet has no connection whatever to Ramadan, to Islamic

tenets, or to Couch's complaint about inadequate nutrition.

43.

Couch next filed a formal Inmate Grievance to Warden

Bassett wherein he complained of the deprivations heretofore detailed

in this Action. (Exhibit (G): Inmate Grievance (12/10/04)). The

warden's Grievance Response stated, in relevant portion, that:

The Department of Corrections allows voluntary participation in the fast ... and posts all pertinent information prior to the beginning so that all inmates wishing to participate may make an informed decision. The definition of fast is to eat very little or abstain from certain foods, especially as a religious discipline. All Ramadan participants are made well aware by their own Muslim doctrines, as well as the Department of Corrections that their nutritional intake will be limited during the Ramadan fast.

(Exhibit (H): Warden's Grievance Response, p.1 (1/3/05)). The

Warden's response is misleading and inaccurate.

44.

First, though the prison officials did post for the

3 The Common Fare Diet is a Kosher diet designed to accommodate the religious dietary needs of various faith groups. Any inmate may apply to receive the Common Fare diet and, if the inmate meets certain religious criteria established by VDOC, may be recommended for the diet by prison officials where final approval for the diet rests with VDOC headquarters in Richmond, Va. (I.O.P.#611-4.0)
-13Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 14 of 16 Pageid#: 14

inmate population general information regarding, for example, the

times for the predawn and evening meals, and prohibitions about

taking the lunch meals, officials did not inform any prisoner that

if he chose to fast during Ramadan he would be deprived of more

than half of his daily nutrition and calories. Nor were prisoners

informed that if they fasted officials would provide only cold

portions for most of the month of Ramadan.

45.

Secondly, the warden's definition of "fast" - "To eat

very little or abstain from certain foods, especially as a religious

discipline"

is a verbatim quote from the second definition of

"fast" presented in The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College

Edition (copyright 1999). However, this narrow dictionary definition

does not define the Islamic Fast of Ramadan.

46.

Thirdly, it is true that during Ramadan Muslims limit

their intake of nutrition and calories. However, limit is not

synonymous with reduce. During Ramadan Muslims limit their intake

of nutrition and calories from dawn until sunset; from sunset until

dawn, however, Muslims may consume unlimited quantities of nutrition

and calories.

47.

Finally, while inmate participation in the Ramadan fast

was voluntary (from a secular perspective), Couch did not volunteer

to forfiet as much as two-thirds of his daily nutrition.

48.

Couch next appealed the warden's Level-l Grievance

Response to Defendant Regional Director Huffman. Huffman's Level-II

Response mirrored and upheld the warden 1 s Level-l Response.

(Exhibit (I): Huffman's Level-II Response (1/27/05)). Huffman's

response, however, added that, "Every institution continues to offer

-14Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 15 of 16 Pageid#: 15

the full meal schedule during the Ramadan month to non-participants."

49.

Simply stated, defendants' Level-I and Level-II response

is that because Couch chose to fast he cannot then be heard to

complain that he is being starved, that Couch should expect to be

starved, and that if Couch does not want to be starved then he must

abandon his religious fast and eat the 3 normally scheduled meals. G. Couch Sought Intervention By John Jabe And Linda Shear.

50.

Concurrent with his utilization of the grievance procedure

Couch discussed his complaints with Assistant Warden Phillips who

explained to Couch that Phillips' "hands [were] tied" by D.O.C.

policy. Phillips advised Couch to address his complaints directly to D.O.C. Dietitian Linda Shear.

51.

On January 4, 2005, Couch mailed to Deputy Director

John Jabe and D.O.C. Dietitian Linda Shear, individually, a Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, 2-page correspondence entitled,

Legal Notice and Demand for Action. (Exhibit (J): Correspondence

to Jabe and Shear). Therein Couch detailed his complaints of food deprivation and he alleged a "deprivation of my constitutional

right to freely exercise my religious beliefs." Couch concluded

his letter by asking Jabe and Shear to ''take any action necessary to insure that henceforth this facility provides nutritionally

and calorically adequate meals to those prisoners who fast during the holy month of Ramadan." Mr. Jabe and Ms.Shear received Couch's correspondence on January 3, 2005, and January 5, 2005, respec-

tively. (Exhibit (K): Certified Mail Receipts for Jabe and Shear). Mr. Jabe failed to respond.

52.

However, by letter dated February 4, 2005, Dietitian Shear

-15Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 16 of 16 Pageid#: 16

responded, in relevant part, that, "A 'fast' implies that you do not receive a full day's supply of food. There is an authorized VADOC Month of Fasting menu and it should be followed with no subs ti tu tions except when necessary. An Imam has reviewed and approved this menu.'' (Exhibit (L): Letter By Linda Shear).

53.

First, as explained previously, the Islamic Fast of

Ramadan does not imply that those who fast do not receive a full

day's supply of food. Rather, the fast requires the faster to

abstain from food from dawn until sunset.

54.

Secondly, the fact that an Imam may have "reviewed and

approved" the VDOC Ramadan menu is irrelevant; presumably, one

could find an Imam willing to review and approve of a policy

advocating practically anything -- including suicide terrorism and the beheading of innocent people.

55.

In sum, Ms. Shear approved of, and endorsed, the policy

of deprivation. And neither Mr. Jabe or Ms. Shear took any action

to eliminate said deprivations though they both were obligated to

do so.

56.

Finally, it must be noted that Couch was subjected to

precisely the same deprivations detailed herein, including the

consecutive days of cold food during lockdown, during Ramadan in

the years 2003 and 2002. (Exhibit (M): Inmate Complaint, Inmate

Grievance, Level-l and Level-II Grievance Responses (2003)).

H. 57.

STATEMENT OF FACTS: CLAIM (II)
DEFENDANTS DEPRIVED COUCH OF THE EID-UL-FITR OBSERVANCE4 IN VIOLATION OF COUCH'S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE RLUIPA, AND HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.

-16Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 1 of 20 Pageid#: 17

H ( 1).

Defendants Deprived Couch Of The Eid Prayer

58.

On September 1, 2004,(45 days before Ramadan) Deputy

Director John Jabe sent a memorandum to all VDOC Wardens/Superin-

tendents wherein he authorized them to allow the Muslims to conduct the morning Eid Prayer and to have the evening "special meal." 5

59.

On September 20, 2004, (25 days before Ramadan) Couch,

as liaison to prison officials for the World Community, submitted

a 3-page Ramadan Proposal to Assistant Warden Of Operations

Phillips ("AWO Phillips") wherein Couch requested, inter alia,

"That we be permitted to perform the Eid Prayer in the visiting

room from 8:15am to 9:50am on Monday, November 15, 2004." (The

day after Ramadan ended).

60.

On October 1, 2004, (14 days before Ramadan began) AWO

Phillips responded with a memo to Couch and to inmate Ali Miles,

#202187, (leader of, and liaison for, the N.O.I.) wherein AWO

Phillips authorized that the "EID Prayer will be permitted from

8:15am to 9:50am in visiting room. (This will replace other Muslim

Services scheduled for that day.)" (Exhibit (N): Memo By Phillips).

4 The Eid Ul-Fitr observance, consisting of the Eid Prayer and Eid Feast, is an important observance in Islam which commemorates and celebrates the 30-day fast of Ramadan. The Eid Prayer is a congregational prayer which must be performed during the morning on the first day following the completion of Ramadan. The Eid Feast must be held at a time between the 1st and 3rd day after the completion of Ramadan. The Feast typically begins on the evening of the first day following the completion of Ramadan and after the morning Eid Prayer service.

5 Couch has reviewed John Jabes's memo of September 1, 2004, but

has been unable to obtain a copy of the memo for this Court because

prison officials, including Security Chief Pickerel, AWO Phillips,

and they

Operations did receive

Officer Barbetto and review Jabe

1 s

all contend memo, they

ed, in were

2004, unable

that though to locate

or otherwise obtain a copy of the memo.

-17Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 20 Pageid#: 18

61.

However, at 8:15am on November 15, 2004, (the authorized

time for the prayer) when Couch and other Muslims of the World

Community arrived at the visiting room for the prayer service, the

prison Security Staff refused to permit the Muslims to conduct the

prayer. At Couch's insistence the Duty Watch Commander was summoned

who then explained that Security Staff had not received any memo

or other authorization to permit a prayer service. Couch then

asked the watch Commander to contact AWO Phillips but Couch was told

that Phillips was "unavailable." The Muslims were not permitted

to conduct the Eid Prayer Service.

62.

On November 21, 2004, Couch filed an Inmate Complaint

to AWO Phillips regarding the refused Eid Prayer. Phillips for-

warded the Complaint to Security for their response. Security did

not respond. So, on December 12, 2004, Couch filed a formal Inmate

Grievance regarding the deprivation of the Prayer service.

(Exhibit (0): Inmate Grievance (12/12/04)).

63.

On December 16, 2004, in response to Couch's grievance

and as part of the prison officials' investigation into this matter,

Chief of Security, Major K. Pickerel met with Couch. There,

Pickerel accepted full responsibility for Couch's having been

refused the Eid Prayer. Pickerel explained that, "It •wasn' t the

Nations' [N.O.I.] error or your error, it was my error." Pickerel

further stated that he had spoken with AWO Phillips about the matter

but that AWO Phillips did not remember sending to Couch and Ali

Miles written authorization for the morning Eid Prayer. Pickerel

further stated that he had checked all the files but had not found

any memo regarding the Eid Prayer Service. He repeatedly stated

-18Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 3 of 20 Pageid#: 19

that the error was his error and had resulted from a "comedy of

errors." Pickerel asked Couch to withdraw the Grievance but Couch refused to do so. Couch then specifically asked Pickerel what he

was going to report to the Grievance Coordinator about Pickerel's discussion with Couch. Pickerel assured Couch that his report

would be that Couch had been deprived of the Eid Prayer as a result of a "comedy of errors" by Security Staff.

64.

On December 21, 2004, (5 days after Pickerel met with

Couch) AWO Phillips met with Couch about this matter. There, Mr.

Phillips absolved all other staff of responsibility for the denied

Eid Prayer, and he accepted full responsibility himself. Phillips

stated that he did not remember sending to Couch written authori-

zation to conduct the prayer service. However, Couch held the authorizing memo in his hand as the two spoke. When Couch offered

the memo to Phillips, Phillips declined to accept it because, he

said, he believed what Couch told him. Phillips, too, asked Couch to withdraw the Grievance but again Couch declined to do so.

65.

Incredibly, on January 3, 2005, the Warden deemed Couch's

Grievance "unfounded" because the Warden concluded, in effect, that

the Eid Prayer had, in fact, been allowed but that Couch had

voluntarily chosen to not attend. Specifically, the Warden determined that:

On November 10, 2004, [5 days before the November

15th date authorized by AWO Phillips for the Eid

Prayer] Warden Bassett sent a Memorandum to all

Ramadan EID UL

Mont Fitr

h of Pray

F er

astin and

g F

Partic asting

ipants Break.

6

regarding [Wardenj

the

6 Prison officials would later concede that the Warden did not send any memo to any of the Fast Participants. (Exhibit (Q): Inmate Request (1/4/05) and Warden's Memo (11/10/04)).

-19Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 4 of 20 Pageid#: 20

advised that an EID UL Fitr Prayer service ... would
be held on November 17, 2004, at 6:00pm in the dining halls.

(Exhibit (P): Warden's Grievance Response, p.1; Couch's Grievance

Appeal p. 1-5).

66.

Couch promptly questioned each fast participant from

which he discovered that none had received or seen any memo from

prison officials regarding the Eid Prayer.

67.

Couch then requested from the prison's Operations Officer,

L. Barbette, a copy of the supposed memo. In response, the Opera-

tions Officer sent to Couch a memorandum dated November 10, 2004,

and, for the first time, conceded that the memo, rather than having

been sent to each fast participant, was instead ''posted in all

population pods on November 10." (Exhibit (Q). Id.

68.

Couch again questioned the fast participants all of whom

denied having seen any such posted memo. Couch then immediately

spoke to AWO Phillips about the lack of any Warden's memo about the

Eid Prayer. AWO Phillips then conceded that the memo may not have

been posted, and he explained that the prison suffered a longstanding

problem whereby memoranda and Notices forwarded to Security for

posting were, in fact, not being posted. AWO Phillips further

stated that prison officials were seeking a reliable method to

insure that in the future memos were properly posted.

69.

Couch appealed the Warden's Level-l Grievance Response

to the Regional Director Larry Huffman. (Exhibit (P), p.1-5) Id.

But on January 14, 2005, Mr. Huffman deemed Couch's Level-II

Appeal "unfounded" because:

The investigation revealed that on 11/10/04 Warden Bassett sent a Memorandum to all Ramadan Month of Fasting Participants regarding the EID UL Fitr

-20Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 5 of 20 Pageid#: 21

prayer and Fast Breaking. In said Memo Warden Bassett explained that an EID UL Fitr prayer service and special meal had been scheduled for 11/17/04 at 6pm in the dining halls.

(Exhibit (R): Huffman's Level-II Grievance Response).

70.

Because when Couch appealed the warden's Level-l

Grievance Response he had not yet received the Operations Officer's

response and the copy of the warden's Eid Prayer memo (Exhibit (Q),

p.2) id, Couch could not argue in his appeal that staff had conceded

that the memo had not been sent to any fast participant. However,

Couch did in his Grievance Appeal, and does now, present the fol-

lowing argument and facts regarding the warden's Eid Prayer memo.

71.

First, the warden's Eid Prayer memo, on its face, proves

that Couch was deprived of the Eid Prayer because the memo (Exhibit
(Q), p2), and the Grievance Response (Exhibits (P), (R)), indicate

that the warden scheduled the Eid Prayer for 6:00pm. However,

Islamic tenets require that the Eid Prayer be held on the morning

of the first day following the completion of Ramadan. There is no

such thing as a nighttime Eid Prayer.

72.

Secondly, Islamic tenets require that the Eid Prayer be

performed in congregation; row upon row of Muslims all prostrating

simultaneously. The warden's Eid Prayer memo directed the Prayer

be conducted in the dining hall. However, because of the con-

figuration of the dining hall, that is, metal dining tables bolted

to the floor with narrow walkways between them and only a 3-foot

clearance between the outer row of tables and the walls, it was

physically impossible for the 50+ Muslims (or even 10 Muslims)

who attended the Eid Meal to perform a congregational prayer in

the dining hall.

-21Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 6 of 20 Pageid#: 22

73.

Additionally, Couch alleged in his Grievance Appeal, and

does so now, that the warden's Eid Prayer memo, dated November 10,

2004, was actually created after Couch's December 16, 2004, meeting

with Security Chief Pickerel about the denied Eid Prayer. Couch

alleges the warden's prayer memo was then backdated to November 10th

in an effort by prison officials to avoid responsibility for

depriving Couch of the Eid Prayer. In support of this allegation

Couch states as follows:

74.

First, when Couch and other World Community Muslims

arrived at the visiting room for the Eid Prayer at 8:15am on

November 15, 2004, -- the location, time and date requested by

Couch and authorized by AWO Phillips

Couch and company were

denied entry because Security Staff had no memo authorizing the

prayer service. And the Watch Commander, faced with 50+ Muslim

prisoners imploring admittance, made several telephone calls to

various prison officials, and searched various files, seeking any

memo authorizing the prayer service. Thus, had there existed an

Eid Memo dated November 10th, indicating that the Eid Prayer was

scheduled for November 17th, presumably Security Staff would have

explained to Couch that the prayer had been rescheduled.

75.

Secondly, during Couch's meeting with Security Chief

Pickerel on December 16, 2004, Pickerel accepted all responsibility

for the denied prayer, called it a "comedy of errors" on the part

of Security Staff, and explained that he had searched for -- but

been unable to locate -- any memo regarding the Eid Prayer Service.

Thus, had there existed a November 10th Eid Memo

particularly

one that had been disseminated to all fast participants (or even

-22Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 7 of 20 Pageid#: 23

disseminated only to the Security Staff for posting in the pods) presumably the Chief of Security would have been able to locate
the memo.

76.

Thirdly, as dicussed earlier, AWO Phillips sent to Couch

and inmate Ali Miles the October 1, 2004, memo authorizing the Eid

Prayer in the visiting room from 8:15am to 9:50am on November 15,

2004 (Exhibit (N) id. However, in response to Couch's grievance

that he was denied the Eid Prayer, Security Chief Pickerel told

Couch that he had not seen, nor could he find any October 1st

memo by AWO Phillips. And AWO Phillips told Couch he didn't

remember sending any such memo to Couch. And, presumably, the

absence of any October 1st memo authorizing the Eid Prayer neces-

sitated the warden's November 10th memo authorizing the evening

Eid Prayer.

77.

However, in preparation for this year's Ramadan which

began October 5, 2005, the warden posted for the prison population

a Ramadan participation notice (Exhibit (S): Ramadan Notice), which

is an exact, verbatim duplicate of AWO Phillip's October 1, 2004,

memo. Undeniably, the recent Notice from the warden was created

using AWO Phillips' October 1, 2004, memo

the very memo defen-

dants claimed to neither possess or remember. That defendants

apparently, all along, possessed AWO Phillips' October 1st Eid

Prayer memo suggests that there would have been no need for the

warden's November 10th Eid Prayer memo, and bolsters Couch's

contention that the warden's November 10th memo did not exist on

November 10th.

78.

Finally, the warden's November 10, 2004, Eid Prayer

-23Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 8 of 20 Pageid#: 24

memo is in direct conflict with Deputy Director John Jabe's

Ramadan Memo of September 1, 2004, wherein Mr. Jabe authorized a

morning Eid Prayer Service. Presumably, Warden Bassett would not

create a memo authorizing a night prayer, in direct conflict with

the Deputy Director -- unles such belated, in-house memo was

necessary to rebut Couch's claims of deprivation.

79.

In sum, whether defendants fraudulently fabricated the

warden's November 10th memo to cover their tracks, or simply

failed to disseminate the memo to the fast participants, that is,

whether defendants were malicious or simply grossly negligent in

depriving Couch of the Eid Prayer Service can be dispositively

established only at trial. What is certain, however, is that

defendants deprived Couch and the World Community of Muslims of

an opportunity to observe the Eid-Ul-Fitr Prayer.

H ( 2).
so.

Defendants Deprived Couch Of The Eid Feast._ The Islamic Faith dictates (and VDOC Deputy Director

authorized) for the Muslims at the prison the Eid-Ul-Fitr Feast.

(See, This Complaint, p. 17, n.4,5). The feast is a special meal

served 1 to 3 days after the completion of Ramadan to celebrate

the 30 days of rigorous fasting. Not only may Muslims partake in

the Eid Meal only after Ramadan, but Muslims are prohibited from fasting on the day of the Eid Meal. 7

81.

Because the prison officials control the feeding of the

7 "The Messenger of God hasforbidden the fast on these two days:

Eid-Ul-Adha and Eid-Ul-Fitr." (Sahih Muslim Hadith, Vol. 2 (of 4)

p. 173, hadith # 1138.)

·

-24Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 9 of 20 Pageid#: 25

prisoners it is obvious that Couch and the World Community of

Muslims must begin and end the 30-day Ramadan Fast when prison

officials provide the predawn and evening meals for the Muslims.

82.

In the year 2003, the prison, and the North American

Muslim community at large, observed Ramadan beginning on Monday,

October 27, 2003, and ending on November 25, 2003. That is,

fasting began at dawn on October 27th and ended 30 days later at

sunset on November 25, 2003.

83.

In violation of Islamic tenets prison officials served

what officials described as the Eid-Ul-Fitr Meal on the evening of

November 25, 2003, the final day of Ramadan, and after Couch and

the other Muslims had fasted throughout the day.

84.

Couch filed an Inmate Grievance wherein he complained

that he had been deprived of an Eid Meal because prison officials

had served the Meal during Ramadan when Islam requires the Eid

Meal be served from 1 to 3 days after the completion of Ramadan,

and because Muslims are not permitted to fast on the day of the

Eid Meal.

85.

Defendants deemed Couch's Grievance "unfounded" because,

defendants asserted, their research revealed that Ramadan actually

began on October 26, 2003, and ended November 24, 2003, and

therefore defendants' serving of the Eid Meal on November 25th

was permissible. Simply stated, defendants contend that even

though the prison and the Muslim population at large observed

Ramadan from October 27, 2003, until November 25, 2003, defendants'

after-the-fact research in response to Couch's complaints revealed

that Ramadan began and ended a day earlier than previously believed.

-25Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 10 of 20 Pageid#: 26

And, therefore, defendants' serving of the Eid Meal on November 25, 2003, was appropriate. (Exhibit (T): Inmate Grievance, Level-l Response, Level-l Appeal, and Level-II Response).

86.

Defendants' rationale and explanation for having

served the Eid Meal on November 25th is not credible and is belied

by defendants' actions in the days before and after November 25, 2003.

87.

First, on about November 21, 2003, four days prior to

the Eid Meal, prison counselor and Ramadan Coordinator D.R. Vass

("Vass") approached Couch at his job in the law-library. Couch

was then, too, liaison to prison staff for the World Community. Vass informed Couch that contrary to the November 26, 2003, date

for the Eid Meal requested by Couch and tentatively approved by

officials, prison officials had advanced the date of the Eid Meal

to November 25, 2003, because of "institutional need."

88.

Couch objected to the earlier date and explained to

Vass, for the reasons detailed in this Action, why it was impermissible to observe the Eid Meal on the final day of Ramadan.

Vass maintained that institutional need and security concerns

trumped the Muslims' religious needs. Vass then explained that the "institutional need" was that Food Service workers and other

staff wanted to go home early on November 26th to prepare their

own Thanksgiving meals.

89.

Couch filed a Grievance about the timing of the Eid

Meal. (Exhibit (T)). Id. In response to Couch's Grievance, Mike

Oslin, Food Service Director met with Couch and explained that the

institutional need requiring the Eid Meal be served on November 25th

was not because Food Service staff wanted to depart early for

Thanksgiving. Rather, he explained, the "true" institutional

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1-26F-iled 10/17/05 Page 11 of 20 Pageid#: 27

need was the lack of oven space in the prison kitchen to prepare

two large meals, namely, the Eid Meal for the Muslims and the

Thanksgiving Meal for the general prison population. However,

when Couch pointed out that the Eid Meal could have been served

on November 28, 2003, (3 days after Ramadan ended on November 25th)

and after the Thanksgiving Meal (which was served to the prison

population on November 26th), Mr. Oslin then conceded that was true.

90.

Mr. Oslin, both conciliatory and apologetic, strenuously

sought through nearly 2 hours of discussion to persuade Couch to

withdraw the grievance. Finally, however, Oslin told Couch that

his withdrawing the grievance was "in the best interest" of Couch

and his Muslim group because if Couch withdrew the grievance,

Oslin promised, the following year's Eid Meal would be sumptuous.

But, Oslin continued, if Couch refused to withdraw the grievance,

and because in Couch's Grievance he also complained that the Eid

Meal was skimpy and inadequate, "policies could be put into effect"

that would pare to the bone future Eid Meals.

91.

Couch interpreted Oslin's comments as a threat designed

to pressure Couch to withdraw the grievance. So, Couch sought to

appease Oslin by explaining to him that Couch was unable to withdraw

the grievance because he had already enlisted aid from Islamic

organizations in addressing these matters and that to withdraw the

grievance would undermine that aid which in turn might cause those

organizations to be reluctant to assist Couch in the future.

Couch refused to withdraw the grievance. Oslin then assured Couch that Couch was going to "lose out," and Oslin ended the meeting.

-27Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 12 of 20 Pageid#: 28

92.

Only then did defendants abandon their rationale

regarding "institutional need" to then assert in the Grievance

Response that research of the Islamic calendar justified their

timing of the Eid Meal. However, said research consisted merely of

reviewing a one-page calendar, a copy of which Oslin gave to Couch

at their meeting, which itself specifically cautions that its

dates "are based on estimates" which may be wrong by 2 days.

(Exhibit (U): Islamic Calendar).

93.

And, at any rate, defendants conducted their research

regarding the date for the Eid Meal weeks after they served the

meal and in response to Couch's Grievance. Therefore, the date

ascertained during the research could not have been the basis for

defendants' having served the Eid Meal on November 25th. Indeed,

if defendants, at the time they scheduled the Eid Meal, had believed

their timing for the Eid Meal comported with Islamic tenets, defen-

dants would not have needed to invoke "institutional need" to

justify the date.

94.

And, after-the-fact research notwithstanding, the month

of Ramadan for the prison Muslim population began when the prison

permitted the Muslims to receive a predawn meal on October 27,

2003, and ended 30 days later when the prison served its final

post-sunset meal on November 25, 2003. Nevertheless, Couch's

Grievance of this matter was deemed "unfounded" based upon the

dates reflected on the belatedly researched Islamic calendar.

95.

Whether defendants deprived Couch of the Eid Meal because

prison staff wanted to depart the prison early for Thanksgiving,

or because of limited oven space, or for some other malicious

-28Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 13 of 20 Pageid#: 29

reason, or whether defendants' actions were merely grossly neglegent can be dispositively established only at trial. What is certain, however, is thatdefendantsdeprived Couch and the World Community of Muslims of an Eid-Ul-Fitr Meal.

I.

DEFENDANTS HAVE INJURED COUCH.

96.

For Muslims the Holy Month of Ramadan is one of heightened

spiritual observances including fasting and increased prayer.

Ramadan is to be a time of peace and tranquility wherein the Muslim aspires to a closer connection with his Creator. During Ramadan

Muslims are specifically enjoined to avoid arguments and disputes. 8

97.

Defendants' actions have injured Couch. First, the

starvation diet to which defendants subjected Couch caused Couch

to be constantly hungry. Such unrelieved hunger alone substantially diminished the qualitative spiritual experience of Ramadan because

the hunger prevented Couch from participating in, or distracted

Couch from the spiritually uplifting aspects of the Ramadan obser-

vance such as his reading of the Qur'an and his performance of his

prayers.

98.

Additionally, the unrelieved hunger caused Couch

frequent "hunger headaches," and adversely affected his ability to

sleep. The food deprivation also caused Couch to lose approximately

13 pounds during Ramadan and to be always lathargic and listless.

99.

Moreover, the endless disputes and efforts by Couch

before, during, and after Ramadan to secure from defendants minimal

8 "When any of you gets up in use obscene language nor do any slanders him or quarrels with hi fasting'" (Sahih Muslim Hadith,

the morning
act of ignor m, he should Vol.2 (of 4)

fasting, he should neit ance. And if anyone
say: 'I am fasting I p.179 hadith #1151).

he am

r

-29Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 14 of 20 Pageid#: 30

opportunity to practice his faith robbed Couch of the very peace he sought to enjoy during Ramadan.

100.

And Couch suffered similar deprivations during Ramadan

in 2002, and 2003. During Ramadan 2002, defendants caused Couch to suffer constant hunger and provided Couch only cold food for

half of Ramadan. During Ramadan 2003, defendants caused Couch to

suffer constant hunger, and provided Couch only cold food for half of Ramadan, and deprived Couch of the Eid Meal. During Ramadan

2004, defendants caused Couch to suffer constant hunger, provided Couch only cold food for half of Ramadan, and deprived Couch of the Eid Prayer. And Couch suffered similar weight loss during each of these Ramadan observances.

J.

CONCLUSION

101.

Defendants, individually and collectively, violated

Couch's right to freely exercise his religious beliefs and stand

in violation of the RLUIPA when they forced Couch to suffer

egregious deprivations of nutrition and calories for no reason

other than Couch chose to fulfill his religious duty to fast

during Ramadan.

And defendants' actions violated Couch's right to equal

protection because, inter alia, defendants subjected Couch and the World Community of Muslims to egregious loss of nutrition and calories and hot meals when, during the same period, defendants provided to

the N.O.I. hot meals and greater nutrition and calories, and provided to the non-fasting prison population hot meals and more than sufficient nutrition and calories. And Couch suffered these deprivations absent any due process.

-30Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 15 of 20 Pageid#: 31

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court

grant the following relief:

1.

Issue a declaratory judgment stating that:

a) the actions of, and /or deliberate indifference by defendants John Jabe, Linda Shear, Larry Huffman, Kathleen Bassett, R.B. Phillips, and Mike Oslin, collectively and/or individually, deprived plaintiff of adequate nutrition and calories, and hot meals during the Islamic Month of Ramadan in violation of plain-

tiff's right to freely exercise his religious beliefs under the

First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act, and in violation of plaintiff's right to equal protection and due process as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

b) the actions of, and/or deliberate indifference by defendants Larry Huffman, Kathleen Bassett, R. B. Phillips, Mike

Oslin, and K. Pickerel, collectively and/or individually, deprived plaintiff of an opportunity to partake in the Islamic Eid-Ul-Fitr Observances in violation of plaintiff's right to freely exercise

his religious beliefs under the First amendment to the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act, and in violation of plaintiff's due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution.

2.

Issue an injuction ordering defendants John Jabe, Linda

Shear, Larry Huffman, Kathleen Bassett or their agents to:

-31Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 16 of 20 Pageid#: 32

a) revise the present Ramadan Menu in a manner that

insures that all Muslim Inmate Ramadan Fast Participants receive

meals between sunset and dawn that are nutritionally and calorically

equivalent to the three meals provided to the non-fasting prisoners each day at the regular times.

b) revise the present Ramadan Menu in a manner that

insures that all Muslim Inmate Ramadan Fast Participants shall be

given the opportunity to receive at least two hot meals during the

time period between sunset and dawn for each day of the fast.

c) revise the present Ramadan and Eid-Ul-Fitr guide-

lines for participation in, and observance of the Ramadan Fast and

Eid-Ul-Fitr Observance with safegueards to protect plaintiff's due

process rights and right to freely exercise his religious beliefs

as guaranteed by the Fifth, Fourteenth, and First Amendments to

the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use And

Institutionalized Persons Act.

3.

Award punitive damages in the following amounts:

a) Forty-five Hundred Dollars [ $25.00 from each of 6

defendants for each of the 30 days of Ramadan] against defendants

John Jabe, Linda Shear, Larry Huffman, Kathleen Bassett, R.B.

Phillips, and Mike Oslin for depriving plaintiff of adequate

nutrition and calories, and for the attendant suffering and

diminution of the qualitative spiritual experience of Ramadan

suffered by plaintiff because of defendants' actions.

b) Five Hundred Dollars [$100 for each of 5 defendants]

against Larry Huffman, Kathleen Bassett, R.B. Phillips, K. Pickerel,

and Mike Oslin for preventing plaintiff the Eid-Ul-Fitr observance

-32Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 17 of 20 Pageid#: 33

including the Eid-Ul-Fitr Prayer and the Eid-Ul-Fitr Meal and the

attendant suffering and diminution of the qualitative spiritual experience of Ramadan suffered by plaintiff because of defendants' actions.

4.

Grant such other relief as it may appear that

plaintiff is entitled.

SIGNED THIS /'JrH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2005.

William R. Couch
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THE FOREGOING COMPLAINT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS THERETO TO BY TRUE AND CORRECT.

Dated: /0- I 3-.?-oos-

Signed:

VERIFIED STATEMENT

I have been advised of the requirements regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies as outlined in 42 U.S.C. 1997e and now submit this verified statement:

I have exhausted my administrative remedies by exhausting all available grievance procedures and have attached copies of grievances demonstrating said exhaustion. Copies of the record of the proceedings are attached to the foregoing complaint as Exhibits.

I affirm that I am the plaintiff in this action and I know the content of the above statement as well as the foregoing Complaint; that it is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters that are stated in it to be based on my own information and beliefs; and to those matters, I also believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: /0·-1 }~;2c?OS:

Signed: !t)A; 11?4~ '-----

-33Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 18 of 20 Pageid#: 34

.' '

All prisoners will now be required to pay a full filing fee of $750.00. Prisoners seeking to proceedin forma pauperis (without the prepayment
of fees} are now required to submit with their complaints, a certified pceorpioyd.o2f 8thUeiSr Ctr§u1st97fu5nads aacmceonudnetds. tatement for the prior six month

William R. Couch, #186347
( Pet1t1oner /Plamt1rr J
VS.
John Jabe, et. al. (Responaent/Derendant)

STATEMENT OF ASSETS

1, Wi 11 iam R • Couch

, deci2re that 1am the petitioner in the

above-styled proceedmg; that m support of my request to proceed without being

required to prepay fees, costs or give security therefor, I state that because of my

tphoavteIrtbye,liIeavem Iuanmabelenttiotlepdatyothreeliecfo. sts of said proceeding, or give security therefor;

In support of my in forma pauperis application, I answer the following questions:

1.

Are you presently employed?

X Yes ___No

If yes, what is your monthly income? _ __,$-=5_4--'.--'0--'0_ __

If no, state the date of your last employment.____

2. sHoauvreceyso?u received any money in the last· twelve months from the following

Business, Profession, Self-Employment:
Rent Payments, interest or Dividends: Pensions, Annuities or Life Insurance: Gifts or Inheritances: Any Other Sources:

Yes

X No

Yes X-No

es

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

oIffteha!lcahnrsewceeirvteod adnuyrinogf tthhee apbaosvteyiesaYr.es, please state the source and amount

3. PDroisyoonuAocwcorruanntsy. cash, or have any money on hand- Include any··funds held in

--"'-_Yes

___ No

If Yes, State the Value

$47.65

4. Do you own any real estate, stocks, bond, notes, automobiles or other valuable property - (excluding clothing and ordinary household furnishings)?

- - -Yes

X No If Yes, State the Value

5. List the persons who are dependant upon you for support. State your sreulpaptioornts. hip to same and indicate how much you contribute toward their

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and have
/t 7 ....._J --.. DmatAotaTncEthhDse:d~~va-~~tcu(ep;r~t,oif,riet/d1o.cf o)tlhp.tiySsSorIefGqmNuyEesDint:mtoapte~ft~cr,euels;kd.t,.f.uw_n~_dg~.aouc&cto.huentpsatayt~enmrenotfffoeretsh.e last six 3

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 19 of 20 Pageid#: 35

WILLIAM R. COUCH, #186347 KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER
POST OFFICE BOX 710 KEEN MOUNTAIN, VIRGINIA 24624
October 13, 2005
The Honorable John F. Corcoran Clerk, United States District Court Western District - Roanoke Division Post Office Box 1234 Roanoke, Virginia 24006 Dear Mr. Corcoran:
Enclosed please find 2 copies of my 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint, including the verified statement of exhaustion of state remedies and the inmate income statements to enable me to proceed in forma pauperis.
Please present this pleading to the court at your earliest convenience.
Also, enclosed is an S.A.S.E. containing a coversheet. Would you kindly stamp the coversheet indicating your receipt of this material and return it to me.
Also, please be advised that I have today mailed nne topy of the Complaint, with attachments, first-class postage prepaid to counsel for the defendants herein, Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General, 900 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Very truly,
jl/t>,~;/!( ;/,L_;,___-#'--;f,1:._c~/ ~-
William R. Couch
cc: Michael T. Judge
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 10/17/05 Page 20 of 20 Pageid#: 36

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

WILLIAM R. COUCH, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN JABE, et al., Defendants

)

) Civil Action No.: 7:05cv00642

)

)

)

ORDER

)

By: PAMELA MEADE SARGENT

) United States Magistrate Judge

)

This matter is before the undersigned on plaintiff’s Motion For Preliminary Injunction, (Docket Item No. 40), and plaintiff’s Motion To Post Security For Preliminary Injunction, (Docket Item No. 44). The plaintiff, William R. Couch, is an inmate within the Virginia Department of Corrections, (“VDOC”), incarcerated at Keen Mountain Correctional Center. Couch states that he is an observant Sunni Muslim who plans to participate in a required dawn to sunset fast during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan1 beginning September 23, 2006. In consideration of these motions, the court has reviewed the written arguments of the parties as well as the affidavits offered by the parties in support of and in opposition to Couch’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The court also has considered the written arguments and evidence provided to the court in support of and in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Couch’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeks a court order directing that, between sunset and dawn during the Ramadan period, the defendants

1According to Couch’s complaint, Ramadan is the ninth month of the Arabian lunar calendar. It is a very sacred month for Muslims because it was in this month that the revelation of the Holy Qur’an began and fasting as an obligatory institution was prescribed by God. According to Couch, Islam requires that every Muslim fast between dawn and sunset for 30 consecutive days.
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 51 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 6 Pageid#: 509

provide Couch with an amount of food equivalent to that provided to nonfasting prisoners, or, in the alternative, to provide Couch with adequate nutrition and calories during this period.
Couch alleges in his complaint and amended complaint that the defendants deprived him of adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. In particular, Couch, through his sworn pleadings and affidavits, has stated that VDOC operating policies allow the prison to choose whether to provide Ramadan fast participants with the same full, hot breakfast that is served to the general prison population or to provide a significantly smaller, cold bag meal. Couch has stated that the prison always has opted to serve the smaller bag meal. Couch has stated that during these periods he was provided with meals which provided him with only approximately 1,000 calories per day. As a result, he states that, he experienced significant weight loss of approximately 13 pounds, constant hunger, “hunger headaches” and listlessness.
Couch has stated that the defendants have informed him that they will follow the same policy and provide him with the smaller bag breakfast meal during this year’s Ramadan period. As a result, Couch states that he will suffer irreparable harm in the form of physical and mental pain and anguish, including, as in prior years, significant weight loss.
The defendants have provided no evidence to contradict Couch’s claims that he has suffered physical injury, including significant weight loss, in previous years due to the reduced caloric intake provided to him during Ramadan. The defendants also have provided no evidence to contradict Couch’s evidence that a diet including the
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 51 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 6 Pageid#: 510

smaller bag breakfast provides only approximately 1,000 calories per day. Instead, the defendants have submitted evidence that, if an inmate eats the same breakfast and dinner meals as provided to the general population during Ramadan, the inmate will receive an average of 2,200 calories per day. The defendants admit, however, that VDOC policy allows the prison to opt to serve a bag breakfast to the inmates observing Ramadan. Furthermore, the defendants have provided no evidence with regard to daily caloric intake provided an inmate who receives the smaller bag breakfast.
In Blackwelder Furniture Co. v. Seilig Mfg. Co., Inc., 550 F.2d 189, 193-96 (4th Cir. 1977), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals set out four factors to be considered in analyzing a request for preliminary injunctive relief. Those factors include: (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is denied; (2) the likelihood of harm to the defendant if the injunction is granted; (3) the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest. See Blackwelder, 550 F.2d at 193-96. Furthermore, the Fourth Circuit has held that preliminary injunctions that mandate affirmative relief, such as requested here, “do not preserve the status quo and normally should be granted only in those circumstances when the exigencies of the situation demand such relief.” Wetzel v. Edwards, 635 F.2d 283, 286 (4th Cir. 1980). In considering the four factors set out in Blackwelder, the Fourth Circuit in Wetzel stated that a court should use a “balance of hardship” test. Wetzel, 635 F.2d at 287.
There is a correlation between the likelihood of plaintiff’s success and the probability of irreparable injury to him. If the likelihood of success is great, the need for showing the probability of irreparable harm is less. Conversely, if the likelihood of success is remote, there must be a strong showing of the probability of irreparable injury to justify issuance of the
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 51 Filed 09/22/06 Page 3 of 6 Pageid#: 511

injunction. Of all the factor, the two most important are those of probable irreparable injury to the plaintiff if an injunction is not issued and likely harm to the defendant if an injunction is issued. If, upon weighing them, the balance is struck in favor of the plaintiff, a preliminary injunction should issue if, at least, grave or serious questions are presented.
Wetzel, 635 F.2d at 287 (quoting N.C. State Ports Auth. v. Dart Containerline Co., Ltd., 592 F.2d 749, 750 (4th Cir. 1979)).
In this case, I find that a balancing of the hardships, including the exigencies of the circumstances, demand that limited preliminary relief be granted. Couch has provided evidence, which is not contested by the defendants at this stage, that during the Ramadan period he will be provided with meals containing only approximately 1,000 calories per day and that this deprivation of food, has resulted in the past, and will likely again result, in a significant loss in weight. I find that such an injury amounts to irreparable harm. I further note that this case involves an allegation of deprivation of Couch’s First Amendment rights and that some courts have described violations of First Amendment rights as “per se irreparable injury.” Johnson v. Bergland, 586 F.2d 993, 995 (4th Cir. 1978) (citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). Furthermore, while the defendants argue that, if the requested relief were granted, it “will disrupt the orderly operation of the food service process at Keen Mountain and other prisons,” they have offered no evidence of such harm to the court. With regard to the likelihood that Couch will succeed on the merits, by separate Memorandum Opinion and Order entered this same date, the court found that Couch has provided evidence which, if left unrefuted, would be sufficient to prove that he has been denied adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan in the past in violation of his rights under the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause and RLUIPA.
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 51 Filed 09/22/06 Page 4 of 6 Pageid#: 512

Based on the above-stated reasons, I GRANT Couch’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (Docket Item No. 40), and ORDER that the defendants, between sunset and dawn during the 2006 Ramadan period beginning September 23, shall daily provide Couch with food items containing approximately 2,200 calories, which is the amount that the defendants state will be daily provided to all nonfasting inmates through their breakfast and dinner meals.
With regard to Couch’s Motion To Post Security For Preliminary Injunction, (Docket Item No. 44), as stated above, the defendants have offered no evidence to the court of any harm to be caused to them by the granting of preliminary relief. Therefore, the Motion To Post Security For Preliminary Injunction, (Docket Item No. 44), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and it is ORDERED that Couch will be required post a nominal cash bond in the amount of $13.50. It is further ORDERED that Couch is not required to prepay this bond, but, pursuant to the previous Consent To Fee, (Docket Item No. 4), executed and filed by Couch in this matter, the appropriate prison official shall withhold from his prison account an amount equal to 20 percent of each prior month’s income until such time as the bond amount of $13.50 has been collected in full. Upon collection of this amount, the Trust Officer shall forward this amount to the Clerk’s Office, U.S. District Court, P. O. Box 1234, Roanoke, VA 24006, to be held pending further order of the court.
The Clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this Order to all counsel of record and unrepresented parties.
ENTER: September 22, 2006.
5
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 51 Filed 09/22/06 Page 5 of 6 Pageid#: 513

/s/ Pamela Meade Sargent
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6 Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 51 Filed 09/22/06 Page 6 of 6 Pageid#: 514

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

WILLIAM R. COUCH, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN JABE, et al., Defendants

)

) Civil Action No.: 7:05cv00642

)

)

)

ORDER

)

By: PAMELA MEADE SARGENT

) United States Magistrate Judge

)

This matter is before the undersigned on defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment, (Docket Item No. 13) (“the Motion”). For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion accompanying this Order, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The following claims are dismissed as being barred by the applicable statute of limitations: a. Plaintiff’s claim under the First Amendment that he was deprived of all hot meals during a lockdown that coincided with part of Ramadan 2002; and b. Plaintiff’s claim under the First Amendment that he was denied adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2002.

2. The following claims are dismissed based on the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies: a. Plaintiff’s claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, (“RLUIPA”), that he was deprived

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 50 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 4 Pageid#: 505

of all hot meals during a lockdown that coincided with part of Ramadan 2002; b. Plaintiff’s claim under RLUIPA that he was denied adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2002; c. Plaintiff’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was deprived of adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2003; d. Plaintiff’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was denied all hot meals during a lockdown period that coincided with part of Ramadan 2004; e. Plaintiff’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was deprived of adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2005; f. Plaintiff’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was denied the Eid ul Fitr prayer service following Ramadan 2003; g. Plaintiff’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was denied the Eid ul Fitr meal following Ramadan 2004; and h. Plaintiff’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was denied the Eid ul Fitr prayer service following Ramadan 2005.
3. The Motion is granted insofar as summary judgment is entered in the defendants’ favor on the following claims: a. Plaintiff’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was deprived of all hot meals during a lockdown that coincided
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 50 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 4 Pageid#: 506

with part of Ramadan 2003; b. Plaintiff’s claim under the Eighth Amendment regarding the
service of exclusively cold meals during the lockdown that coincided with part of Ramadan 2003; and c. Plaintiff’s equal protection claim with regard to his allegation of being denied adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2004.
4. The Motion is denied as to the following claims, and the following claims shall be set for trial: a. Plaintiff’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was denied adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2004; b. Plaintiff’s due process claim with regard to his allegation that he was denied adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2004; c. Plaintiff’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was denied the Eid ul Fitr meal following Ramadan 2003; d. Plaintiff’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was denied the Eid ul Fitr meal following Ramadan 2005; and e. Plaintiff’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was deprived of the Eid ul Fitr prayer service following Ramadan 2004.
The Clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this Order and accompanying Memorandum Opinion to all counsel of record and unrepresented parties.
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 50 Filed 09/22/06 Page 3 of 4 Pageid#: 507

ENTER: September 22, 2006.

/s/ Pamela Meade Sargent
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 50 Filed 09/22/06 Page 4 of 4 Pageid#: 508

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

WILLIAM R. COUCH, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN JABE, et al., Defendants

)

) Civil Action No.: 7:05cv00642

)

)

)

ORDER

)

By: PAMELA MEADE SARGENT

) United States Magistrate Judge

)

This matter is before the undersigned on plaintiff’s Motion For Preliminary Injunction, (Docket Item No. 40), plaintiff’s Motion To Appoint Counsel, (Docket Item No. 43), and plaintiff’s Motion To Post Security For Preliminary Injunction, (Docket Item No. 44). It is ORDERED that the defendants shall respond to plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (Docket Item No. 40), and plaintiff’s Motion To Post Security For Preliminary Injunction, (Docket Item No. 44), by no later than September 21, 2006. If the defendants do not respond or seek an extension of time to respond by this date, the court will assume that these motions are unopposed.

Regarding the plaintiff’s Motion To Appoint Counsel, (Docket Item No. 43), it should be noted that prisoners have no statutory right to counsel in civil rights cases; in fact, there is a presumption against appointment of counsel in such cases except in exceptional circumstances. See U.S. v. $27,000.00, 865 F. Supp 339, 340 (S.D.W.V. 1994). Nonetheless, because the plaintiff in this case is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court may, in its discretion, request that an attorney represent the plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C.A. §1915(e)(1) (West Supp. 2006). In deciding whether to request an attorney to represent a prisoner, the court should consider whether a pro se litigant has the

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 45 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 2 Pageid#: 433

capacity to adequately present his claims. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1153 (4th Cir. 1978). In this case, the plaintiff, through his voluminous filings with the court, has more than demonstrated his ability to adequately represent his interests in this case.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion To Appoint Counsel, (Docket Item No. 43), is DENIED.

The clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this Order to all counsel of record and unrepresented parties.

ENTER: September 8, 2006.

/s/ Pamela Meade Sargent
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 45 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 2 Pageid#: 434

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

WILLIAM R. COUCH, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN JABE, et al., Defendants

)

) Civil Action No.: 7:05cv00642

)

)

) MEMORANDUM OPINION

)

By: PAMELA MEADE SARGENT

) United States Magistrate Judge

)

Plaintiff, William R. Couch, an inmate at Keen Mountain Correctional Center in Buchanan County, Virginia, (“Keen Mountain”), filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq., against numerous Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections, (“VDOC”), employees in both their individual and official capacities.1 Jurisdiction over this matter is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The case is before the undersigned magistrate judge by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1).

In his complaint, (Docket Item No. 1), and in his amended complaint, (Docket Item No. 21), Couch alleges that the defendants violated his right to freedom of religious expression in violation of the First Amendment and RLUIPA, and that the

1The defendants are John Jabe, Deputy Director of the VDOC; Larry Huffman, Regional Director of the Western Regional Office of the VDOC; Linda B. Shear, Chief Dietician for the VDOC; Kathleen Bassett, Warden at Keen Mountain; R. B. Phillips, Assistant Warden of Operations at Keen Mountain; K. Pickerel, Major, Chief of Security at Keen Mountain; and Mike Oslin, Food Service Director at Keen Mountain.
-1-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 53 Pageid#: 452

defendants violated his right to equal protection and due process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case is now before the court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (Docket Item No. 13).
Based on my review of the evidence provided and the written arguments and representations of the parties, and for the reasons set forth below, I will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.
I. Facts and Analysis
A. Statutes of Limitations and PLRA Issues
In his complaint and amended complaint, Couch makes the following claims: 1. During Ramadan 2002:
a. the defendants denied him of adequate nutrition and calories; and b. the defendants deprived him of all hot meals during a quarterly lockdown period which coincided with part of Ramadan. 2. During Ramadan 2003: a. the defendants deprived him of adequate nutrition and calories; b. the defendants deprived him of all hot meals during a quarterly lockdown period which coincided with part of Ramadan; c. the defendants deprived him of the Eid ul Fitr meal; and d. the defendants deprived him of the Eid ul Fitr prayer service. 3. During Ramadan 2004: a. the defendants deprived him of all hot meals during a quarterly
-2-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 53 Pageid#: 453

lockdown period which coincided with part of Ramadan; and b. the defendants deprived him of the Eid ul Fitr prayer service. 4. During Ramadan 2005: a. the defendants deprived him of adequate nutrition and calories; b. the defendants deprived him of the Eid ul Fitr meal; and c. the defendants deprived him of the Eid ul Fitr prayer service.
Before addressing the defendants’ summary judgment motion, however, I note that a couple of Couch’s claims do not appear viable under the appropriate statutes of limitations periods. Also, it appears that Couch has not properly exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to each of his claims. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3), I will first address these issues. I will address each of Couch’s claims relating to the condition of the food during Ramadan before turning to Couch’s claims regarding the Eid ul Fitr observances. Regarding the exhaustion issue, it is important to note that the defendants have not raised this as a basis for their summary judgment motion. That being the case, the court will determine only if Couch has properly pleaded exhaustion of his administrative remedies. The court’s analysis on this issue is based on Couch’s representation that he attached copies of all documentation demonstrating exhaustion to his complaint. The defendants have provided no evidence challenging any of the documentation provided to the court by Couch.
-3-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 3 of 53 Pageid#: 454

1. Inadequate Nutrition and Calories and Lack of Hot Meals
Couch, a Sunni Muslim,2 alleges in his complaint and amended complaint that the defendants deprived him of adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan3 2002, 2003 and 2005. Couch further alleges that the defendants deprived him of all hot meals during regularly scheduled lockdowns which coincided with part of Ramadan 2002, 2003 and 2004.
i. Statutes of Limitations
a. Claims Brought Under § 1983
Although no specific federal statute of limitations applies to § 1983 actions, the Supreme Court in Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 2279-80 (1985), held that for statute of limitations purposes, all § 1983 actions would be characterized as tort actions for the recovery of damages for personal injuries and held that the state statute of limitation for personal injury applies to all § 1983 claims. The Commonwealth of
2In his complaint, Couch explains that there are two groups of Muslim inmates at Keen Mountain. These two groups are the Sunni Muslims, which comprise the World Community, of which Couch is a member and for which he is the current liaison at the prison, and the Nation of Islam, (“NOI”).
3According to Couch’s complaint, Ramadan is the ninth month of the Arabian lunar calendar. It is a very sacred month for Muslims because it was in this month that the revelation of the Holy Qur’an began and fasting as an obligatory institution was prescribed by God. Islam requires that every Muslim fast between dawn and sunset for 30 consecutive days. Couch also notes that for Muslims, Ramadan is a month of heightened spiritual observances, including fasting and increased prayer. It is a time of peace and tranquility wherein the Muslim aspires to a closer connection with his Creator. During Ramadan, Muslims are specifically enjoined to avoid arguments and disputes.
-4-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 4 of 53 Pageid#: 455

Virginia has a two-year statute of limitations period for personal injury actions which applies in § 1983 actions. See VA. CODE ANN. § 8.01-243(A); Lewis v. Richmond City Police Dep’t, 947 F.2d 733, 735 (4th Cir. 1991). That being the case, Couch must show that he filed his complaint within the applicable two-year statute of limitations period for all of his claims brought under § 1983.
In his complaint and amended complaint, Couch alleges that the defendants deprived him of all hot meals during part of Ramadan 2002, 2003 and 2004 and that they supplied him inadequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2002, 2003 and 2005. The pleadings do not reflect the exact dates that Keen Mountain observed Ramadan during 2002. However, because Couch’s complaint was filed on October 17, 2005, it is clear that any claims arising in 2002 are barred by the applicable twoyear statute of limitations for claims brought under § 1983. For this reason, I must dismiss Couch’s claims brought under § 1983 for alleged deprivations occurring in 2002. Ramadan of 2003 was observed at Keen Mountain from October 26, 2003, through November 24, 2003. Thus, Couch’s complaint, filed October 17, 2005, was within the two-year limitations period applicable to § 1983 claims. Finally, because Couch’s remaining claims of inadequate nutrition and calories and the lack of hot meals relate to Ramadan of 2004 and 2005, it is clear that those claims fall within the two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims.
b. Claims Brought Under RLUIPA
RLUIPA does not contain its own statute of limitations period. However, in 1990, Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1658, which provides a four-year statute of
-5-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 5 of 53 Pageid#: 456

limitations period for federal civil actions “arising under an Act of Congress enacted after [December 1, 1990].” Specifically, § 1658(a) states as follows:
Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action arising under an Act of Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of this section may not be commenced later than 4 years after the cause of action accrues.
28 U.S.C.A. § 1658(a) (West 1994 & Supp. 2006). Section 1658 was enacted on December 1, 1990. Thus, according to the terms of the statute, any federal civil action arising under an Act of Congress enacted after December 1, 1990, is subject to the four-year statute of limitations period contained therein.
There was some debate among the circuits, the Fourth Circuit not being one, as to when a state’s statute of limitations period for personal injury actions or this federal “catch all” statute of limitations period would apply. For instance, in Zubi v. AT&T Corp., 219 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000), a case dealing with a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Third Circuit held that the state’s two-year statute of limitations period applied rather than the four-year catch all because the four-year catch all applied only when Congress established a new cause of action without reference to preexisting law. Likewise, in Madison v. IBP, Inc., 257 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2001), again a case involving a § 1981 claim, the Eighth Circuit held, based on the reasoning set forth in Zubi, that because § 1981 did not have its own limitations period, courts should employ the statute of limitation provided by the state’s law for personal injury cases. It does not appear that the Fourth Circuit has addressed this issue. In any event, the United States Supreme Court decided this issue once and for all in Jones v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004). In Jones, the Court abrogated the holdings in Zubi and Madison by holding that a cause of action “aris[es] under an Act
-6-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 6 of 53 Pageid#: 457

of Congress enacted” after December 1, 1990, and is, therefore, governed by the federal four-year catch all statute of limitations, if the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant was made possible by a post-1990 enactment. 541 U.S. at 382. In Jones, the Court held that, in the context of a § 1981 claim, the plaintiffs’ hostile work environment, wrongful termination and failure to transfer claims arose under the amendment to § 1981 contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. See 541 U.S. at 383. Therefore, the Court held that these claims were governed by the four-year catch all statute of limitations period for claims arising under an Act of Congress enacted after December 1, 1990, because their causes of action were made possible by the Act when the claims alleged violations of the amended statute, and did not allege a violation of the pre-1990 version of § 1981. See 541 U.S. at 383.
While I can find no court that has addressed this statute of limitations issue in the context of a claim brought under RLUIPA, it appears that the reasoning should be the same as that employed by the Court in Jones. RLUIPA was enacted in September 2000. There is no doubt that RLUIPA created a new right of action which Couch seeks to invoke in his complaint and amended complaint. Thus, I find that the fouryear statute of limitations under § 1658 applies to Couch’s claims brought under RLUIPA. That being the case, I find that all of Couch’s claims brought under RLUIPA, including those relating to Ramadan 2002, are timely.
ii. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e making it mandatory that a prison
-7-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 7 of 53 Pageid#: 458

inmate exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a civil rights suit based on prison conditions. This section states:
No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West 2003).
This court previously has held that the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA applies to inmates seeking monetary damages, although such damages are not available through a prison grievance system. See Osbourne v. Deeds, Civil Action No. 7:99cv00774 (June 8, 2001). The United States Supreme Court also has addressed this issue, holding that under the PLRA, a particular remedy need not be available through the prison’s administrative process in order for the PLRA exhaustion requirement to apply. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).
Here, VDOC Departmental Operating Procedure, (“DOP”), 866 requires that, prior to submitting a formal grievance, an inmate must submit an informal complaint. The staff member to whom the informal complaint is directed should respond to the complaint within 15 calendar days. DOP 866 further requires an inmate to file a grievance within 30 calendar days from the date of the incident except under certain prescribed circumstances. Under DOP 866, an inmate is required to prove that he has sought informal resolution of his complaint by either attaching a copy of his informal complaint to his grievance or by stating the response to his informal complaint on the grievance form. An inmate who does not receive a response to his informal complaint
-8-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 8 of 53 Pageid#: 459

should file a formal grievance within 30 days and note that he did not receive any response to his informal complaint. The prison warden or superintendent must respond to an inmate grievance within 30 days. This initial consideration of an inmate’s grievance by the warden or superintendent is referred to as Level I. DOP 866 also provides that an inmate who is dissatisfied with the determination on a grievance at Level I may appeal. The review that occurs is referred to as Level II. Under DOP 866, all grievances are appealable through at least Level II. Certain specific grievances may be appealed to an additional level, Level III. Moreover, DOP 866-7.16(4) states: “Expiration of a time limit ... at any stage of the process shall qualify the grievance for appeal to the next level of review.”
a. 2002 Claims Under RLUIPA
A review of the documentation attached to Couch’s complaint reveals that Couch failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to any of his claims relating to the defendants’ actions occurring in 2002 brought under RLUIPA. That being the case, I must dismiss all such claims. Thus, due to both the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations on Couch’s § 1983 claims relating to 2002 and, now, given Couch’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies for any of his 2002 claims brought under RLUIPA, all of Couch’s claims relating to 2002 are dismissed.
b. 2003 Claims
-9-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 9 of 53 Pageid#: 460

Documents submitted by Couch with his complaint show that he properly exhausted his administrative remedies for his claims that he was served exclusively cold meals during the regularly scheduled quarterly lockdown period which coincided with part of Ramadan 2003. However, Couch did not provide documentation showing that he exhausted his administrative remedies for his claim that he was deprived of adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2003. The documentation provided by Couch shows that Couch filed an informal complaint directed to Mike Oslin, Food Service Manager at Keen Mountain, on November 11, 2003, complaining of receiving no hot meals during lockdown. Oslin responded on November 13, 2003, stating that the meals were being served according to VDOC policy. Couch filed a grievance on November 13, 2003, to which he properly attached a copy of his informal complaint, again complaining of the lack of hot meals during lockdown. On December 2, 2003, Warden Kathleen Bassett determined that Couch’s grievance was unfounded. On December 6, 2003, Couch appealed to Larry Huffman, the Regional Director of the VDOC. On December 17, 2003, Huffman upheld Warden Bassett’s determination. Thus, I find that Couch has properly exhausted his administrative remedies for his 2003 claim as it relates to the deprivation of hot meals during a lockdown period that coincided with part of Ramadan. However, I further find that Couch has not exhausted his administrative remedies for his claim of receiving inadequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2003. That being the case, I will dismiss Couch’s 2003 claim that he received inadequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2003 for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies under the PLRA.
c. 2004 Claims
-10-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 10 of 53 Pageid#: 461

Documents submitted by Couch regarding his 2004 claims show that he properly exhausted his administrative remedies for his claim of receiving inadequate calories and nutrition during Ramadan, but that he has not properly exhausted his administrative remedies for his claim that he was deprived of hot meals during a regularly scheduled lockdown, part of which coincided with Ramadan. On November 13, 2004, Couch submitted an informal complaint to Oslin, stating that the dinner meal for the fasting World Community members was the same as that served to the general population inmates. He further stated that the portion size for the dinner meal for the fasting World Community inmates was the same as that served to the general population inmates. He asked why this was the case. On November 4, 2004, Oslin replied that the portions were in compliance with departmental policies and procedures. On October 18, 2004, Couch filed an informal complaint stating that no hot meals were served to the fasting members of the World Community during lockdown which coincided with part of Ramadan 2004. He also complained about portion size during Ramadan 2004, which he alleged resulted in inadequate nutrition and calories. On October 22, 2004, Warden Bassett responded that the Ramadan menu had been set by the VDOC and would not be deviated from. She further explained that fasting members of the World Community would receive only two meals during Ramadan and that Oslin was following VDOC guidelines set forth by Deputy Director John Jabe. Warden Bassett instructed Couch to direct further questions regarding the Ramadan menu to Oslin or to Assistant Warden R. B. Phillips. On October 23, 2004, Couch submitted another informal complaint to Oslin asking why, during normal operations on the weekends, the general population was served only two meals, but on weekends during lockdown, the general population was served three meals. On November 4, 2004, Oslin responded that DOP 601 allows
-11-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 11 of 53 Pageid#: 462

modifications for lockdowns and/or emergency situations. He further stated that distribution logistics prevented serving only two meals during lockdown due to larger portion sizes. On December 10, 2004, Couch submitted a grievance regarding the alleged deprivation of at least one-third of his daily caloric intake and nutritional needs. Couch attached a copy of the response he received from Oslin on November 4, 2004, to his grievance. Couch’s grievance was marked as being received on December 15, 2004. On January 3, 2005, in her Level-I response, Warden Bassett determined that Couch’s grievance was unfounded. On January 4, 2005, Couch appealed the Level-I response to Huffman. Huffman’s Level-II response, dated January 27, 2005, upheld Warden Bassett’s determination.
Although it is clear from the above documents tendered by Couch in connection with his pleadings in this case that he submitted informal complaints with regard to both the allegation of being denied hot meals during a lockdown that coincided with part of Ramadan 2004 and the allegation that he was denied adequate caloric and nutritional intake during Ramadan 2004, he has exhausted his administrative remedies only with respect to his claim regarding inadequate calories and nutrition. Thus, I will dismiss Couch’s claim that he was denied hot meals during a lockdown that coincided with part of Ramadan 2004 for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies under the PLRA.
d. 2005 Claims
-12-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 12 of 53 Pageid#: 463

In his supplemental pleadings, Couch alleges, inter alia, that he also was denied adequate calories and nutrition during Ramadan 2005. However, he has filed no informal complaints and/or grievances along with his supplemental pleadings showing that he has exhausted his administrative remedies regarding this claim. There being no evidence before this court that Couch has exhausted his administrative remedies, I will dismiss the claim that he received inadequate calories and nutrition during Ramadan 2005 on that basis.
2. Claims Regarding the Eid ul Fitr Observances4
i. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
a. 2003 Claims
Couch alleges that during Ramadan 2003, the defendants denied him the Eid ul Fitr meal as well as the Eid ul Fitr prayer service. However, the documents submitted by Couch show that he grieved only his claim that the Eid ul Fitr meal was served during Ramadan 2003, as opposed to after Ramadan, as required by Islamic tenets, thereby, in essence, denying him the meal. Specifically, Couch filed a grievance on January 20, 2004, stating that the Eid ul Fitr meal was served during
4According to Couch, the Eid ul Fitr observance, consisting of the Eid ul Fitr meal and the Eid ul Fitr prayer service, is an important observance in Islam that commemorates and celebrates the 30-day fast of Ramadan. The Eid ul Fitr prayer is a congregational prayer that must be performed during the morning on the first day following the completion of Ramadan. The Eid ul Fitr meal must be held at a time between the first and third day after the completion of Ramadan. The meal typically begins on the evening of the first day following the completion of Ramadan and after the morning Eid ul Fitr prayer service.
-13-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 13 of 53 Pageid#: 464

Ramadan as opposed to after Ramadan. Although he did not attach a copy to his grievance, Couch noted that his informal complaint already was on file. On February 5, 2004, the Level-I response from someone representing Warden Bassett5 stated that Couch had, in fact, attached to his grievance a response to his informal complaint from a human rights advocate at Keen Mountain, stating that Couch’s grievance was unfounded based on DOP 601 and Jabe’s memoranda dated September 15, 2003, and November 24, 2003. Couch appealed this Level-I response to Huffman. However, Huffman upheld the Level-I response on February 16, 2004.
Thus, while Couch has properly exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to his claim that he was deprived of the Eid ul Fitr meal during 2003, he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his claim that he was denied the Eid ul Fitr prayer service during 2003. That being the case, I will dismiss that claim.
b. 2004 Claims
Couch alleges that during Ramadan 2004, the defendants deprived him of the Eid ul Fitr prayer and the Eid ul Fitr meal. I first find that Couch has exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to his claim that he was denied the Eid ul Fitr prayer. In particular, Couch has submitted documents showing that he filed a grievance on December 12, 2004, stating such a denial. In that grievance, Couch stated that he was attaching the response to the informal complaint regarding the same issue. In the Level-I response, Warden Bassett noted that Couch had, in fact, attached
5This signature is illegible. -14-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 14 of 53 Pageid#: 465

to his grievance a response from Assistant Warden Phillips, dated November 29, 2004, advising Couch that his request had been sent to security for a response. Warden Bassett determined that Couch’s grievance was unfounded because he was instructed by memorandum dated November 10, 2004, that the Eid ul Fitr prayer service and the Eid ul Fitr meal would be held in the dining halls on November 17, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. On January 6, 2005, Couch appealed the Level-I response to Huffman. In his Level-II response, Huffman upheld Warden Bassett’s determination that Couch’s grievance was unfounded.
From the documents filed with the court, it is clear that Couch has properly exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to his claim that he was denied the Eid ul Fitr prayer following Ramadan 2004. However, as regards Couch’s claim that he was denied the Eid ul Fitr meal following Ramadan 2004, I find that he has submitted no documents to show that he properly exhausted his administrative remedies. That being the case, I will dismiss such claim for failure to exhaust under the PLRA.
c. 2005 Claims
In his supplemental pleadings, Couch alleges that the defendants deprived him of the Eid ul Fitr meal following Ramadan 2005 and that they deprived him of the Eid ul Fitr prayer service following Ramadan 2005. For the following reasons, I find that Couch has properly exhausted his administrative remedies regarding his claim that the defendants deprived him of the Eid ul Fitr meal, but he has provided no evidence to the court that he has exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to the denial
-15-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 15 of 53 Pageid#: 466

of the Eid ul Fitr prayer service following Ramadan 2005.
Couch has filed documents showing that he submitted an informal complaint on November 7, 2005, stating that the Eid ul Fitr meal was improperly served more than three days after Ramadan ended. He further stated that fasting began with the predawn meal on October 5, 2005, and ended after a full day of fasting on November 4, 2005. Couch stated that this constituted 31 days of fasting, in violation of Islamic tenets and DOP 601. The November 9, 2005, response stated that Ramadan ended at Keen Mountain in accordance with Jabe’s directive. Thereafter, Couch submitted a grievance,6 to which he properly attached the informal complaint, again noting that Keen Mountain had improperly held the Eid ul Fitr meal more than three days after Ramadan ended. He again noted that fasting had improperly occurred for 31 days. Warden Bassett responded to Couch’s grievance on December 27, 2005.7 Warden Bassett stated that an investigation revealed that Jabe sent a memorandum dated August 29, 2005, stating that Ramadan would start on the evening of October 5, 2005, and would end on the evening of November 4, 2005. However, on September 21, 2005, Jabe sent a corrective memorandum stating that religious observances would start on the evening of October 4, 2005, with the first full day of Ramadan beginning October 5, 2005. Warden Bassett stated that Keen Mountain Food Service followed the memorandum sent by Jabe observing the first full day of Ramadan starting
6It appears that Couch submitted this grievance on November 17, 2005, but the date is difficult to read as a “Received” stamp has been placed directly over the date that Couch submitted the grievance. Furthermore, it is a logical assumption that Couch submitted the grievance on November 17, 2005, since it was marked as received on November 21, 2005.
7Warden Bassett noted that the original response to Couch’s grievance was submitted on December 17, 2005, but that additional evidence had since been discovered.
-16-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 16 of 53 Pageid#: 467

October 5, 2005, and continuing through November 4, 2005. Moreover, Warden Bassett stated that the Eid ul Fitr meal was served on the third day following the prayer service. She further noted that a memorandum dated August 29, 2005, by Jabe stated that the religious observances of the World Community and the NOI would coincide and would start on the evening of October 5, 2005, and would continue for 30 calendar days until the evening of November 4, 2005.
Warden Bassett noted that Jabe’s August 29, 2005, memorandum stated as follows:
Once again this year the above religious observances will coincide and will start on the evening of October 5th and continue for 30 calendar days until the evening of November 4th. Food Service Manual Chapter 4 Section IV (G) states Eid ul-Fitr - prayer and fast breaking - This is a required holy day at the end of Ramadan that may be permitted for persons participating in Ramadan. The activities include a prayer service to be held before noon and a special meal. The special meal may be served on that day or may be held within three (3) days following the prayer service. Only one day may be selected. The EID meal consists of regular menu items.
(Attachment No. 3 to Docket Item No. 21).
Thus, Warden Bassett determined that Couch’s grievance was unfounded. Couch appealed this Level-I response, stating that Keen Mountain officials erred by beginning the first full day of fasting on October 5, 2005, according to Jabe’s September 21, 2005, memorandum, but ending the fast on November 4, 2005, according to Jabe’s August 29, 2005, memorandum.
-17-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 17 of 53 Pageid#: 468

In the Level-II response, Huffman noted that Couch’s claim that the Eid ul Fitr meal was improperly held more than three days after Ramadan ended had been investigated and that such investigation revealed that Keen Mountain had held Ramadan in accordance with Jabe’s September 21, 2005, memorandum and that the Eid ul Fitr meal was served on the third day following the prayer service as outlined as permissible in the Food Service Manual. In upholding Warden Bassett’s Level-I response, Huffman noted that departmental policies and procedures had been followed, and that Jabe’s September 21, 2005, memorandum and DOP 601 governed the issue.
For all of these reasons, I find that Couch has properly exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to his claim that he was deprived of the Eid ul Fitr meal following Ramadan 2005. However, because Couch has failed to provide documentation showing that he has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his claim that he was denied the Eid ul Fitr prayer service, I will dismiss that claim.
Thus, after analyzing all of Couch’s claims under the appropriate statutes of limitations and the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement, the following of Couch’s claims remain:
1. 2003 Claims: a. That the defendants deprived Couch of all hot meals during a quarterly lockdown period that coincided with part of Ramadan; and b. That the defendants deprived Couch of the Eid ul Fitr meal.
2. 2004 Claims: a. That the defendants deprived Couch of adequate nutrition and
-18-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 18 of 53 Pageid#: 469

calories; and b. That the defendants deprived Couch of the Eid ul Fitr prayer service. 3. 2005 Claim: a. That the defendants deprived Couch of the Eid ul Fitr meal.
B. Summary Judgment Analysis
That being said, I will now address the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with regard to these remaining claims. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), the court should grant summary judgment only when the pleadings, responses to discovery and the record reveal that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). See, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986); Miller v. Leathers, 913 F.2d 1085, 1087 (4th Cir. 1990)(en banc), cert denied, 498 U.S. 1109 (1991); and Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 364 (4th Cir. 1985). A genuine issue of fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Inc., 475 U.S. at 587-88; Nguyen v. CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234, 237 (4th Cir. 1995); Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 850 (4th Cir. 1990); Ross, 759 F.2d at 364;
-19-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 19 of 53 Pageid#: 470

Cole v. Cole, 633 F.2d 1083, 1092 (4th Cir. 1980). In other words, the nonmoving party is entitled “to have the credibility of his evidence as forecast assumed.” Miller, 913 F.2d at 1087 (quoting Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597 F.2d 406, 414 (4th Cir. 1979)). Therefore, in reviewing the defendants’ motion, the court must view the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to Couch.
Courts have held that although inmates lose some constitutional protections upon incarceration, they retain the right to freely worship while in prison. See McManus v. Bass, 2006 WL 753017 at *4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2006) (citing O’Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545 (1979)). The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . ” U.S. CONST. amend. I. In order to establish a right under the Free Exercise Clause, Couch must make two threshold showings. First, Couch must show that he sincerely holds his religious beliefs. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16 (1972). Second, Couch must show that his claims are rooted in religious belief and are not “purely secular.” Yoder, 406 U.S. at 215-16. Next, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987), when a prison regulation impinges on an inmate’s constitutional rights, “the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
Evaluating a statutory violation under RLUIPA involves the same threshold issues as invoked by the Free Exercise Clause for the most part. RLUIPA prohibits a prison institution from “impos[ing] a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . .” Unless the prison can show that
-20-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 20 of 53 Pageid#: 471

“imposition of the burden . . . (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc-1(a) (West 2003). RLUIPA defines religious exercise as “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc-5(7)(A) (West 2003). As under the First Amendment, although prison officials may not question the truth of an inmate’s belief, an inmate must demonstrate that the belief is sincerely held in order to establish a protected right under RLUIPA. See McManus, 2006 WL 753017 at *5 (citing Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725 n.13 (2005)). Under both the First Amendment and RLUIPA, Couch must show that his right to the free exercise of his religion has been “substantially burdened.” McManus, 2006 WL 753017 at *5 (quoting Hernandez v. Comm’r, 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989)); see also 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc-1(a) (West 2003).
Here, I find that it is undoubted that Couch holds a sincere belief in his religion. Couch states in his complaint that he has been a Sunni Muslim for approximately 15 years. Furthermore, in addition to fasting for at least the previous four years during Ramadan while incarcerated, he also was, at least at the time of the filing of his complaint, the liaison between the inmates and the staff at Keen Mountain for the World Community. Moreover, I note the defendants have not questioned whether Couch sincerely holds his religious beliefs. I find that these facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Couch, demonstrate Couch’s sincerely held beliefs as a Sunni Muslim. Furthermore, there simply is no evidence that Couch’s beliefs are not rooted in religious beliefs or are purely secular in nature, and the defendants make no such claim.
-21-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 21 of 53 Pageid#: 472

Next, under both the First Amendment analysis and the RLUIPA analysis, Couch must show that his right to freely exercise his religion has been “substantially burdened” by the defendants’ actions. RLUIPA does not define “substantial burden,” and the courts that have addressed this issue, the Fourth Circuit not being one, are in disagreement. The Second Circuit, in McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 202 n.4 (2d Cir. 2004), held that a substantial burden exists in a situation where “the state ‘puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.’” (quoting Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 477 (2d Cir. 1996)). The Fifth Circuit has held that a government action or regulation creates a substantial burden on “a religious exercise if it truly pressures the adherent to significantly modify his religious behavior and significantly violate his religious beliefs.” Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559, 569-70 (5th Cir. 2004). The Seventh Circuit has held that a substantial burden results from a regulation that “necessarily bears direct, primary, and fundamental responsibility for rendering religious exercise . . . effectively impracticable.” Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752, 761 (7th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1096 (2004). The Eighth Circuit, quoting Weir v. Nix, 114 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 1997), which defined substantial burden in the context of a claim brought under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, (“RFRA”),42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.,8 defined substantial burden under RLUIPA as follows:
8The Supreme Court’s decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), invalidated RFRA as it applied to states and localities. Although RFRA continued to apply to the federal government, in September 2000, Congress attempted to reinstate RFRA’s protection against government burdens on religious exercise imposed by states and localities by enacting RLUIPA.
-22-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 22 of 53 Pageid#: 473

[t]o constitute a substantial burden, the government policy or actions: must ‘significantly inhibit or constrain conduct or expression that manifests some central tenet of a [person’s] individual [religious] beliefs; must meaningfully curtail a [person’s] ability to express adherence to his or her faith; or must deny a [person] reasonable opportunities to engage in those activities that are fundamental to a [person’s] religion.’ Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 988 (8th Cir. 2004).
The Ninth Circuit has held that a substantial burden on religious exercise must impose a “significantly great restriction or onus upon such exercise.” Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004)). Finally, the Eleventh Circuit has held that a substantial burden is one that results “from pressure that tends to force adherents to forgo religious precepts or from pressure that mandates religious conduct.” Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004).
1. Service of Exclusively Cold Meals
I first will address Couch’s claims that his right to freely exercise his religion under both the First Amendment and RLUIPA were violated when the defendants served him exclusively cold meals during a lockdown period that coincided with part of Ramadan 2003. I find that such actions on the part of the defendants did not substantially burden the free exercise of Couch’s religion. Couch does not contend that being served hot meals is a requirement under Islamic tenets during the Ramadan fasting period, nor does Couch claim that such is central to his own subjective
-23-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 23 of 53 Pageid#: 474

religious beliefs.9 In fact, Couch does not specify how the exercise of his religious beliefs was substantially burdened by being served exclusively cold food during the lockdown that coincided with part of Ramadan 2003. However, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Couch and construing Couch’s pro se complaint liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972),10 it can be argued that Couch is contending that being served such cold meals during this period diminished the overall spiritual experience of Ramadan. However, even so construing Couch’s complaint, I cannot find that being served exclusively cold meals during only part of Ramadan constitutes a substantial burden on the free exercise of Couch’s religion. Despite being served cold food, he, and the other Muslim inmates were, nonetheless, given the opportunity to fast during Ramadan. Couch makes no allegation that he was significantly pressured to break the fast in order to receive hot meals, nor does he present evidence that other fasting inmates broke the fast on this basis. Moreover, Couch does not contend that eating such cold meals was hazardous to his health in any way or resulted in any medical problems.
As the Seventh Circuit reasoned in Al-Alamin v. Gramley, 926 F.2d 680, 688 (7th Cir. 1991), here, Keen Mountain made special accommodations for providing inmates the opportunity to participate in the Ramadan fast. Moreover, I find that the fact that the defendants made such accommodations satisfies the First Amendment
9Although the alleged burden by the defendants need not be upon a mandatory religious practice, I, nonetheless, note that the service of hot meals is not mandated by Islamic tenets because it is one factor to be considered in determining whether Couch’s free exercise of his religion was substantially burdened.
10In Haines, the Supreme Court held that the allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See 404 U.S. at 520.
-24-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 24 of 53 Pageid#: 475

regardless of Couch’s complaints that the specific accommodations made by prison officials were not to his liking. See Al-Alamin, 926 F.2d at 688. In particular, the fact that Keen Mountain serves exclusively cold meals to Ramadan fast participants during the lockdown period that happened to coincide with part of Ramadan, and that Couch prefers not to eat exclusively cold meals during this time period, simply does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Likewise, the Seventh Circuit noted in Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1235 (7th Cir. 1988), that inmates are not average citizens, but convicted criminals and, therefore, “cannot expect the amenities, conveniences and services of a good hotel.” Again, I note that Couch, as well as all World Community and NOI members, were given the opportunity by the defendants to observe the month of fasting at the prison in accordance with Islamic tenets. For all of these reasons, I find that Couch’s free exercise of his religion was not substantially burdened by the defendants’ service of exclusively cold food during the lockdown that coincided with part of Ramadan 2003. Therefore, I find that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this ground. Given this disposition, I find it unnecessary to address Couch’s equal protection and due process claims in relation hereto.
While Couch has not framed his cold food claim in terms of an Eighth Amendment claim, as the defendants correctly note in their brief, such claims typically are classified as such. Further, because Couch is a prisoner proceeding pro se, I will liberally construe his complaint to allege such a claim. See Haines, 404 U.S. at 520.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments.” U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. This amendment not only prohibits
-25-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 25 of 53 Pageid#: 476

excessive sentences, but it also protects inmates from inhumane treatment and conditions while imprisoned. See Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996). Moreover, the Fourth Circuit has held that a prisoner must suffer a “serious or significant physical or mental injury” in order to be “subjected to cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the” Eighth Amendment. White v. Gregory, 1 F.3d 267, 269 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1381(4th Cir. 1993); see also Lopez v. Robinson, 914 F.2d 486, 490 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting Shrader v. White, 761 F.2d 975, 979 (4th Cir. 1985). The Court stated as follows in Strickler:
The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit cruel and unusual prison conditions; it prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. If a person has not suffered serious or significant physical or mental injury as a result of the challenged condition, he simply has not been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the [Eighth] Amendment.
989 F.2d at 1381.
As the Court in Strickler noted, “[a]t a minimum, an inmate must specifically describe not only the injury but also its relation to the allegedly unconstitutional condition.” 989 F.2d at 1381 n.9.
The Supreme Court has described two general categories of Eighth Amendment claims in the prison setting: those involving “conditions of confinement” and those involving “excessive use of government force.” Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 401-02 (6th Cir. 1999). In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102-03 (1976), the Supreme Court acknowledged that “punishment” could go beyond that which was specifically part of the sentence and could include the conditions facing the inmate once
-26-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 26 of 53 Pageid#: 477

imprisoned. All Eighth Amendment claims have an objective component. In Estelle, the Supreme Court determined that the objective component encompasses not only “physically barbarous punishments,” but also the infliction of “unnecessary suffering [that] is inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency.” 429 U.S. at 102-03. When the pain inflicted is not formally meted out as punishment by the statute or the sentencing judge, some mental element also must be attributed to the inflicting officer in order to make out the subjective component of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 300 (1991). However, the subjective prong differs in the two sets of cases; that is, the state of mind necessary in order to find a prison official in violation of the Eighth Amendment depends on the nature of the case -whether it describes the conditions of confinement facing the inmate, or alternatively involves the excessive use of force against him.
Here, Couch’s complaint undoubtedly challenges the conditions of his confinement. In Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302-03, the Supreme Court held that in a prison conditions case, wantonness entails “deliberate indifference.” In Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993), the Supreme Court held that an inmate stated a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment and that the subjective component would require a showing that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health -- the fact that the potential medical injury lay in the future did not change the analysis. As stated above, the objective element would require a showing that society considers the risk he faces “to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly” to it. In Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994), the Supreme Court more specifically defined the term “deliberate indifference” in the Eighth Amendment context to mean that the individual
-27-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 27 of 53 Pageid#: 478

prison official was aware of the risk to the inmate’s health and was deliberately indifferent to it.
While the Fourth Circuit has not addressed whether serving an inmate cold food can constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, other circuits have. For instance, in Blatter, the court noted that cold food is an ordinary incident in prison life. In Dean v. Campbell, 1998 WL 466137 at *2 (6th Cir. Jul. 30, 1998), the Sixth Circuit held that an inmate’s allegation of cold meals for a short period of time failed to allege facts showing that the inmate was subjected to the type of extreme deprivations which are necessary for an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims. In Johnson v. Horn, 150 F.3d 276, 282 (3d Cir. 1998), the court held that serving cold food instead of kosher food to an inmate did not violate his First Amendment rights. In Brown-El v. Delo, 969 F.2d 644, 648 (8th Cir. 1992), the court held that a prisoner’s constitutional rights were not violated when he was served cold food. In Madyun v. Thompson, 657 F.2d 868, 87475 (7th Cir. 1981), the court held that an allegation that food served to segregated prisoners was cold and not on the menu served to general population prisoners was insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. In Prophete v. Gilless, 869 F. Supp. 537, 538 (W.D. Tenn. 1994), the court held that cold food does not pose a danger to inmate health and thus does not constitute a deprivation of a necessity of life. In Smith v. Copeland, 892 F. Supp. 1218, 1229 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff’d, 87 F.3d 265 (8th Cir. 1996), the court held that a diet of cold food, in and of itself, does not offend the Constitution. In Cruz v. Jackson, 1997 WL 45348 (S.D. N.Y. Feb. 5, 1997), the court held that a prisoner’s allegation that he was served cold food for four months was insufficient to give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim. In Ivy v. Washington, 1996
-28-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 28 of 53 Pageid#: 479

WL 685455 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 1996), the court held that a claim of being served cold food does not state an Eighth Amendment violation. In Williams v. Washington, 1996 WL 137670 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 1996), the court held that receiving meals delivered cold did not exceed deprivations one could expect from prison life. In Vinegar v. Fairman, 1995 WL 769758 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 1995), the court rejected a claim that being served cold food violated the Eighth Amendment, noting that the Constitution requires only that inmates receive adequate nutrition. In Fisher v. Dep’t of Corr., 1995 WL 608379 (S.D. N.Y. Oct. 16, 1995), the court held that a prisoner’s claim that his food was served cold did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. In Flournoy v. Sheahan, 1994 WL 605584 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 1994), the court held that being served cold food is not a constitutional violation. In Watson v. Sheahan, 1994 WL 95782 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 1994), the court ruled that a prisoner failed to explain how the alleged conditions of eating cold food without certain utensils while standing up or sitting on the floor present an immediate danger to his health. In Cunningham v. Jones, 567 F.2d 653, 659-60 (6th Cir. 1977), the court observed that complaints about the preparation or quality of prison food “would generally be far removed from Eighth Amendment concerns.” Finally, as previously mentioned, in Harris, 839 F.2d at 1235, the Seventh Circuit held that inmates are not average citizens, but convicted criminals and, therefore, “cannot expect the amenities, conveniences and services of a good hotel.” Likewise, in Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981), the Supreme Court stated that “the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons and [those] which house persons convicted of serious crimes, cannot be free of discomfort.”
Thus, although the Fourth Circuit has not addressed the issue of whether the
-29-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 29 of 53 Pageid#: 480

service of cold food to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, numerous other courts have held that it simply does not. I can find no reason to distinguish the case before me now from those cited above. Moreover, Couch has failed to show that the defendants were aware of any risk of harm to Couch’s health and were deliberately indifferent to it. In fact, Couch does not submit to the court that the consumption of cold food during the lockdown that coincided with part of Ramadan 2004 was harmful to his health. In his complaint, he alleges that he lost approximately 13 pounds during Ramadan, but he does not allege that this was due to being served cold food. Thus, for all of these reasons, I find that, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Couch, they simply do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation under the Eighth Amendment. That being the case, I find that Couch has failed to state a constitutional violation and, therefore, I find that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
2. Service of Inadequate Calories and Nutrition
I next will address Couch’s claim that the meals served by the defendants to him as well as to the other World Community fast participants during Ramadan 2004, were inadequate in nutritious value and caloric content, in violation of his right to freely express his religious beliefs under both the First Amendment and RLUIPA. It has been held that inmates are entitled to receive adequate nutrition and calories. See Shrader, 761 F.2d at 986 (holding that inmates must be provided nutritionally adequate food); see also Bolding v. Holshouser, 575 F.2d 461 (4th Cir. 1978); Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1977). Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Couch, I find that Couch has demonstrated a substantial burden on the free exercise
-30-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 30 of 53 Pageid#: 481

of his religion. In his complaint, Couch contends that he was deprived during this time period of one-half to two-thirds of the nutrition and calories that the VDOC would have provided him had he not fasted during Ramadan. Specifically, Couch contends that he was provided approximately 1000 calories per day during this time period as opposed to the 2800 calories that general population prisoners are to be provided according to VDOC policy. The defendants note that because Couch voluntarily chose to fast, he was aware that he would be receiving a reduced amount of food and calories during this time. The defendants argue that this is what is implied by the word “fast.” However, Couch has explained in his complaint that the period of fasting during Ramadan applies only to the daylight hours. Thus, fasting inmates receive a predawn meal and an evening meal after sunset. He contends that Muslims fasting during Ramadan are allowed to consume an unlimited amount of calories from sunset until dawn. I must further note that Couch states in his complaint that during periods of lockdown at the prison, inmates are not allowed to make food purchases from the prison commissary. Therefore, at least during these lockdown periods, inmates have no way to supplement their diets. Moreover, given the general definition of fast, which is to abstain from food or to eat sparingly or to abstain from some foods, and especially considering the Ramadan fast, which only occurs during the daylight hours, I find that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the defendants provided Couch with adequate nutrition and calories in violation of Couch’s constitutional and statutory rights to freely exercise his religion.11 Thus, I find that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Couch, a reasonable jury could find that inmates participating in the fast, receiving only 1000 daily calories, were substantially pressured to break the fast, in violation of Islamic tenets, in order
11See http://www.m-w.com/cig-bin/dictionary. -31-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 31 of 53 Pageid#: 482

to satisfy their physical hunger.
Just what constitutes adequate nutrition and calories is best determined on a case-by-case basis. Here, Couch alleges that he was provided only 1000 daily calories during Ramadan 2004. He further alleges, and the defendants admit, that VDOC policy provides that inmates be provided 2800 calories during normal prison operations. Nonetheless, in response to Couch’s argument, the defendants merely state that Couch voluntarily chose to fast and should have known that he would be receiving a decreased amount of calories during Ramadan.12 However, as Couch states in his complaint, Muslims are only obligated to fast during the daylight hours. They may consume an unlimited amount of calories from sunset until dawn. Thus, I am not persuaded by the defendants’ argument that Couch should necessarily have known that his total daily caloric intake would be so drastically reduced. Moreover, the defendants never actually address whether the meals served to Couch and the other fasting World Community inmates during Ramadan 2004 were either nutritionally or calorically inadequate. Nor do they advance any governmental interest, either legitimate or compelling, that was furthered by the service of such meals during this time period. That being the case, it is impossible at this time for this court to determine whether such an interest exists. For all of these reasons, I find that there exists a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on this issue. That being the case, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be denied on this ground.
12Again, I note that, despite such a contention by the defendants, Muslims are only obliged to fast during the daylight hours. Thus, I cannot find that Couch should necessarily have known that his total daily caloric intake would be so drastically reduced.
-32-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 32 of 53 Pageid#: 483

Couch also argues that his rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment and his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated when the defendants served larger portions to the NOI inmates during Ramadan 2004. Specifically, Couch alleges that the predawn meal served each day of Ramadan to all fasting inmates was substantially smaller than the hot breakfast served to the nonfasting general population. Moreover, Couch contends that during the lockdown that coincided with part of Ramadan 2004, the defendants served the NOI fasting inmates a larger, hot evening meal.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV. The Equal Protection Clause keeps governmental decisionmakers from treating differently persons who are in all relevant aspects alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985); Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 2001). In order to successfully state an equal protection claim, a plaintiff first must demonstrate that he has been “treated differently from others whom he is similarly situated and that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination.” Morrison, 239 F.3d at 654. Once such a showing is made, the court must then determine whether the disparity in treatment can be justified under the requisite level of scrutiny. See City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 439-40; In re Long Term Admin. Segregation of Inmates Designated as Five Percenters, 174 F.3d 464, 471 (4th Cir. 1999).
Although a prisoner does not forfeit his constitutional right to equal protection by having been convicted of a crime and imprisoned, prisoner claims under the Equal
-33-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 33 of 53 Pageid#: 484

Protection Clause must be analyzed in light of the special security and management concerns in the prison system. See Morrison, 239 F.3d at 655 (citing Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 136 (1977)).
Here, it is clear that Couch and the other fasting World Community members were treated differently from the general population inmates in that the general population inmates received larger breakfast meals. However, it is clear that the two groups of inmates were not similarly situated, in that the fasting members were fasting, while the general population inmates were not. Further, I find that Couch and the other fasting World Community members were similarly situated to the fasting NOI members only insofar as they both were groups of Muslim inmates observing the period of fasting during Ramadan. However, I further find that the two groups were not ultimately similarly situated because, as the defendants note, the NOI mandates a much stricter diet than must be adhered to by the World Community Sunni Muslims. For instance, in his affidavit, Oslin testified that the fasting NOI inmates required special foods, consisting primarily of fish, navy beans and a few fresh vegetables. He noted that their dietary laws were “much more strict.”
Therefore, I find that Couch cannot show that he and the other World Community fasting inmates are similarly situated to the NOI fasting inmates given the difference in dietary laws. Moreover, even if the two groups were deemed similarly situated, I find that, given the NOI’s much stricter dietary laws, the defendants have provided ample justification for such disparate treatment. Thus, for all of these reasons, I find that, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Couch, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on his equal protection claim with
-34-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 34 of 53 Pageid#: 485

regard to being served inadequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2004. Couch further alleges that the defendants violated his Fifth Amendment right
to due process by serving him inadequate calories and nutrition during Ramadan 2004. Specifically, Couch states in his complaint that, although prison officials posted general information regarding the period of fasting, including such things as the times for the predawn and evening meals and prohibitions about taking the lunch meals, prison officials did not inform any inmate that if he chose to fast during Ramadan, he would be deprived of more than half of his daily nutrition and calories.
The initial inquiry in any due process claim is whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that he has been deprived of a protected liberty interest by the state. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1995). At issue here, is whether Couch had a protected liberty interest in receiving the VDOC’s recommended daily intake of approximately 2800 calories. I find that there is a dispute in a genuine issue of material fact precluding the award of summary judgment in the defendants’ favor on this issue. Specifically, the defendants contend that, given the voluntary nature of the fast, it cannot be found that Couch was deprived of a protected liberty interest by the state. The defendants claim that the prison posted all relevant information regarding the Ramadan fast so that inmates could make an informed decision regarding whether to participate therein.13 Nonetheless, Couch alleges that no information was posted regarding the fact that the inmates’ daily caloric intake and nutrition would be so greatly reduced, thereby nullifying the defendants’ argument that he voluntarily
13In his Level-II response to Couch’s December 10, 2004, grievance, Huffman stated that “the [DOC] allows voluntary participation in the religious fast by all inmates wishing to observe the religious month and posts all pertinent information prior to its beginning so that the inmate population is informed prior to the onset of Ramadan.”
-35-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 35 of 53 Pageid#: 486

consented to such a reduction in calories and nutrition. For these reasons, I will deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this ground.
3. Denial of Eid ul Fitr Meal Following Ramadan 2003
In his complaint, Couch alleges that the defendants deprived him of the Eid ul Fitr meal following Ramadan 2003. Couch states that the Eid ul Fitr meal is a special meal served one to three days after the completion of Ramadan to celebrate the 30 days of fasting. He further states that Muslims may only take part in the meal after Ramadan and that Muslims are prohibited from fasting on the day of the Eid ul Fitr meal. Couch further states that because prison officials control the feeding of the prisoners, he and the other World Community members must begin and end the 30day fasting period when prison officials provide the predawn and evening meals for the Muslims. In 2003, Keen Mountain observed Ramadan beginning on October 27, 2003, and ending on November 25, 2003. Couch contends that, in violation of Islamic tenets, the defendants served what they described as the Eid ul Fitr meal on the evening of November 25, 2003, the final day of Ramadan and after Couch and the other Muslims had fasted throughout the day. In essence, Couch’s claim is that the defendants served the 2003 Eid ul Fitr meal during Ramadan instead of one to three days after Ramadan as required by Islamic religious tenets. The defendants note that, after conducting some research when Couch filed his grievance, they determined that Ramadan actually began on October 26, 2003, and ended on November 24, 2003. Thus, they contend that their service of the Eid ul Fitr meal on November 25, 2003, was permissible.
-36-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 36 of 53 Pageid#: 487

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Couch, I first find that Couch’s freedom to exercise his religion was substantially burdened by the defendants’ actions of serving the Eid ul Fitr meal during Ramadan as opposed to afterwards. As emphasized by Couch, Islamic tenets require that the Eid ul Fitr meal be served within three days after the completion of Ramadan. I find that the service of such meal during Ramadan, in essence, would strip it of its heightened religious significance to Couch and the other World Community Muslims, thereby, essentially denying them the Eid ul Fitr meal. Thus, for these reasons, I find that the defendants substantially burdened Couch’s freedom to exercise his religion.
Next, I must determine whether the defendants have advanced a compelling governmental interest under RLUIPA or a legitimate governmental interest under the First Amendment that was furthered by the service of the Eid ul Fitr meal on November 25, 2003. In their responses to Couch’s grievance, the defendants contend that research conducted in connection with that grievance revealed that Ramadan of 2003 lasted from October 26, 2003, through November 24, 2003. Thus, the defendants claim that the Eid ul Fitr meal served on November 25, 2003, was served on the day after Ramadan had ended and the date actually identified on the Islamic calendar as being the day for the Eid ul Fitr meal. I find that, as Couch contends, this research conducted after the Eid ul Fitr meal was served and in response to Couch’s grievance, cannot serve as a legitimate basis for the defendants’ initial decision to serve the meal on November 25, 2003. Moreover, Couch notes that the Islamic calendar used by the defendants to reach this conclusion specifically states that its dates are based on estimates which could be wrong by two days. In any event, Couch has produced evidence that the defendants initially informed him that the decision to
-37-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 37 of 53 Pageid#: 488

serve the Eid ul Fitr meal on November 25, 2003, was based on “institutional need.” In particular, Couch alleges that on November 21, 2003, prison counselor and Ramadan coordinator, D. R. Vass, approached Couch, as World Community liaison, and informed him that Couch’s requested and tentatively approved date for the meal, November 26, 2003, had been moved to November 25, 2003, due to institutional need. Couch contends that he complained to Vass that the Eid ul Fitr meal could not be served on that date according to Islamic tenets. However, Couch alleges that Vass told him that institutional needs and security concerns trumped these religious needs. Couch claims that Vass explained the institutional need was that food service workers and other staff wanted to go home early on November 26, 2003, to prepare their own Thanksgiving meals. Moreover, Couch alleges that after filing his grievances, Oslin met with him and explained that the institutional need actually was that there would be a lack of oven space in the prison kitchen to prepare the Eid ul Fitr meal for the Muslims and the Thanksgiving meal for the general population inmates. Couch contends that when he pointed out to Oslin that the Eid ul Fitr meal could have been served on November 28, 2003, in compliance with Islamic tenets, Oslin conceded that was true. Couch states that Oslin attempted to persuade him to withdraw his grievance, and when he refused, the defendants abandoned their rationale of “institutional need” to then assert that research of the Islamic calendar justified their timing of the Eid ul Fitr meal.
In his affidavit, Oslin testified that he did not recall Couch informing him of his conversation with Vass, nor did he recall the date of the Eid ul Fitr meal being changed. Oslin further testified that the prison kitchen does not shut down for any holiday. Furthermore, Oslin testified in his affidavit that he did not recall having a
-38-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 38 of 53 Pageid#: 489

conversation with Couch in which he advised him of a lack of oven space for the preparation of two large meals.
I find that it is clear that there is a dispute as to a genuine issue of material fact, namely the defendants’ reason for holding the Eid ul Fitr meal on November 25, 2003, thereby making it impossible to determine at this time whether the defendants have advanced a compelling or even a legitimate governmental interest that was furthered by holding the meal on this date. Thus, I will deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this ground.
4. Denial of Eid ul Fitr Meal Following Ramadan 2005
In his amended complaint, Couch also claims that the defendants denied him the Eid ul Fitr meal following Ramadan 2005. Specifically, he contends that the defendants held the Eid ul Fitr meal four days after Ramadan ended, in violation of Islamic tenets requiring that the meal be held within three days following the end of Ramadan. Couch states that Ramadan was observed at Keen Mountain during 2005 from October 5 through November 4 and states that the Eid ul Fitr meal was held on November 7, 2005, four days after Ramadan ended.
In response to Couch’s grievance, the defendants do not dispute the dates as cited by Couch. However, they contend that their actions were in accord with VDOC policies. In particular, they note that Deputy Director Jabe circulated two memoranda regarding the observance of Ramadan 2005. The first memorandum was dated August 29, 2005, and directed the prison to observe Ramadan beginning on the evening of
-39-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 39 of 53 Pageid#: 490

October 5, 2005, with the first day of fasting to begin at dawn on October 6, 2005, and continue for 30 days until sunset on November 4, 2005. Jabe sent out a second memorandum, dated September 21, 2005, informing prison officials that the Ramadan religious observances would start on the evening of October 4, 2005, with the first full day of fasting on October 5, 2005. Thus, Jabe’s second memorandum instructed prison officials to begin Ramadan 2005 fasting one day earlier than the initial memorandum. However, the second memorandum failed to advance the ending date of Ramadan from November 4, 2005, to November 3, 2005.
Couch contends that the defendants did, in fact, violate VDOC policy because VDOC policy states that the Eid ul Fitr meal was to be held no later than a date within three days of the end of Ramadan, which would have been November 6, 2005. However, they improperly held it on November 7, 2005, four days after Ramadan ended. Moreover, Couch contends that Huffman, in his Level-II response, did not deny that prison officials extended Ramadan to 31 days. Instead, he simply states that “Departmental policies and procedures have been followed.” However, Couch alleges that Huffman did not address the fact that prison officials used Jabe’s second memorandum to determine the starting date for Ramadan 2005, but improperly relied on the initial memorandum to determine the ending date.
I will first address whether Couch’s freedom to express his religion was substantially burdened by the defendants’ service of the Eid ul Fitr meal on November 7, 2005. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Couch by assuming that the defendants did, in fact, serve the Eid ul Fitr meal four days after the end of Ramadan, in violation of Islamic religious tenets, I find that such service of the meal four days
-40-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 40 of 53 Pageid#: 491

after Ramadan did substantially burden Couch’s free exercise of his religion because, under Islamic tenets, the service of a meal more than three days after the end of Ramadan would not be considered an Eid ul Fitr meal. That being the case, I find that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Couch, the defendants’ actions substantially burdened the free exercise of his religion. I next must address whether the defendants have shown a compelling or a legitimate governmental interest that was furthered by holding the Eid ul Fitr meal more than three days after Ramadan ended. As noted above, the defendants merely state that “Departmental policies and procedures were followed,” relying on the memoranda circulated by Jabe. However, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Couch, it appears that prison officials relied on Jabe’s second memorandum changing the start date of Ramadan one day earlier than set forth in the initial memorandum, while relying on the initial memorandum as opposed to the second memorandum to determine the end date, and thereby improperly extending Ramadan to 31 days. The defendants’ contention, simply that they followed departmental policies and procedures, makes it impossible for the court at this time to determine whether there was a legitimate or a compelling governmental interest that was furthered by holding the Eid ul Fitr meal on November 7, 2005. Therefore, I will deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this ground.
5. Denial of the 2004 Eid ul Fitr Prayer Service
Couch’s last remaining claim is that the defendants denied him of the Eid ul
-41-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 41 of 53 Pageid#: 492

Fitr prayer service following Ramadan 2004.14 Specifically, Couch alleges that Jabe sent a memorandum dated September 1, 2004, to all wardens and superintendents, authorizing them to allow the Muslim inmates to conduct the Eid ul Fitr prayer service. Couch notes that on September 20, 2004, he, as liaison for the World Community at Keen Mountain, requested that they be permitted to perform the Eid ul Fitr prayer service in the visiting room from 8:15 a.m. to 9:50 a.m. on November 15, 2004, the day after Ramadan ended, in accordance with Islamic tenets.15 Couch contends that on October 1, 2004, Assistant Warden Phillips authorized Couch’s request. However, Couch alleges that when he and other World Community members arrived at 8:15 a.m. on November 15, 2004, at the visiting room for the prayer service, the security staff refused to let them conduct the prayer service. When Couch asked the watch commander to contact Assistant Warden Phillips, he was informed that Phillips was “unavailable.” Couch and the other World Community members were unable to conduct the prayer service at that time.
Couch filed an informal complaint on November 21, 2004, to Phillips, who forwarded it to security for a response. When security did not respond, Couch filed a formal grievance. In response to Couch’s grievance, Chief of Security, Major K. Pickerel, met with Couch to investigate the matter. Couch claims that Pickerel accepted full responsibility for the refusal of the Eid ul Fitr prayer, stating that it was his “error.” Couch claims that Pickerel further stated that he had spoken with Phillips
14As previously noted, Ramadan 2004 was observed at Keen Mountain from October 15, 2004, through November 14, 2004.
15Couch states in his complaint that the Eid ul Fitr prayer service must be held the morning on the first day following the completion of Ramadan.
-42-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 42 of 53 Pageid#: 493

about the matter and that Phillips did not remember sending the written authorization for the Eid ul Fitr prayer service. Pickerel stated that he had been unable to locate any such memorandum. Couch claims that Pickerel repeatedly stated that the error was his and that it resulted from a “comedy of errors.” Couch alleges that Pickerel asked him to withdraw the grievance, but he refused to do so, instead asking Pickerel what he intended to report to the grievance coordinator. Couch claims that Pickerel assured him that he would report that Couch had been deprived of the Eid ul Fitr prayer service as a result of a “comedy of errors” by security staff.
Couch alleges in his complaint that on December 21, 2004, Phillips met with Couch absolving all other staff from responsibility for the denied prayer service and accepting full responsibility himself. Specifically, Phillips stated that he did not remember sending Couch any written authorization to conduct the prayer service. However, Couch contends that Couch had the memorandum with him and when he offered it to Phillips, Phillips declined to accept it because he said he believed Couch. Couch alleges that Phillips asked him to withdraw his grievance, but he again declined to do so.
Couch states that on January 3, 2005, the warden deemed the grievance unfounded because the Eid ul Fitr prayer service had been allowed, but Couch had voluntarily chosen not to attend. Specifically, the warden determined that on November 10, 2004, Warden Bassett sent a memorandum to all fast participants advising them that the Eid ul Fitr prayer service would be held on November 17, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the dining halls. Couch alleges that he questioned each fast participant and none had received or seen any memorandum from prison officials
-43-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 43 of 53 Pageid#: 494

regarding the Eid ul Fitr prayer service. At that point, Couch states that Phillips conceded that the memorandum may not have been posted, and he explained that the prison suffered a longstanding problem of memoranda and notices being forwarded to security for posting, but not being posted. He claims that Phillips further stated that prison officials were seeking a reliable method to insure that in the future memoranda were properly posted.
When Couch appealed the warden’s Level-I response to Huffman, he also deemed Couch’s grievance unfounded. Couch argues that the memorandum from the warden, which was never posted, in any event, proves that he was denied the Eid ul Fitr prayer service because it states that the service was to be held at 6:00 p.m. in violation of Islamic tenets, which require that the Eid ul Fitr prayer be held on the morning of the first day following the completion of Ramadan. Couch further contends that the Eid ul Fitr prayer must be performed in congregation, meaning that there would be “row upon row of Muslims all prostrating simultaneously.” However, the warden’s memorandum directed that the prayer be conducted in the dining halls, thereby precluding them from performing the congregational prayer.16 Couch further alleges that the warden’s memorandum, dated November 10, 2004, was actually created after Couch’s December 16, 2004, meeting with Pickerel regarding the denial of the Eid ul Fitr prayer service. Couch alleges that the warden’s memorandum was backdated to November 10, 2004, in an effort to avoid responsibility for depriving him of the prayer. To support this allegation, Couch contends that when Couch and
16Specifically, Couch states that the dining halls consist of metal dining tables bolted to the floor with narrow walkways between them and only a three-foot clearance between the outer row of tables and the walls, making it physically impossible for the 50+ Muslims who attended the Eid meal to perform a congregational prayer in the dining halls.
-44-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 44 of 53 Pageid#: 495

other World Community Muslims arrived at the visiting room at 8:15 a.m. on November 15, 2004, they were denied entry because security staff had no memorandum authorizing the prayer service. He further alleges that the watch commander made several telephone calls to various prison officials and searched various files, seeking any memorandum authorizing the prayer service. He concludes that if there had been a memorandum dated November 10, 2004, indicating that the prayer service was scheduled for November 17, 2004, then, presumably, security staff would have explained to Couch that the prayer service had been rescheduled.
Couch further contends that during his meeting with Pickerel on December 16, 2004, Pickerel accepted full responsibility for the denied prayer service, called it a “comedy of errors” on the part of security staff, and explained that he had searched for, but had been unable to locate, any memorandum regarding the prayer service. Couch concludes that, had there existed such a memorandum, particularly one that had been disseminated to all fast participants, or even disseminated only to security staff for posting in the pods, then, presumably, the Chief of Security would have been able to locate it.
Next, Couch contends that Phillips sent to him and inmate Ali Miles17 the October 1, 2004, memorandum authorizing the Eid ul Fitr prayer in the visiting room from 8:15 a.m. to 9:50 a.m. on November 15, 2004. However, in response to Couch’s grievance, Pickerel told him that he had not seen, nor could he find, any October 1, 2004, memorandum by Phillips. Moreover, Phillips told Couch that he did not
17Ali Miles was the liaison for the NOI between the inmates at Keen Mountain and prison officials.
-45-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 45 of 53 Pageid#: 496

remember sending any such memorandum to Couch. Thus, Couch notes that the absence of any October 1, 2004, memorandum authorizing the Eid ul Fitr prayer necessitated the warden’s November 10, 2004, memorandum authorizing the evening Eid ul Fitr prayer.
Further, Couch alleges that in preparation for Ramadan 2005, the warden posted for the prison population a Ramadan participation notice which is an exact verbatim duplicate of Phillips’s October 1, 2004, memorandum. Couch claims that, undeniably, this notice from the warden was created using Phillips’s October 1, 2004, memorandum, the very memorandum defendants claimed they neither possessed nor remembered. Couch contends that this shows that the defendants possessed Phillips’s October 1, 2004, memorandum all along, suggesting no need for the warden’s November 10, 2004, memorandum and bolstering Couch’s contention that the warden’s November 10, 2004, memorandum did not exist on November 10, 2004.
Finally, Couch alleges that the warden’s November 10, 2004, memorandum directly conflicts with Jabe’s Ramadan memorandum dated September 1, 2004, in which he authorized a morning prayer service. Thus, Couch contends that Warden Bassett would not, thereafter, authorize a night prayer service in direct conflict with the Deputy Director’s memorandum unless such was necessary to rebut Couch’s claims of deprivation.
In conclusion, Couch states that whether the November 10, 2004, memorandum was fabricated or whether prison officials simply failed to disseminate it to the fast participants, can be established only at trial. However, Couch states that it is certain
-46-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 46 of 53 Pageid#: 497

that the defendants deprived him and the World Community Muslims of an opportunity to observe the Eid ul Fitr prayer service.
I first must determine whether the defendants’ actions of holding the Eid ul Fitr prayer service on November 17, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the dining halls substantially burdened Couch’s freedom to exercise his religion. Couch alleges that the defendants deprived him of the Eid ul Fitr prayer service in three separate ways following Ramadan 2004. First, he contends that the prayer service was held outside of the time period prescribed by Islam. In particular, he states that Islam mandates that the prayer service be held the morning after the completion of Ramadan. Next, he contends that the prayer service was held in the evening, as opposed to the morning. Finally, he alleges that the prayer service was held in the dining halls, which precluded holding a congregational prayer as mandated by Islam. I find that the defendants’ actions of holding the Eid ul Fitr prayer service on the third day following the completion of Ramadan 2004 substantially burdened the free exercise of Couch’s religion because holding it outside of the proscribed time period effectively stripped it of its religious significance as the Eid ul Fitr prayer service. Likewise, aside from the fact that the prayer service was held outside of the proscribed time period, I find that holding the service in the evening, as opposed to the morning, had the same effect of stripping the service of its heightened religious significance as the Eid ul Fitr prayer service. However, I find that, aside from these problems, holding the prayer service in the dining halls, thereby precluding inmates from conducting the prayer service in a congregational manner, did not substantially burden Couch’s free exercise of his religion. Specifically, I find that had the prayer service been held the morning following the completion of Ramadan, the fact that it could not have been performed
-47-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 47 of 53 Pageid#: 498

congregationally would not have imposed a substantial burden on Couch’s freedom to exercise his religion. Regardless of being unable to perform the prayer service congregationally, it still would have held its significance as the Eid ul Fitr prayer. Only the manner in which it would have been performed would have been modified. That being the case, I find that Couch’s freedom to exercise his religion was not substantially burdened by this fact alone. In any event, because Couch’s freedom to exercise his religion was substantially burdened by the defendants’ actions in holding the prayer service outside of the proscribed time period and during the evening, as opposed to the morning, I must next address whether the defendants have shown that a legitimate or a compelling governmental interest was furthered by holding the prayer service on November 17, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. After reviewing the defendants’ pleadings, it does not appear that the defendants have advanced any reason for holding the prayer service on November 17, 2004. That being the case, I cannot, at this time, determine whether there is a compelling or legitimate governmental interest furthered by doing so. Therefore, I must deny summary judgment on this ground.
C. Qualified Immunity
I first note that the defendants are not subject to a suit in their official capacities for monetary damages. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989). Couch has sued each defendant in both their individual and official capacities. Furthermore, among other things, he is seeking monetary damages from each defendant. Thus, I will dismiss Couch’s claims insofar as he seeks monetary damages
-48-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 48 of 53 Pageid#: 499

from the defendants in their official capacities. Moreover, both the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit have held that state officials sued in their individual capacities are “persons” within the meaning of § 1983 and are not absolutely immune from personal liability under § 1983 solely by virtue of the official nature of their acts. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30-31 (1991); White, 1 F.3d at 269-70. However, government officials may have qualified immunity from civil liability for performing discretionary functions only insofar as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). As the Fourth Circuit recently noted in Carr v. Deeds, 453 F.3d 593, 600 (4th Cir. 2006), “[b]ecause ‘[q]ualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation ... rather than a mere defense to liability,’ it is important to ‘resolv[e] immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.’” (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200-01 (2001)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
A claim of qualified immunity is evaluated using a three-step analysis. First, the court must determine “whether plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 736 (2002); see also Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. Second, the court must “inquire whether at the time of the alleged violation [the right] was clearly established.” Collinson v. Gott, 895 F.2d 994, 998 (4th Cir. 1990) (Phillips J., concurring). Third, the court must determine whether a “reasonable person in the official’s position would have known that his conduct would violate that right.” Collinson, 895 F.2d at 998 (Phillips J., concurring).
I will address each of Couch’s remaining claims in turn regarding whether the
-49-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 49 of 53 Pageid#: 500

defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
1. Deprivation of Hot Meals in 2003
Given my finding above that the defendants’ action of denying Couch and the other fasting World Community inmates of all hot meals during a lockdown period that coincided with part of Ramadan 2003 did not substantially burden Couch’s freedom to exercise his religion, I now find that Couch’s allegations, even if deemed true, do not establish a constitutional violation under the First Amendment or a statutory violation under RLUIPA. That being said, I find that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.
2. Deprivation of Adequate Calories and Nutrition in 2004
Given my finding above that it is impossible for the court to determine at this time whether there exists a compelling or even a legitimate governmental interest furthered by the service of 1000 daily calories during Ramadan 2004, I now find that granting the defendants qualified immunity at this time on this claim also is inappropriate.
3. Denial of the Eid ul Fitr Meals
For the same reasons as stated above, namely that it is impossible for the court to determine at this time whether a compelling or a legitimate governmental interest was furthered by holding the Eid ul Fitr meals when the defendants did in 2003 and
-50-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 50 of 53 Pageid#: 501

2005, I cannot find that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Couch’s claims that he was denied the Eid ul Fitr meals during those years.
4. Denial of the Eid ul Fitr Prayer Service in 2004
Again, for the same reasons, namely that it is impossible at this time to determine whether a compelling or even a legitimate governmental interest was furthered by holding the Eid ul Fitr prayer service on November 17, 2004, I now find that granting the defendants qualified immunity on this claim is inappropriate at this time.
II. Conclusion
For all of the reasons stated herein, I will dismiss as being barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, the following claims:
1. Couch’s claim under the First Amendment that he was deprived of all hot meals during a lockdown that coincided with part of Ramadan 2002; and
2. Couch’s claim under the First Amendment that he was denied adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2002.
I will dismiss the following claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA:
1. Couch’s claim under RLUIPA that he was deprived of all hot meals during a lockdown that coincided with part of Ramadan 2002;
2. Couch’s claim under RLUIPA that he was denied adequate nutrition and
-51-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 51 of 53 Pageid#: 502

calories during Ramadan 2002; 3. Couch’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was
deprived of adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2003; 4. Couch’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was denied
all hot meals during a lockdown period that coincided with part of Ramadan 2004; 5. Couch’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was
deprived of adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2005; 6. Couch’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was denied
the Eid ul Fitr prayer service following Ramadan 2003; 7. Couch’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was denied
the Eid ul Fitr meal following Ramadan 2004; and 8. Couch’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was denied
the Eid ul Fitr prayer service following Ramadan 2005.
I will grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the following claims:
1. Couch’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was deprived of all hot meals during a lockdown that coincided with part of Ramadan 2003;
2. Couch’s Eighth Amendment claim regarding the service of exclusively cold meals during the lockdown that coincided with part of Ramadan 2003; and
3. Couch’s equal protection claim with regard to his allegation of being denied adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2004.
I will deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the following
-52-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 52 of 53 Pageid#: 503

claims: 1. Couch’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was denied
adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2004; 2. Couch’s due process claim with regard to his allegation that he was denied
adequate nutrition and calories during Ramadan 2004: 3. Couch’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was denied
the Eid ul Fitr meal following Ramadan 2003; 4. Couch’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was denied
the Eid ul Fitr meal following Ramadan 2005; and 5. Couch’s claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA that he was
deprived of the Eid ul Fitr prayer service following Ramadan 2004.
Finally, I find that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Couch’s First Amendment and RLUIPA claims that he was deprived of all hot meals during a lockdown that coincided with part of Ramadan 2003.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum Opinion to all counsel of record and unrepresented parties at this time.
DATED: September 22, 2006.
/s/ Pamela Meade Sargent
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-53-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 49 Filed 09/22/06 Page 53 of 53 Pageid#: 504

 
 • •
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

·s , ..:!i~C

J:::~·,c,

K' v AT AOANOKE.-l/A - . EC ~L- GO

FEB 0 8 2036

Roanoke Division

~$~ F. CORCf¥N, CLER1I•I:

DEPUTY CLERK

WILLIAM R. COUCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:05-cv-11642

JOHN JABE, et al.,

Defendant(s).

SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
COMES NOW your Plaintiff, William R. Couch (hereinafter "Couch") £!:£ ~. pursuant to Rule 15 (d) of the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, and presents to this Honorable Court his supplemental pleadings.
1. Couch alleges that defendants maliciously or with deliberate indifference, during the month of Ramadan in the year 2005, deprived Couch of adequate calories and nutrition, deprived Couch of the Eid-Ul-Fitr Meal, and prevented Couch from observing the Eid-Ul-Fitr Prayer in violation of Couch's right to freely exercise his religious beliefs.
2. Specifically, Couch alleges that during Ramadan 2005, defendants restricted Couch's caloric intake to a mere 1000 calories per day, forced Couch to observe 31 days of Ramadan (though Ramadan may not last more than 30 days), scheduled the Eid Prayer at night (though the Eid Prayer may be performed only on the morning following Ramadan), and held the Eid Meal 4 days after Ramadan ended (though the Eid Meal must be served within 3 days after Ramadan ends. 1

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 21-1 Filed 02/09/06 Page 1 of 9 Pageid#: 270
~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- -••! . . . .

• •
3. In 2005, The Keen Mountain Correctional Center ("the prison") required the inmates who participated in the Ramadan fast to observe the first day of fasting beginning at dawn on October 5, 2005, and to observe the final day of fasting ending at sunset on November 4, 2005. These dates constitute 31 days of fasting. 2
4. Moreover, prison officials forced Couch to fast on November 4th - the 31st day - under threat that Coueh would be barred from the Eid Meal. Then, on November 7, 2005, four days after Ramadan ended, prison officials held the Eid Prayer and the Eid Meal.
5. Defendants, in their response to Couch's grievance of these matters, concede the dates as identified by Couch but insist their actions were in accord with VDOC policy.
A) Defendants Violated VDOC Policy 6. Defendants' response to Couch's complaints that defendants forced Couch to observe 31 days of fasting, and that defendants served the Eid Meal more than 3 days after Ramadan ended reveals the following:

1

For the sake of brevity and to avoid needless repetition Couch, having

previously incorporated by reference the instant pleading into his brief in

opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss (Plain. Br. Opp. p.2 ~6), here omits

the Islamic doctrine and VDOC policy upon which his claims are based.

2

In 2005, the Ramadan fast began on October 5th, and ended on November 3rd.

Eid observances began on November 4, 2005. (Suppl.Exh. (!):Islamic Calendars).

Ironically, this multi-year calendar is the very calendar Defendant Mike Oslin

produced in 2004 to defend Couch's complaints then that defendants improperly

served the Eid Meal during Ramadan rather than after Ramadan. (Compl. p. 24-29

~80-95).

-2Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 21-1 Filed 02/09/06 Page 2 of 9 Pageid#: 271

• •
7. Prison officials received two different memoranda from VDOC Deputy Director John Jabe regarding the dates for the beginning and the ending of Ramadan.
8. In the first memo, dated August 29, 2005, Mr. Jabe directed the prison to observe Ramadan beginning on the evening of October 5, 2005, 3 with the first day of fasting to commence at dawn October 6, 2005, and continue for 30 calendar days until sunset November 4, 2005. (Suppl. Exh. (II); Level-l Amended Grievance Response).
9. However, in a second corrective memo, dated September 21, 2005, (which abrogated the earlier memo of August 29th), Dep. Dir. Jabe informed prison officials that the Ramadan "Religious observances [would] start on the evening of October 4th, with the first full day of Ramadan [fasting] being October 5th." Thus, Jabe's corrective memo advanced by one day the first day of fasting from October 6th, to October 5th. However, prison officials then failed to also advance the ending date for the fast from November 4th to November 3rd.
10. Simply stated, defendants violated VDOC "policy" when the prison began observing the fast on October 5th as directed in the corrective memo, but then ended the fast 31 days later on November 4th per the abrogated memo.
3 Days of the Islamic lunar calendar technically begin at sunset. Thus,
according to Jabe's memo, Ramadan began at sunset on October 5th, 2005, with the first day of fasting to begin at dawn October 6th, 2005.
-3-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 21-1 Filed 02/09/06 Page 3 of 9 Pageid#: 272

• •
11. Because the Ramadan fast may not last longer than 30

days, and because the fast, in fact, began on October 5, 2005,

necessarily the final day of fasting was November 3, 2005. And,

in accord with Islamic tenets and VDOC DOP #601, the Eid Prayer

was to be held on the morning of November 4th, the day after

Ramadan ended, and the Eid Meal was to be held no later than

November 6, 2005 (a date within 3 days of the end of Ramadan

on Nov.3rd). Defendants, however, held the Eid Prayer and the Eid

Meal at 6:00p.m. on November 7, 2005 -- a date four days after

Ramadan actually ended.

12. All of these facts are easily descerned from Couch's

Grievance and the Warden's Amended Response thereto. Yet, on

appeal, Regional Director Larry Huffman, in rubberstamping the

Warden's response, simply refused to address Couch's core contention

that prison officials improperly relied on Jabe's abrogated memo

to extend Ramadan to 31 days. Huffman does not deny that prison

officials extended Ramadan to 31 days. Rather, Huffman baldly

asserts that ''Departmental policies and procedures have been

followed.'' (Supl. Exh. (III): Level -II Response). Couch submits

that this is but one example of defendants' deliberate indifference

about which Couch complains.

B)

Defendants Were Apprised Of Their Wrongful Conduct

13. During Ramadan prison policy prohibits those inmates

who participate in the Ramadan fast from eating any of the 3 meals

served to the non-fasting inmates. And prison officials aggres-

sively police the dining halls for inmates who violate said policy.

-4-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 21-1 Filed 02/09/06 Page 4 of 9 Pageid#: 273
...................................................................

• •
14. When officials observe a fast participant eating a regular meal the inmate is immediately removed from the passlist for the fast and for the Eid Observances. Indeed, by the end of the third week of Ramadan, prison officials had barred from the fast more
4 than 40% of the total number of fast participants. (Supl. Exh. (IV): Ramadan Passlist, Oct. 26, 2005). Couch attributes the high percentage of fast participants barred from the fast for eating regular meals to the participants' inability to endure the starvation diet to which defendants subjected them.
15. At about 9:30 a.m. on November 4, 2005, while the prison was observing the 31st day of fasting, Couch saw Chief of Security Major Newberry pass by Couch's workplace at the law-library and Couch approached Newberry. Couch explained to Newberry that the prison was improperly observing the 31st day of fasting and that Ramadan had, in fact, ended on the previous day, November 3rd.
16. Couch also complained that Couch had been compelled to accept a pre-dawn cold-bag meal under threat of having his name removed from the passlist for the Eid-Ul-Fitr Meal, that Couch had been prevented from eating the prison's regular breakfast, and, most importantly, that Couch did not want to forego his regular lunch meal that day.
17. Newberry told Couch that Newberry was not sure why Ramadan had been extended but that he believed the extension was

4

108 initial fast participants (65 grand total + 43 inmates removed

equals 108 initail participants) minus the 43 inmates removed, constitutes

40% of the initial total participants.

-5-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 21-1 Filed 02/09/06 Page 5 of 9 Pageid#: 274
. ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 . 1 1 -

• •
due to a memo from Dep. Dir. John Jabe to the Warden.

Newberry

emphasized that Couch would be barred from the Eid Meal if officials

observed Couch eating lunch in the dining hall, and Newberry sug-

gested Couch eat for lunch the bag meal Couch had been served

before dawn. When couch said that he had already eaten the pre-

dawn meal, Newberry suggested Couch eat some of Couch's Gommissary items.

18. Then, just 2 hours after speaking with Newberry, Couch filed an Emergency Grievance wherein he complained that Ramadan was being improperly extended and that Couch was being denied a lunch meal. Sergeant J. Johnson replied that "Ramadan started on 10-5-05 and runs thru 11-4-05. It starts at sundown on 10-5-05 thru 11-4-05 which is 30 days." (Sup!. Exh. (V): Emergency Grievance), Couch was not permitted to eat the lunch meal.
19. On the following morning, Saturday, November 5, 2005, the Operations Officer, Mrs. L. Barbette, entered Couch's housing unit and Couch complained to her that he had been denied the prior day's lunch. Barbetto emphatically refused to discuss with Couch Couch's complaint that Ramadan had been improperly extended and she repeatedly instructed Couch to address his complaints to Assistant Warden K. Pickerel.

20. At lunch that same day, in the dining hall (though Couch could not eat lunch), Couch spoke to Sgt. Johnson who had responded to Couch's emergency grievance. Couch explained to Johnson that, contrary to Johnson's Grievance Response, the prison actually observed the first full day of fasting on Oct.5 and fasted

-6-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 21-1 Filed 02/09/06 Page 6 of 9 Pageid#: 275

,_,_

• •
through Nov. 4th, and that constituted 31 days of fasting. Johnson conceded that if Couch's dates were correct then the prison had extended Ramadan. Sgt. Johnson explained that the dates he provided in the emergency grievance response were dates provided to him by a kitchen supervisor.
21. At that moment, Couch and Johnson observed Mrs. Barbette walking near the dining hall and Johnson told Couch he would try to get some clarification from Barbette regarding Couch's complaint. Couch then watched and waited as Johnson and Barbette spoke for approximately 10 minutes. When they finished speaking Johnson returned to Couch's area but attempted to walk past Couch without speaking. Couch asked Johnson whether he had received clarification from Barbette and Johnson replied "not much." Couch then remarked that Johnson and Barbette had talked for 10 minutes, to which Johnson replied that they had also discussed other things. Johnson did not stop walking away from Couch and Couch, trailing behind, asked whether Barbette had instructed Johnson to not speak to Couch regarding Couch's complaints. Johnson denied that she had but Johnson said he was too busy to talk further with Couch.
22. On Monday, November 7, 2005, Couch spoke with Assistant Warden Pickerel about the extended Ramadan and the denial of the lunch meal. Pickerel explained that the prison was simply following policy from Dep. Dir. John Jabe.
23. So, after speaking with Pickerel, Couch filed an Informal Complaint wherein he detailed his complaints. The response from Treatment Progaram Supervisor F. Lockhart was that the prison had followed policy. (Supl.Exh. (VI): Complaint Response).
-7-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 21-1 Filed 02/09/06 Page 7 of 9 Pageid#: 276

• •
24. Then, on November 17, 2005, Couch filed a Regular Grievance wherein he detailed his complaints.(Supl.Exh. (VII): Regular Grievance).
25. The Warden's initial Level-I Response simply denied Couch's assertion that the prison had observed the first day of Ramadan on October 5,2005. The Warden asserted that the Prison observed the first day of fasting on October 6, 2005, and that ending Ramadan on November 4, 2005 constituted only 30 days of fasting. (Supl. Exh. (VIII): Level - I Response).
26. However, after Couch's hue and cry to all and sundry that the prison had, in fact, observed the first day of fasting on October 5th, (Supl. Exh. (IX): Complaint and Grievance), the Warden prepared an Amended Level-l Response wherein Warden conceded the dates identified by Couch but, nevertheless, deemed the Grievance unfounded because, the Warden contended, the prison simply followed policy from Dep. Dir. Jabe. (Supl. Exh. (II), id.)
27. Couch appealed the Amended Level-l Response to Regional Director Larry Huffman who upheld the Warden's decision but who failed to address the basis of the appeal, namely, that prison officials used a corrected memo to begin Ramadan but used an abrogated memo to extend Ramadan to 31 days.
28. Finally, it must be noted that prison officials do admit to Couch, inprivate, that their actions are wrong, and they promise to ''fix it next year.'' However, officially, through grievances, et cetera, officials maintain that they have done no wrong. Thus, they continue, year after year, in one form or another, to deprive Couch of his right to freely exercise his religious beliefs.
-8-
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 21-1 Filed 02/09/06 Page 8 of 9 Pageid#: 277

• •
It is for all these reasons that Couch, at significant expense to the tax-paying public, is compelled now to prosecute this § 1983.
WHEREFORE, for all the reasons stated, your Plaintiff requests this Court deny defendants' motion for summary judgment and set this matter for trial, and grant any other relief the the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,
,ll;4:~(zc,. £__
William R. Couch
William R. Couch, #186347 Keen Mountain Correctional Center Post Office Box 860 Oakwood, Virginia 24631

VERIFICATION

I affirm that I am the Plaintiff in this § 1983 action and I know the content of the foregoing Motion To Supplement Pleadings and the Supplemental Pleadings; that it is true of my own Knowledge, except as to those matters that are stated in it to be based on my own information and beliefs; and to those matters, I also believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

ft'/{1 ~/(;./.-(/_.£p: (~/-<-l-1-----

DATE

SIGNATURE OF AFFIRMANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this ~ day of

February, 2006, a true copy of the foregoing Motion To Supplement

Pleadings and the Supplemental Pleadings was mailed, first-class

L ' postage prepaid, to counsel for Defendants herein, William W. Muse,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, 900 East Main Street,

Richmond, Virginia 23219.

. , ..
jl{//JflZjL./~'

/
k~C4-

>~·

-

William R. Couch

-9Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 21-1 Filed 02/09/06 Page 9 of 9 Pageid#: 278

 
 CLERK'S OI-"!'1CE U.!!. !liST. COIIIT ~T flfJJ.fi!Y.tii'. VA
:,,:~_J;;:ij.

~d4c.- -.,.S~-zR...t_) JJ.,d~ .C~
LJ~"L ·oF N.t~-JAv 0~~-

M. ~.:u~' ~ (?.- c:!c-'--Ud:k,.,

I?L~_,_~"~

':

£){)

,f_r,

~ r.~~~ .d_,.,Z4-L
-tl:kj'~~~d

H

-

r-i

. . . 1 ~-·)-r...eA /?1-1'~- .7~ -~ t(<-e~ .~t.. ~.;,_ -----. .

0-: .., ~_L--,l·-{·~1Z.:0?~c .~-t:."-.~~/:-.e-..~l~L X-~ ·~;~.u_-~~'t~ f1~c~dp~e1u>>&~;~1L~c..)'.?.?:J.,.-.?l-·O./9-~'/~~~ jca.-~· k~ .··. c_

.
·

··

-·2 . C.l<t,.~-~~C<:~~Zi~

~ /r-CC~-e--~ j;1zc"~, ·.·. .

. ~!C ~ ~~rdg ·(?---. :t;"..e..- a.t'~J-<-e.. ~~~~ .

r:u. C~:<if;.,. 6?t41,

~Ptvdr~. cHUZ ,d-r2/&C~ C}7<2rNv . ···

/~~~~L:d#~/ ~· ~:(1(~~ ~~~~ ;:_-J· ....

.c:;~-. aZ::...,_,~~ ,.,~?U /~f!'A.L/.,-~~z ~tf£4-4 ~

i 1 ~r-"7-1; c .deb~?-'it ~J7o ~0-: anv ~~- _/c!e_

if cf,)- y-~G.-

A.?>n--

)d""'"~ ..N-.7

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 1 of 67 Pageid#: 750

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 2 of 67 Pageid#: 751

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 3 of 67 Pageid#: 752

.Jj;? l ·~p't:r,?;?r~~_2rA.? ;7'"" ~ ~ .

~~p ~2--p~-~.:f?

_ ~·:/ <n-'7/ P;>;,a.;;o-7.- [' / ? p ~ ~ ·~~~~

l fr"d/Ytrl' ay£' ~??'J?~ 2~77 /(~/'__' V"~~

~ ~ )·~77--J-rrVZ..-;?;7 _;r...~fi..~""/'> ~~?/'1

4?7· I ~-. /.~~ / ~ ' -. .~ L~ ' ' .6

(?_
r(/' · 7'-P

t"·/-r-~.·?·-

/
c_-

J
\

~~ ?-1-~-

~?~V b ~'try-/,! -Q)?

I -r~~--J? .. JW/ ~zr_/

. -~/ oc
/ cY:? ~/J' .

-~~.., ~ ii4--

~r~?~ (
l_rPg? . OJ'r1

.

~~;J ~~ft-
~ ~pr;?

!
l

r y !. /?~£~1~;("-!?):~~--~~-"~7;'-)?~J:·#_/-L:?-Y?~.~L7;:???<'~Y[~t:??'~J~:~_-;J,J~ 7~£~?7? LL~v~7-/:C/~v>y-·/~~)-~7-E~.-t;2?J~~;/?~~~V~)~J:'?:~*~~Y.V.~~;-J4'e:?th~:-i-~rf/':t~-;;·§f;4~tl

l
I

·~ 0«~/~~-'iP:'rPy~'L~·,.:f)Yf-J£hn£?,-

-~
~

~A--~~;':;P-V_J~-7r~ ~_PU/

;Y.?-?7/ ~~_h,.?,? ~- -fL .cp ,P?r.>-;1'

~?~ ~~ ~

-~df·k·~ '.C?J'~ ~~'%~?
-· /'~? ?P_z.v~v--?)2 ~ C>-~- /f

t

_·fl~?1.itfr-~ ;;;Z·.

r0;// . -~~?~~ ~?7- ?-~-/:1

~~2.-p~ .

.

'.~_L'/ ~~-1-r/-?:~

;;;;:::~;;:: ~~~~1L~/e ~ -p-v ~ /~~r??t? v k --;>r;~?c/-.7.7 ~)1 ~

. ~"i7ZY~ h~~ •p-,rp~---- ~?/Y-";J ~-·,}ct/v

.

-

?~~-7?'~;?-?~7-~ ~/ -Y'z-;;_.7h.:~~;f". ?-"~~~~7'1'h~'~7

/

_;,t~
v ::~.747

¢ -h~:?P ·:£~-- ~? -;y/ _.'7~/ ~~v

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 4 of 67 Pageid#: 753

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 5 of 67 Pageid#: 754

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 6 of 67 Pageid#: 755

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 7 of 67 Pageid#: 756

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 8 of 67 Pageid#: 757

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 9 of 67 Pageid#: 758

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 10 of 67 Pageid#: 759

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 11 of 67 Pageid#: 760

(·t/)

;rz. ~::: ; :fl-lL.n>v;, ;/

-,~;/- /7 '·" -:>;? .

r'SL 7~ !_2.r"1f./

/-1 _;). 1-.-u ;.:;_ n/c/

~

- >:1 ;2~> )(

j

-~nx/:=

'

v

:;;.07-~-=- _c7.../r.·

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 12 of 67 Pageid#: 761

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 13 of 67 Pageid#: 762

~._4 :7-.>J '7-:.£-.~

·• ·31 1:J7.U U-·" •
··?.--;..~>?~/.?~

(FI)
y ·' V? - -{L' ':-1 ,.,. '':/??.?
·.)_)<-"~ z___; "1.-~,./ _:?P' :vU.-(;. f .

:vIr ,)..J--.t y ~-<;?

(1? ' ) ;l(7

j

_:.,"-~

,--rdcV:'·':L~JV? _.v.?Fr'

-2/- 'J-yY-;.-U1t:.1'·' )"C'?/'

~.
J_vz..,-:-.?7{71

_,)?,;2·-u.;. ·~,

.
)/t/'

h'
/

/7

<?

. :

(?? ·

?/' ,._ . ;£_77?Z -~/<. ;~ 2 71< 7 -

~ 7:?-·~7;;-,7/ - !

:l'J/tYJ'b "'.2;::" ,7'?"7'-;?-:/Y..f?J./

1~;; ~-n;J.-,;lj) t_:..,f'L- (lr)-

.- Jf.

. ./-7/' I' -;-r;v-r£ ? •

,nv .').--y-u: ?-'7·u ·>-r;;) :

~

'

,,

/

,!

.,,..

':

: ?'ry,! p ? ' "'7;/-R;:r;/ o;7 .l;;<'f·yry/ _;7--7-0 7<.?:J_? 7!-:0.-':/'

J-fr ~_::;rP(."'L"'fl- ·~

'7.<-;;Y / '

/
,

'/

/.:

t>.'Y <;r7>--/ • ,?P? 7.-;/,7 <?

.

,

,)"r""< _-;?

??-;? /~1' _:?

:..-2,2

.
i

'):9(1 , 11'1 1/'1>I

' '

/ .· . .,/- £, --·- ~'r.~_,~?'c:>-.:?

_y"···"". ?L..;?,.,~ht77-_u/·
,.

/?7:rr7N/

..- I'

v

)7~/
, ' ,1,

-c.?r-.-/

T1~r-,?_/

A__.::..

-V,

::n7."."// .'•_,

p .:>~--.? ·~:. /""V _r/-/ ?,v_ 7 ,.7;1?//..I

...

·" J y ~/-,v , ,:;; ;r ·'.·.-:?/Z'/ t•.!/'. ( i:)

i !

• / ; ~ n :?](- · ;;~·yU.-'-:2 ;: 'ttuc - c·.._'</ :);:!:,.? : / ::? -t?~/ · _;:J.?z/ I

k .J''¥ :J~·'r?-~;J-/ )'?£.2 ~? .:_ ';.-,L/ Y "''"'}/- Y /J;;?

i ??'U-t../

,_

}

!

/ f.;f6v/.~c )1<?' .7>7'>?-~,/ r:>-,"Y/ 'l,._-/"/ Po-"'>-/>;.f/./l-/ -:tn:..-/r/· 7·"'·7 -- f>. 7r&·c7 · ]./I'Y I!i
-~~-(,.? )7-V r-:>ry_L 'T'Y '"''>r,;J·,?lt'/;y r~-';:;_;,'>;7 y)n.;Zo/f

,;?i7f/;.Jr.:> ··-:] ?-:<op_:-;;7/~?_,?_ _;vu;Y' ..,.7 ~ ?:>.:WL~~Y •"J7~<·rV ~c?- ·.

I (J;;7A~''rhytV,.?~~ >~/ 2/~"~y;?-oJ;/€//&Y/r_k?.J?)J1?r·-W;4 ).'a"'3TP~~7/_-;..;// vv-J·,rJ-J?J".?~/zj/ I

fo ....:;_~,/" ~/ "'~"?_2-t.:-.)_ ,.,r/ y ;t;/ 7?,?1(??-'J~/ h:.,::>:/'1

.-t./'.- (r / "''~n-p/' JJp ,)"'.7?3" "r:>-;; / ~"-~ Y !}-o:r 2Y~ ··:YY.i,

.

.?/ .· --' '7L .:!'~2 7/ 'k: l'[

]1
j

l y 7 _??"7,/ cr-;r >Jr{ •t-7::'--~f ·y;:>·.-y~y ~ :J..n//~/

/·--::/ ,;v;.-;/-~ r"/~'-?:z/ht: · TV-? :~7"_;:!?'7~ 7z;;. _2« '>/>;?J."'t~~

)':?I .£~f ~ ,;>Y.-:>(i!-::->c;?/ z '_e!'l'-?'i'-Z.-"?Y 77,;? ';rt)'.? 7 ·7'7---(/-?[:''

/;;;n~ # P~~v ,7~ I o/

,zr-c.-:-u:?-r·T?,?

' ?7·71'/tr;{; ·'1{£,/

;:.? --;i7'i-;,i-. -~::-?/· v •'Ot·U..?

-f~-{·L27'0//

~5-L--
4

7 ';;J.•t;y S/ ?-1 ';2--J'? 1 ' 72 ~·;?

i'_/"'1 ¥ ~-;.-

U-•7-

.

>--/'Y

1
;

"1-t.Y.-•.£~1

) ?11 Y??i/)
i

? .-· c· 7-~'ii-:_~7 7h/~
. '(/ -"/ ,.!:/

1:....n.·;;/Jt .•.r.--/' ·•·//Or/? "'J7'-//I

.../c..,,>-:2·

:'7

-;.._._,
) -

A_-p

I

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 14 of 67 Pageid#: 763

• ~, /~ /v-7!'~ ~~ 11 r ~~~ · ;-J'-~kn+'-<~
_ r ~· ~- c:~ 0~/ ~r /~ A/)?'J a~ /~~ _
c:"cd ~·~, o/~ cL ~?~~j?A-~-e:~;;ld c{~~

LA::~·-t-t~«..I2~C.,.~ ./f·-'~ ~y'~. _ya~~~L>e~

uu . ,P .(~ tf?/ ·, cf[f·~ ~c>-t.- ~ /r'u"~< , _/l~t' /x.r- .

.d·?/l~~~4-~c0~~, _ne-::':-d--..~.~4.~-7I'~~.n. ~A-L<· -

-n- /:~t--:f<''2.£"_'t;;4trle·~t. 7..,;"~~ ?-c:.-r._/.fr

d y~
#

tY~trz'.L..~·

,

.

. ;;/-~ 0e~ .J6·J-e~z;/ .4-v 73-4-~Z ~.e

.tv-et...L /&-t..~.t.".~../ ~ ~~.c ~c/ ?k--. -o:·~·--t-z-U' 7£ ~n.e.a&
1'( .I~Lc Tto-<- d ·. ud~.v?t"'T.w-?u, .~ /At2~ ~..::u /?vc-~(<

#-C:y...eZ:&~&- ..~o-?4·.::-C' ~-1-V .· CA.e- /?J':JV/1-€~ ~r... C...crvU~
·. dfc~u--~ ~e~<n.L(l< C::~e~A:Td'~-c-tZct-c<- -)~~
c'i:e'CC--<'~, -z/U.: c:-.~7"-;r~..( /&·UC: .Ui.4<t:"c /~?'4 .. Ce~ad
~ ~Z ~~'~Z- c~.:~· ~·rv ~ /~~-<~ _
. ~-~~ .&~LvA-4 ;~Ow~ cc~~~ ~~··-:?U<:.d
.~.c~ ~~'-;.fie /..:.U~.cyp~e--<'"4.7du~

&~a-cd4e~L fr~/ . 4~ ~ c:~ ~;u() d'l

~~ 1f44~ ~fo.W~<-- _.!1~ ,;

_

. ~ u~ /Z-Pv:d?C;I' ~-- J~~/ e~.. ~

c;~ I ~~ C•.-/..c. -Z'~t!~~Zt' ?t-./ C.".4~ ?'-~.!-~ ;;./~ /?~-

A- ..xU~.ft;J/ ff~'; c~~r-4 .~

/2cC: /??u'4"<- //~~nv

oct. cJ~iJl· .ic- 'h CZ,t-c-~i- ..)p'~'7. -St*-~~.. ??&-' ,-??f.y-.

-::/.r ~· /7t-£Z ~r e~J/~ &:;. /~-~z:, -~~~ ~·

a-zf-d-<L ~/:

.1d 7~ /?/zA'~ _ ~ -"'Y 7(6 --<4 7Y

·~ "_,::;~~u_ c~

~ --~~ -~ ~y :IrS: :./ ~.,_ t/ ~4d .4T

/7.--;!'-?JL-ecC' ..-/'-<':. .r:ru.<-~ tjf d · ,J"/;u.Tc£ _, 7'i- ~47 ./~-;z­
A_ ~..e:.. , /U.J" /~z- .? N~;p~.Jf?d:_ <~.:...........- y-c'ct~£-.U r
( l r ) Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 15 of 67 Pageid#: 764

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 16 of 67 Pageid#: 765

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 17 of 67 Pageid#: 766

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 18 of 67 Pageid#: 767

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 19 of 67 Pageid#: 768

h_-,·;;~:r?/..'·£'"·:~r;:?t~~--r~u--u7J

~/
hp-~--

~-z/.._7~;rt-.I;?;j:_.-y?.·c,>~7.f;J!-(:;70;;7h/7.?y·

l'fY
/

/J?'_IP~·
;P- ~7'~..?7

.£~.")?" / Y$·;)?

z.n ?,;r~~;:-~~'YL,. -~c'7.;r'2;;;::~/v
2-h?-' . Ay?-1??-"'?J/ ) £1/7 ~ v/,7

~;7z--- .u~/~-vr~"-l-u->-7 ' •.~ ~

/b~_..~TPJ~t? ~~.z~'~P ~p- ·;...7/v-z:x

7-~~~?? r<t!-/-·~/ ~{L ~- -r~/YI}

.J

• -

•

-f :V 9r

.·?
?tzfk; no,if >Y7

'~>z~/

~ ~- P"h:?

-r.~~-Q 7

L ~P~?~i' -'V--7?'~ ? 7c 7 $•;;' ??;r.? ~ .r·Pc/ 77"'?.:>" ~

~ '?~~-;.·.~~- ~/ h~;;f ~ j?p·?-1·-~..;7"~>7·1f·/Y .

? /'7-'p 1 )'?~--
~· ~~-('?

~ ~/ i;77-f.-r~;/ ~
~-v!/.-r ~ h?-..t-;t- ~1'1:1

P~fr~-1-· ~;?
£.nz& -:h.·-::'?'~~:__.,?__,_.,._....,.,··""1l,;:-:(/-~:·

r. ~

J,t;;

,.,-.r.._1: -?'l/Y

"'' ?
~

£:7~ '1.£ -trr_/-

-

..., r;/_. r;
v__ . ----

7
/

I

/ ~ - • --

:>?
t?

/
-

IJ..:...

/
., ?"7·1/ .N • -/r·n'.

r.' )

·

·.~ 7:7ij,S'. '"I-V">~ S'; --n.;r?ry~ 7 >:5 ;/? :A, 'hy }?-?~~-~';;~··

-''~ · ·...e-~ · /~-?-1;?-'?:J./ Y / -~'?r7? ~"7 -~ t.tl-vnzz,7 ~".?p!?~ .Y ~· ~-~J ~;;;:~ ~ . .& :7/ -¥ t;-7-~?V

~~ J1!7£·'Z·" #"?-'~ ·."Vii-7,·? ""'?·'7,.h;z;.:_ ;y i'-v .??f:_ .. .7

- -v~M··?-)"- .~?-7~7f1·ry."'t7 • t:t"'"l:>~·rFvh4"'7 ~· ~'"~<':.t-t"l/
£;., --:h(L' ,_t/ ~-n·-?·,7 -?P "iry??~ ;cJ_,.z:;~p ~t/
fo/ /c? /r-;:,?Y">'0:?/?t4~7" PJ7 -?:-~)? /2'"~~'/>r,t-"-u-;:? 77:~-uv~;/

r·?··
-#rr ..:/

·~77~.:~2?

1~~-p/?-p-·
/ r-;-Pf·-:

?(7'y~n)1~?7?1??~-t·Y'/

<7l.•:~.?J;I;?--?:)~h1·/·~

j
-S

Z7J_~;:z.·-,,p7r7

~~~'7/~ -f! ~~?)r',? -,?~tJL~ ·~~·~··-'

">?--?-~:;:;47~·~ "'?2'./~P"1v~? 2???·"'7 _rn-hf.r/ ~·· · rr;;;J:"?

·'.h?.·:>;J--,7~r.~ ·.~· "?'?"~/~.· ~ ~~ ·~~/, ?~/7 ').?'A·~? "'??'.?·?..-·ry.?.·..;.:/p.

..

..v-.?_ _17,Lt.> ..C.··z;? /.

· .-, :>7tfo .

f';·;J'??·TU·:J'"'_I ·;;?

.. _.// ,n'-/r.?-

~

-;.-:r• ""K:)-?1?;?

7~.9 _.2 . ~n '? ~??- "Yi?J':n-~<"/ 77z,2

_.,{l l {'~ f' /'V-'-':~;? <fi:?J/,

o.;?o/ /vr;r ·OrJ

.h./t?o"l :r:'2f:~;.,.~1.27~1~---~7~'?7;~/20,~71Y-7~/~:3J1

1
I

-~~n/n.r;;· ;:/"3~~~ ,;pi' ~7:7 hnY~/ --._·~ ~/t"'l

I ~ /"7·ry· z~-:;?":17/nt/h}' ;:vu;? ',7P?:>·~itp /???"?!'."1,7 ·,;-py'

h _ .~~'n~7<-.-"~~7-.'>//r?~--,7.,,u.~7.;~-7~1·'7'7,,?~..?'.:·'??1-'./;'.?_;):-?j.p~rvr._./..-r.!--,~;J;??~--?-.:,?:,.J??:-./Y-t-q"-7'-7l?'.;!£~;-.?-.1;~U;.?-~:7:rP·".o?:;?:;?.;n?,'Z¢~-~.r7-n·1,</:;~~'?L-1-?.7.·_.1;;4.?;-27Y:-"-cz.'-;.l'';.-~;·.-:o>?L:'.cfJ.:/V-~"u'.J.7~I//~ I

'!'r;·t>"· . Q::>r;z_. p ?£.:~~~·.-: · '7:'"f'£ ~ cY~··v~?.;rn;t?. '?~..., .:>~ ·'"Y · r·,,

-~ f?~:P/.7-v··.~·-~ ·~r:/__ry1":_!:~.- _ -:~.727·'7)1?7:? f' h:l' - -.-..7~7 ;n;J~7/ ~ -?1-

.J_;~

--u'-;-
,_. •

,n·•r.7;?

;~?.r_/~"tr --"?' -/?L?J-..;;.J·:-nL"..

/·J
.·P'"?-'~

- . .- ~-

.2,) :c. - '(_ ? 7?-? ,_?.7... i./
C>:tfr"J.r;/ <'>J';.ii'-'1..U.---r.t 7 '

0-;r)/·'l/? /
.'f:·i-1// .~~.

_,~;•-/-

/
,
! I

-;;.v< 7··rt "-1-:J :7--U.,:?•/~

.

c/

i 1

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 20 of 67 Pageid#: 769

I
I

;?t~¥{<:2-JL r71--t~;~ . r . {~- ff /- f0 ,/..,...CU.- .:'U:. r _,...y~~ -71~ ,?L~

f

. /} ·z • c·.c~W/ de~Ca. .•

c{/e:/--£/-.

cF-r'<·C.

~
.

. ,~~t...:.::?R~~

.:-r~--t...-

J
,;e>/

-

_

. -~ f'y -#/~f> _C.'C.C-~b'/' c_ e nz--~-47~-<~- ..::~~ y-•:7"

/k~ -/~~- rk.:;_ c:-z•·'JV /~'</ -~ ~~r; ~-f2y·· 7#;7

-~f'-e L~~~/ /.:'~· _C:L1r,£ "o/-~1!-«':_,~ ao/~~,.:e~:r

7 ?t.Uf<! u.?~.rz . .e-'1\.- ~ -t('r

~.:v /J'Vt'-t'.. ~- <..- ..

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 21 of 67 Pageid#: 770

{~.# .3 -
~'y f?Z;_
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 22 of 67 Pageid#: 771

VuwtiM Dwo\ltft.li\l<{f tJf C~'IIO>i> FIR ilf•:CJGil.lnMU

EtfcciM Daltt: ~ I. 2007 0p« tsPt .._.._, A«ad -.11!1

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECI'IONS EMERGENCY GRIEVANCE

.f'~ e '"7n-
Buildins-ee•~

'

.$

•

ff!J---·--·-

!3ft7:b,At- f-/Sl1;~~u .~

Iff{

Date/Time

Ke111ondmt Sip!ur!

J-tj(, 1 - . /

Distribratloo;

OriJioal ~
Copy Aw11111tdcd lo

IrIeMlllitilMleidcllIu()ilO~ lfellder ~

. t'v<.!' Cl'J A/~:fJI/
ide Pri11Ud

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 23 of 67 Pageid#: 772

! j ~-~~ -
~~-

VIRGINIA DEPART1v1Et\'T OF CORRECTIONS
Emergency Grievance

Effective Date: November l~ 2007 Operating Procedure #866.1 Attachment liS

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS EMERGENCY GRIEVANCE
Log #----::o=---0-;-4..:::3-=3:,.::2o...1'--;-:-.,--,--:--;:
Definition: Emergencies are defined as situations or conditions which may subject the offender to immediate risk of serious personal injury or irreparable harm.

Building-Cell/Bed

.,) /J//?i:<!rb):./·
/17c- /j:'!S(//i-:::.

Your grievance has been determined to be an emergency and the following action has been taken:

' \ t ------------------~----------------------------------------------------LJ~"··
------------------------------------------------~----------~-
_,{:'"

l

f',

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

,

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

·

7

"·-"'

-: ~:·---","
t.

·-~..;.·I,.,.·..'.
~-- i..: i ,.[

. ' ·rj-!' t''·
-- !_"\

-------------------,--+-t"--'----------------~--,J-'f'c..;--,. •..

/

J3;S'C'

Distribution: Original Grievance returned to Otlffider
rnnv fnnu~1·t-lp-fi tn Tno;:titntional Omhnlkrmmf(;rfe-vance Corm1in::.tnr
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 24 of 67 Pageid#: 773

VIRGI~IA DEPARTMENT OF CORR.ECTIOJ'\S
Emergency Griet'BllCe

Effective Date: November 1, 2007 Operating Preced11re 11866.1 Attachme.rt #5

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

EMERGENCY GRIEVANCE

Log #-----=0~4-"'-8-'='5-=-"0c..-.7-:-:----:--:--::
Definicion: Emergencies are defined as situations or conditions which may subject tbe offender to immediate risk of serious personal injury or irreparable harm.

/k;J!Dr: tl6f'tsz;a;,1

Offender last Name

First

Number Facility

PART A- OFFENDER CLAIM
9.:;.,; tJ

Building-Cell/Bed

Date/Time

Offender Signature and Number '

PART B- STAFF RESPONSE

(This part is to be completed and returned to the offender within eight (8) hours.)
IZJ Your grievance does not meet the definition for an emergency. Reason/s:

D Your grievance has been determined to be an emergency and the following action has been taken:

M?f:r- ,w: kP.!'

--""'·;?~-&L"#:,.,~==----------_£_-~-"=5"-'·-~"-'l"'l"_;_·---'"'--'/'-'-""-u.-1:..::---"':>'---- - -

Date/Time

spondent Signature

Name/Title Printed

Distribution: Original Grievance returned to Offender

Copy forwarded to Institutional Ombudsman/Grievance Coordinator

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 25 of 67 Pageid#: 774

<anna Correctional Center for Women abject: Implementation Memorandum for DOP 866

Page 3 of4 October 15, 2004

4. Staff response to an inmate's informal complaint shall be ten (10) working days but
no longer than 15 calendar days.
lP~~ Initiation of Regular Grievance Procedure.

1. Grievance forms are available in each housing unit and are available at all times upon request. Inmates may seek the assistance of their assigned counselor, staff assigned to their housing unit or from the Institution Ombudsman.

2. Grievances are official documents; therefore, FCCW requires all grievances to be written in blue, black or blue-black ink. Grievances submitted in pencil or any other colored ink shall be returned to the inmate for resubrnission.

3. Inmates must attach their informal process (IMS) to the grievance form to indicate that they have attempted to informally resolve their issue. Verbal informal responses and emergency grievance forms shall not be considered as an informal process. Grievances submitted without the informal IMS attached shall be returned to the inmate.

4. Only one issue per grievance form will be addressed. The inmate is to write the issue in the space provided on the grievance form. If additional space is needed then the inmate may attach one additional sheet of paper. Grievances submitted with more than one issue or more than one sheet of paper attached may be returned for resubrnission.
c~) ~ Emergency Grievances.

1. Emergency grievance forms are available in the housing units at all times upon request.

2. Once completed, the inmate is to turn the grievance form in to any staff person. The staff person receiving the grievance form shall annotate the date and time received on the bottom of the form and give the inmate a copy. The original grievance form shall then be taken to the Building Supervisor who will determine what action is to be taken.

3. Emergency grievances shall be responded to by:

a. Grievances addressing medical/mental health or dental issues shall be handcarried to the medical department for a response by medical/mental health or dental staff.

b. Grievances addressing housing unit issues shall be responded to by the Supervisor of the respective housing unit.

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 26 of 67 Pageid#: 775
\

VJ:RGINlA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTiONS FLUVANNA CORRECTIONAl CENTER fOR \..'\IOI.I!EN
(Inmate Request Fonn)

Dale. November 1. 2
IM to DOC OP 603.1 (Attachment;

8

¥

(j

q·

c

----

4-

~

d'
a· .,f

Address only on( issue. Do not DO NOT USE THIS FORM TO

write FILE

io the space provided for respons~. AN INFORMAL COMPLAINT {See

ly one additional sh Attachment #9 of DOC OP

if necessary. 86ll.__ _ _.

.

;t:"._, / /

RESPONSE (10 Workdays to respond)

Ms Acker, your

RESPECTFULLY,

TIONS DIRECTOR

Date Stamp
OCT I 7 2008

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS DDoactue mofeRnetsp9o5nseF: iled 01/30/09 Page 27 of 67 Pageid#: 776

Tl0N5 FORWOMEf'.i

Oaie_ November 1, 2007
IM lo DOC OP 803.1 (Attachmen! #2 I

RESPONDER

.

Counselor

Treatment Program Supervisor

Commissary Jl.1anager

Counselor

Cosmetology Instructor

Director of Nursing

OpeTlttwtu Of£JUr

Food Service Director Treatment Program Supen-isor

Counselor

1 Assistant Warden Records Manager

Building 4 OSA

Accountant

Building 4 OSA

Operations Officer

B & G Superintendent

Counselor Medical Director

. Menflll Healtb Director
Operations - OSS

Treatment Program Supervisor

Recreation Supervisor

.

Cl»>plai11

Saletv O.ITlcer DCE Principal

Major --
Unit Manager

Treatment Program Supervisor

Unit Manager

Buildin~ 4 OSA Executive Secretary

Work Supervisor

Inmate's Assigned Counselor

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 28 of 67 Pageid#: 777

!M to oOC OP 803.1

• •

Address only ope issot. Do DO NOT USE TillS FORM

not TO

wrlle FILE

In tbe SJillct provided for response. AN INFORMAL COMPLAINT (See

on one addltiollill AtbtA:hment #9 ofOOC

sheet IIneUSSllry. Ol' 1161.1)

RESPONSE (111 Workdays to r«p<~lld}

·~·,,~

ocr ts•
BUII.DINGa

Dalt or Response:

Date Stllplp ,

1 of2
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 29 of 67 Pageid#: 778

......

TOPIC

I

~

--
---

C!assifiAcantnlouiai/lRReetv18ieSlSl'5ifitatioq Colllwissary

CorrespondceonscDeJWet/otb/ogoytber

I IIIDates

DeniJIJ

DiSCiplinary Issues

FDosJ &rvkt

-- Counselor

RESPONDER

CTorelatliQlenitD17/osgrsalall rSuy~so. r

Counselor auager

-

CosDJeto/ogy Instructor

0Director

of

Nurs. mg

'J)erafion, Oflicer

-

Free Letters lildigent Care Packages

TFrOeOatdDSJeernvtiPceroDgirraeicD:toSru

.

-

lndustrv lamau Records

Couaselor Assistant Warden

pervisor

Inwate Telephone

Records Manager

Inmate Trott Law Library

Building 4 OSA
-tccouo.t•~rt

Mallroom

Bulldil1g 4 OSA

-

Maiureaauce

Operations Offletr
B& G Superintendent

-
~
~
"

Marrilll!.es Medical

Cormselor Medical Director

Ml!llirll Healtb

Mental Healtb Director

Personal Property Prognunslfreatrneut
Reereatlon

Operations- OSS

Treatment Program Supervisor Recreation Supervisor

.

--

Religious Programming

Cbaplala

Safety

Safety Oflicer

·.··

Scbool Security - Operations

DCE Prlacipal

Major

.

Security (io Unit) SpeciaVEIIended Visits

Unll Maoager Treatment Program Supervisor

1te Issue Clolbing Requests

Unit Mao,ger

Visitblg Lists Warden's Call
Work Issues
Work Requests

Btlild1Bt4 OSA Executive Secretary Woril Supervisor Inmate's Assigned Counselor

----
--

Other:

2 of2

Revision Date: I JJJ/2007

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 30 of 67 Pageid#: 779

b VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FLUVANNA CORRECTIONAl CENTER FOR WOMEN
(Inmate Request Fonn)
I

Uate: Novemoer 1, .£uu,
IM to DOC OP 803.1 (Attachment #2 )
of this form.

Address only one issue. Do not write in tbe space provided for response. U oaly one additional sheet If necessary. DO NOT USE THIS FORM TO FILE AN INFORMAL COMPLAINT See Attachment #9 ofDOC OP 861.1
RESPONSE (10 Workdays to respond)

1977
Signa(ure of Responding Staff Member:

Date of Response:

Date Stamp
0

I of2

RevJsron Date. I /11/2007

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 31 of 67 Pageid#: 780

TOPIC
Annual Reviews Classitication/Reclassitication
Commissary Correspondenee with otber Inmates
Cosmetology Dental
D~plinary Issues Food Service Free Letters
Indigent Care Packages Industry
Inmate Records Inmate Telephone
Inmate Trust Law Library
Mailroom
Maintenao(:e
Marriaees Medkal Mental Healtll -Personal Property Programsffreatment Recreation Religious Programming Safetv Scbool Security - Operations Security (in Unit) Special/Extended Visits State Issue Clotbing Requests Visitillg Lists Warden•s CaD Work Issues Work Requests Otber:

RESPONDER

Counselor Treal'menl Program Supervisor Commissary Manager Counselor Cosmetology Instructor
Director of Nursing Operatiom Officer Food Service Director Treatment Program Supervisor Counselor Assistant Warden Records Maaager Building 4 OSA Accountant Buildillg 4 OSA Operations Officer

B & G Superintendent

Counselor

Medical Director

Mental Healtll Director

Operations- OSS

Treatment Program Supervisor R«reation Supervisor

.

Chaplain

Safety Officer

-

DCE Prineipal

Major

Unit Manager

- Trer.tment Program Sup!;;rv.i5or

Unit Manager

Building 4 OSA

E'lecutive Secretary

Work Supervisor

Inmate•s Assigned Counselor

2 of2

Revision Date: JJ/112007

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 32 of 67 Pageid#: 781

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 33 of 67 Pageid#: 782

_, l \\t
')
SUNDAY
1CIBrscutT 3 EA MARGARINE 1 S:ERV ~REAM GRA1

VIRGINIA DEPAR~NT OF CORRECTIONS
MASTER. MENU 1ST QUARTER. 2008 WEEK 1

OZ JUICE /4C FARINA
EA COOKED EGGS / 4C HOME FRIES
2 1/4CIAPPLE BUTTER

/4C,FARINA EA COOKED EGGS
2 EAIHASH BROWNs
2 OZ BISCUIT
2 TSP MARGARINE 8
16

c

•

TOMATOES

2 EAICORNBREAD

H

SERV FRUIT

t114 o--Jw.___
Ju

CABBAGE
• EAICOOKIE 1 PCE MARGARINE
3 TSP GRAVY

2
2 EAIBREAD 2 TSP CAKE
l/4C MARGARINE 8

2 EAIRICE PUDDING 1 2

F~D SERVICE OIRE~TORS MAY MAKE SUBSTITUTIONS WHE~ NECESSARY IN
AtCORDANCE WITH FOOD SERVICE MANU~L GUIDELINES. ~ORTION SIZES ARt A~ WRITTEN ON THE MENU. FRESH/FRO~EN PRODUCE MAY ~E SUBSTITUTED StASONALLY. T~E MASTER MENU ALTERNATE ENTREE ZS 2 OZ CHEESE Ol PEANUT BUTTER F~R BREAKFAST AND 1 1/2 C BEANS FOR NOON AND EVENlNG MEALS.

Signed copy on file LINDA SHEAR, M.S., R.D.

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 34 of 67 Pageid#: 783

.,\))
,J \
SUNDAY

MONDAY

TUli:SDAY

VIRGI~IA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
MASTE!t MENU 1ST QUARTER 2008 WEEK 2

WEDNESDAY

THURSDJ\.Y

li'RIDAY

SATURDAY

/4C,GRITS EA F'RENCH TOAST

BUTTE:R

GRAVY
/ 4ClHOME FRIES EA BISCUIT OZ COFFe:E

3/4C,GRITS .
2!3C COOKED,EGGS

lC CARROTS lC SANDWICH BUN' 2 EA TARTAR SAUCi!: 1 PCE COOKIE l OZ MARGARINE
FOOD SERVICE DIRECTORS MAY MAKE S~BSTITUTIONS WH~ NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH FOOD SERVICE MANUAL GUIDELINES. ~RTION SIZES AR~ A~ WRITTEN ON THE MENU. FRESH/FRO~EN PRODUCE MAY bE SUBSTITUTED SEASONALLY. TBE MASTER MENU ALTERNATE ENTREE lS 2 OZ CHRESE 0~ PEANUT BUTTER FOR BREAKFAST AND 1 1/2 C BEANS FOR NOON AND EVEN!NG MEALS.

Signed copy on file LINDA SHEAR. M.S., R.D.

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 35 of 67 Pageid#: 784

·~I\':P' ' SUNDAY

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS MASTER MtNU lST QUARTl:R 2008
WEEK 3

1 SERVIcoFFEE

8 OZ,COFFE'E 16 OZ MILK

2
31-.'-" """'"'-0 J.VI"'.~J.
2 TSP MARGARINE 2 oz SYRUp B OZ COFFEE
16 oz !IILK

1 SERV,BEVERAGE 2 TSP
8 oz

POTATO
SLICES

lCISTEWED TOMATOES
2 SL TARTAR SAUCE 1 PCE MARGARINE
1 oz BEVERAGE
a oz

1/2C CARROTS 1 PCE BREAD
2 EA RICE PUDDING 1 az GRAVY 2 TSP MARGARINE a oz BEVERAGE

1/2C BROCCOLI
2 EA CORNBREAD
2/JC CAK~
1/4C MARGARINE 2 TSP GRAVy
·e oz ~EVERAGE

FOOD ~ERVICE DIRECTOR; MAY MAKE SUBSTtTUTIONS WHEN NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH FOOD ~ERVICE MANUAL GUIDELINES. PORTlON SIZES ARE AS WRtTTEN ON THE MENU. FRESH/FROZEN ~RODUCE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED SEASO~ALLY. THE MASTER MENU ALTE~ATE ENTREE IS 2 OZ CHEESE OR PEANUT BUTTER
FOR B~EAKFAST AND 1 1/2 C BEANS FOR NOON AND EVENING ~EALS.

• 'n nn.;on unvn••.;> 2 TSP BISCUIT
2 az MARGARINE
8 oz COFFEE: 16 oz MILK
1 SEitV GARLIC BREAD
8 az FRUIT MARGARINE: BEVERAGE
1/<c 1 PCE 1 PC:E
2 Tfl:P
1/4C 8 oz

.J/"1'- ..,.,.-..... ~ .... C,.;;l
2EA BREAD 2 TSP JELLY
a oz MARGARINE 16 oz COFFEE

.. , ....... '"'"'""' ""U;:>""" ,.,., ''
2 EA POTATO/ONION

• on
1C

1 az BISCUIT

3 EA

2 TSP FRUIT

1 SSRV

8 az MARGARINE

3 TSP

2 SLrORNBREAD
1 SERV FRUIT 2 TSP MARGARINE 8 OZ BEVERAGE

1 PCE 1 SERV 2 TSP
8 az

BREAD BREAD PUDDING
GRAVY
MARGARINE
BEVERAGE

2 EA BAKED BEANS 2/JC COLESLAW l/4C BUN
2 TSP COoKIES 8 oz MUSTARD
BEVERAGE

lC lC
2 EA
2EA l oz
' oz

Signed copy an file LINDA SHEAR, -M.S., R.D.

j
l
l
j
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
2
I
-,~
I
J
I '
l '
!

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 36 of 67 Pageid#: 785

-J\~

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS MASTER MENU 1ST QUARTeR 2008
WEEK 4

1 SERVICOFFEE

EGG$ GAAVY
8 OZICOFFEE

2 EArANCT!.KES 2 EA HASH BROWNS 1/2C MARG!\RINE
8 OZICOFFtE

2 ' " ' TURKEY S/I.USAGE LINJ<S 3/<C HOME FRIES 2 TSP BREAD 2 0~ MARGARINE
8 0~ APPLE BUTTER 16 0~ COFFEE

2 EA COOKED E~GS
3/4C HASH BROWNs
2 EA BREAD
2 TSP MARGARINii:
1 oz JELLY 8 oz COFFEE 16 oz MILK

2 EAr()()KED EGGS 3/4C SAUSAGE PATTY 2 EA HO!IIE FRIES 2 1 8
16

H

2 EA,BREAll 1 PCE COOKl:ES
8 8
FOOD SERVICE DIRECTORS MAY MAKE SUBSTITUTIONS WHEN NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH FOOD SERVICE MANUAL GUIDELINES. PORT~ON SIZES ARE AS WR~TTEN ON THE MENU. FRESH/FROZEN PRODUCE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED S£ASO~ALLY. THE ~STER MENU ALTE~ATE ENTREE IS 2 OZ CHEESE OR PE~ BUTTER FOR B~EAKFAST AND l l/2 C BEANS FOR NOON AND EVENING MEALS.

l/4C CORNBREAb
1 PCE BREAD PUbDING
2 TSP MARGARINt ! OZ BEVERAGE
Signed copy on file LINDA SHEAR, M.S., R.D.

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 37 of 67 Pageid#: 786

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 38 of 67 Pageid#: 787

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
MASTER MENU; OCTOBER 2008-MARCH 2009 WEEK 1

ftc/:-, C
,fC /"' .>
102/cF

SUNDAY

MONDAY

TUESDAY

I
B I JUICE

4 oz JUICE

R CIN~AHON OATMEAL

lC GRITS

E FRENCH TOAST

3 EA 'I'URKE't SAUSAGE LINl<s

A SAUSAGE PATTY 1 EA HASH BROWNS

K CHEESE'! POTATO

!C BISCUIT

F FRUIT

1 SE:RV MARGARINE

A SYRUP
s MARGARINE
T COFFEE
MILK

oz 3

CREAM GRAVY

3 TSP COFFEE
a oz MILK 16 oz

4 oz JUICE
3/4C FARINA
2 EA SAUSAGE GRAVY
3/4C HOME FRlES
2 EA BISCUIT
2 TSP MARGARI'NE 1/4C COFFEE
a oz MILK 16 oz

WEDNESDAY
4 oz IJ\JICE
3/4C Ol>.TMEAL 2/3C PANCAKES 3/4C F~IED BOLOGNA 2 EA SYRUP 2 TSP MARGARINE
a oz COFFEE 16 oz MlLK

THURSDAY

4 oz JUICE

3/4C FARINA

2 EA COOKED EGGS

oz 2

HASH BROWNS

2 oz BREAD

2 TSP MARGARINE
a oz APPLE BUTTE'!\ 16 oz COFFEE

MILK

FRIDAY
4 oz JUICE
3/4C OATMEI\L 2 EA FRENC~ TOAST 3/4C HOME t'RIES 2 EA SYRUP 2 TSP MARGAtliNE
1 oz COFFEE a oz MILK 16 oz

SATURDAY

4 oz JUICE
3/4C BRE:AKFAST ~ASTR'f 2 EA FRIED EGGS 3/4C FRIED BOLOGNA
2 oz HASH BROWNS
2 TSP BISCUIT
a oz CINNAAON /'.ff':t.E:S,I\,UCE 16 oz JELLY
MARGARINE
COFFEE
MILK

4 oz
1 EA 2 EA
2 oz
2 E!CA] 1/2C
1 oz
3 TSP
a oz 16 oz

L

BEEF/RICE/SOY

1C PINTO BEANS 1 1/2C FRUIT

1 SERV HOT DOG

2 EA GR!tt£.!:) JW.I/CHEESE 1 EA

u

BEANS

1/2C RICE

1C BEVERAGE

a oz BAKED BEANS

1/2C OVEN 81\.0WN POTATO

1/2C

N

STIR-FRY VEGS

1C STEWE:D 'l'OMATOES 1/2C

FRIED CABBAGE 1/2C CARROTS

1C

c

GARLIC BREAD

2 EA DINNER ROLLS

2 EA

HOT DOG BUN

2EA FRUIT

1 SERV

H

FRUIT

1 SERV FRUIT

1 SERV

MUSTARD

oz 1

MARGA~INE

2 TSP

!

BEVERAGE

a oz MARGARINE

2 TSP

FRUIT

1 SERV BEVERAGE

a oz

BEVERAGE

8 oz

BEVERAGE

a oz

D MEl!.T SAUCE I SPA.GHETTI N SQUASH N CAP.ROTS E DINNER ROLLS R BROWNIE
MARGARINE BEVERAGE

lC EARED CHICKEN 1-1/2C BREAD DRESSINQ
1/2C GREENS
lC BREAD 3 EA COOKIE 1 9CE MARGARINE 3 ~SP GAA.V't
8 oz BEVERAGE

1 EA OVEN FRlED FISH 1/2C MASHED SWtET POTATO 1/2C GREEN BEANS 2EA CATSUP 2 EA BUN
2 TSP CAKE
!(4C MARGARINE
a oz BEVERAGE

1 EA V:EGETABLE SOUP lC HAMBURGER
1/2C 0\'EN BROWN POTATOES
1 oz BUN
1 EA BREAD PUDDING
1 PCE MUSTARD
2 TSP MARGARINE
a oz BEVERAGE

1C BEVERAGE
lEA l/2C
1 EA 2/3C
1 oz
2 TSP
8 oz

FOOD SERVICE DIREC~ORS MAY MAKE SUasTITUTIONS WHEN NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH FOOD SERVICE MANUAt GUIDELINES. PORTION SIZES ARE AS WRITTEN ON THE ~NU. FRESH/FROZ~N PRODUCE MAY Bt SUBSTITUTED S~sONALL¥. TH~ MASTER MENU AL~ERNATE ENTREE I~ 2 OZ CHEESE OR PEANUT BUTTER
FO~ BREAKFAST AND l 1/2 C BEANS FO~ NOON AND EVENING MEALS.

8 oz MEATLOAF
MASHEO POTATO FRIED CABBAGE
GARLIC BREAD GRAVY
COOKIE
MARGA~INE
BEVERAGE

1 EA SLOPPY JOE 1/2C POTATO AU GRATIN 1/2C STIR FR'i VEGS 2 SL COLESLAW l/4C BUN 2 EA MARGARINE
2 TSP CAKE/ICING
a oz BEVERAGE

l/2C 1C lC lC
lEA
3 TSP
1 PCE
a oz

--

--

-

--

-

Signed copy on file LINDA SHEAR, MS, RD

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 39 of 67 Pageid#: 788

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS MASTER MENU: OCTOBER 2008-MARCH 2009
WEEK 2

SUNDAY

MONDAY

.

B JUIC~

4 oz JUICE

R BREAKFAsT t'ASTRY 1 EA GRITS

>; WESTEF.N EGGS

3/4C TO'I\KE't SAUSAGE LINKS

A CHEESE;:y POTATO

1C PANCAKES

K BISCU~T

2 EA SYRUP

F FRUIT A JELLY
s MA.RGAP..INE
T COFFEE:

1 SERV MARGARINE
1 oz COFFEE
3 TSP MILK
a oz

MILK

16 oz

TUESDAY
4 oz JUICE
3/4C FARINA 2 EA COOKED EGGS
2EA HASH BROWNS
2 oz BREAD
2 TSP MARGARINE B OZ APPLE BUTTER
16 oz COFFEE
MILK

L
u

PORK PATTY

1 EA FRUIT

OVEN FRIED RICE

lC l3EVERAGE

N

FRIED CABBAGE

1C

c

HAMBURGER BUN 1 EA

H

FRUIT

l. SERV

BEVERAGE

8 oz

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY

FRIDAY

SATURDAY

4 oz JUICE
3/4C GRITS 2EA WAFFLES

4 Oz JUICE
3/4c OATMEAL 2 EA TURKEY SAUSAGE LINl<'

4 oz JUICE
3/4C FARINA 2 EA SAUSAGE GRAVY

4 oz JUICE
3/4C BRtAKFAST PASTRY 2/JC FRIED EGGS

4 oz
1 EA 2 EA

3/4C HOME FRIES 2 EA SYRUP 2 TSP MARGARINE
1 oz COFFEE
B OZ MILK
16 oz

3/4C HASH BROWNS
2 oz BISCUIT
2 TSP CREAM GAAVY
8 oz MARGARINE
16 oz COFFEE
MILK

3/4C HOME FRIES 2 EA BISCUIT
l/4C MARGARINE 2 TSP COFFEE
8 oz MILK 16 oz

3/4C FRIED BOLOGNA 2 oz

2 EA GRILLED POTATO PATTY 2 EA

2 TSP BISCUIT
8 oz FRO IT

2 EA
1 SERV'

16 oz MARGARINE

3 TSP

JELLY COFFEE

81 oozzl

MILK

16 oz.

I

1 SERV NAVY BEANS
e oz MAC/CHEESE

1 1/.(C SCALLOPED HAM/NOODLt

1C TURKEY/CHEESE

112c GREEN BEANS

l/2C SALAD/DRESSING

3 oz
1C

I

STEWl1:D TOMATOES 1/2C DINNER ROLLS

2EA POTATO SALAD

1C

I

GARLIC BREAD FRUIT BEVERAGE

2~ FRUIT
1 SEFI.V MARGARINE
a oz BEVERAGE

1 SERV SANDWICH BUN 2 TSP MAYONNAISE
8 oz FRUIT
BEVERAGE

I EA
I OZ 1 SERV
8 oz

D BEAN SOUP l HOT D()GS

1 1/4C OVEN FRIED FISH 2 EA MASHED POTATO

N OVEN 3~0WN ~OTATO

1C CARROTS

H COLESLAW

lC SANDWICH BUN

E HOT DOG BUN

2 EA CATSUP

R CAKE/tCING
CATSU~

1 PCE COOKIE
1 oz MARGARINE

MARGA~INE
BEVER.\GE

3 TSP BEVERAGE
a oz

1 EA ITAL STYLE SMSAGE 1/2C OVEN BROWN ~OTATO
1C GREEt.;S
1 EA HOT DOG BON
1 oz BREAD PUDDING
2 EA MARGARINE 2 TSP MUSTARD
8 oz BEVERAGE

1 EA TURi<ZEY PATTY 1/2C MASHED SlfEE'f POTA'!'O
1/2C STIR FRY VEGS 1 EA BUN 2/3C MUSTARD
2 TSP COOKIE
1 oz MARGARINE 8 oz BEVE:RAGE

1 tA BEVERAGE 1/<c
1/~c
1 ~A
1 oz
2 tA 2 T~p
8 cz

oz 8

CHILI/SOY "'ith SEANS 1 1/4C MEAT SA.UCE

RICE

1C SPAGHETTI

1C 1 l./2C

FRIED CA.BBAGE 1/2C SA.LAD/DRESSING

1C

DINNER ROLLS

2 EA GI\EENS

lC

COOKIE

2EA DINNER ROLLS

:; EA

MARGARINE BEVERAGE.

2 TSP CAKE/ICING
8 oz MA.RGARINE
BE:VEAAGE

1 PCE
3 TSP
a oz

'----

-~-

-

-

-

-

FOOD SERVICE DIRECTOR$ MAY MAKE SUBSTlTUTIONS WHEN NECESSARY IN ACCORbANCE WITH FOOD SERVICE MANUAL GUIDELINES. PORTlON SIZES ARE AS WRlTTEN ON THE MEN~. FRESH/FROZEN ~RODUCE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED SEASO»ALLY. THE ~STER MENU ALTERUATE ENTREE IS 2 OZ CHEESE OR PEANUT BUTTER
FOR B~AKFAST AND 1 1/2 C BEANS FOR NOON AND EVENING MEALS.

Signed copy on file LINDA SHEAR, MS, RD

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 40 of 67 Pageid#: 789

SUNDAY

MONDAY

TUES!lAY

B JUIC~

4 oz JUICE

R CINNAMON OATMEAL

1t FARINA

E PANCltKES A SA.USII.GE PATTY

3&>. TUUE'l' SAl/SAGE LINlCS
1 E~ HASH BROWNS

K CHEESEY POTATOES

1t BISCUIT

F FRUI'l'

1 SERV GRAVY

A SYRU~
s MARGI\.RINE

3 oz COFFEE 2 TS~ MILK

T COFF~E

9 0~

MILK

16 oz

4 oz JUICE 3/4C OATMEAL 2 EA COORED EGGS 3/4C HOME FRIE:S
2 EA BREAD 1/4C JELLY
9 oz MARGARIN~
16 oz COFFEE
MILK

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
MASTER ~NU: OCTOBER 2008-March 2009 WEEK 3

WEDNESDAY
4 oz JUICE 3/4C GRITS 2 EA FRIED BOLOGNA 3/4C FRENCH TOAST 2 EA MAR.GARINE 1 oz SY~UP 2 TSP COFFEE 9 oz MII.K 16 oz

THURSDAY
4 oz JUICE 3/4C FARINA 2 oz SAUSAGE GRAVY 2 EA HASH BROWNS 2 ~SP BISCUIT 2 oz MARGARINE 8 oz COFFEE 16 oz MILK

FRIDAY
4 oz JUICE 3/4C OATMEAL 2/3C PANCAKES 3/4C HOME F~IES 2EA MARGARINE 2 TSP SYRUP 8 oz COFFEE 16 oz MILK

SATURDAY

4 oz IJUICE 3/4C BREAKfAST ~ASTR~
2 EA WESTERN EGGS 3/4C Glt,ILLED POTATO PATT'f
2 TSP BISCUIT 2 oz qNNJ\MON APPLESAUCE B OZ MARGARINE
16 oz JELLY
COFFEE
MILK

4 oz lEA 3/4C 2Ell
2 EA 1/2C 3 TSP 1 oz 9 oz 16 oz

L
u

FRUIT BEVERAGE

1 SERV CHILI/SOY with BEANS 1 l/4C VEGETABLE SOUP

tc CHICKEN/RICE/SOY

9 oz RICE

lC GRILLED HAM/CHEESE 1 S~DW BEANS

tc TURKEY/CHEESE t/2C SALAD/DRESSING

3 oz tc

N
c

TURNIP GARLIC BE\EAD

1/2C OVEN BROWN ?OTATO 1/2C GREENS

2 SL FRUIT

1 StRV GARLIC BREAD

l/2C POTATO SALAD 2 SL SANDWICH BUN

lC 1 EA

H

FRUIT

1 SERV BEVERAGE

9 oz FRUIT

1 SERV MAYONNAISE

1 oz

MARGARINE';

2 TSP

MARGARINE

2 TSP FRUIT

l SERV

BEVERAGE

9 oz

BEVERAGE

9 oz BEVERAGE

9 oz

D HAMBIRGER I PINTO BEANS

1"1\ NAVY BEAN SOUP t l/4C BAKED CHICKEN tc OVEN FRIED FISH 1 EA BREAD DRESSING

N SCALI.OE'ED POTATO N SQUASH

tc STEWED TOMATOES 1/2C GREENS

1c DINNER ROLL

2 EA BREAD

~ BUN

tEA COOKIES

2EA CAKE

R SHREDDED LETTUCE 112c CATSUP

1 oz MARGARINt

CHOP~ED ONIONS t oz MARGARINE

BROWNIE

1 PC'E BEVERAGE

2 TSP BEVERAGE 9 oz

MtlSTARD

t oz

MARG.ARINE

3 TSP

BEVEAAGE

9 oz

----

-

I PCE SALISBURY STEAK l/2C MASHED POTATO l/2C CA&BAGE 2 EA DI!fNER ROLL 1 PCE COOKIES
2 TSP ~GARINE 9 oz GRAVY BEVERAGE

1 EA BEVERAGE 1/2C 1/2C 2 EA 2 EA
2 tSP 1/4C 9 oz

-

--

--

-

-----

B OZ ITAL ST'lt!: SAUSAGE 1 EA ~~OT DOGS

CABBAGE & POTATO 1 1/2C OVEN 8!101fl1 SiltET PCI:I>.TO

PINTO FiEANS HOT DO~ BUN

t/2C CHILI/SOY with. ll~S 1 EA BEANS

BREAD PUDDING 2/3C .9TIH-FRY VEGS

MUS TAR[)

1 oz liOT DOG BON

MARGARlNE

2 TSP COOKIES

BEVERA(;E

8 oz l'!USTARD

liARGARINE

E!!EVERAGE

2Ell lC 1C
1/2C 1C
2 EA 2 EA 1 oz 1 TSP 8 oz

FOOD SERVICE DIRECTO~S MAY MAKE SUBSTITUTIONS WHEN NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH FOOD SERVICE MANUAL GUIDELINES. PORTION SIZES ARE
AS WRITTEN ON THe ME~U. FRESH/FROZEN PRODUCE MAY B£ SOBSTITOTED SEASONALLY. THE MASTER MENU ALTE~ATE ENTREE IS 2 OZ CHEESE OR PEANUT BUTTER
FOR BREAKFAST AND 1 1/2 C BEANS FOR ~OON AND EVENING MEALS.

Signed copy on file LINDA SHEAR, MS, RD

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 41 of 67 Pageid#: 790

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTrONS
MASTE~ MENU: OCTOBER 2008-MARCij 2009 WEEK 4

SUNDAY

MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

T- H~ URSDA~ -Y-

FR-·I-D-A- Y-

SATURDAY

3 JUICE

~ oz JUICE

' < CINNAMON OATMEAL
> FFUED EGGS

lC FARINA EA FRENCH TOAST

~ 51\USAGE PATTY l EA HOME FRIES

< ICHEESEY POTATOES
r I Pl\NCAKES

lC SYRUP l EA MARGARINE

~ F!l.UIT

1 $ERV COFFEE

3 S"l:'RUP
r IMJ\.RGARINE

l oz MILK
3 TSP

COFFEE

s oz

MlLK

1~ oz

4 oz JUICE 3/4C GRITS
2 EA COOKED EGGS
3/4C BISCUIT 2 oz SAUSAGE GRAVY 2 TSP MARGARINE
8 oz COFFEE 16 oz MILK

4 oz JUICE 3/4C FARINA
2 EA PANCAKES
2 EA HASH BROWNS
2/3C MARGARINE 2 TSP SYRUP
8 oz COFFEE
16 oz MILK

L

ITAL STYLE SAUSAGE 1 EA CREAM OF PO'I'.ATO SOUP 1 l/4C FRUIT

J

OVEN BROWN POTATO 1/2C GRILLED TURXEY/CH 1 EA BEVERAGE

'l

STIR FRY VEGS 1/2C GREEN BEANS

l/2C

HOT DOG BUN

1 EA FRUIT

1 SERV

"

CKOPPEO PEPPEA/~ION
MUSTARD

l/4C MARGA~INE 1 oz BEVERAGE

2 TSP B OZ

FRUIT

1 SERV

BEVERAGE

B OZ

4 oz JUICE 3/4C GRITS 2 EA TOIU<EY SAtJSAG~ t.INKS 3/4C HOME FRIES 2 TSP BISCUIT 2 oz MARGARINE B OZ APPLE BUTTER
16 oz COFFEE
MILK

4 oz JUICE 3/4C OATMEAL 2EA SAUSAGE GI\AV¥ 3/4C HASH BROWNS 2 EA BISCUIT 2 TSP MARGARINE 1 oz COFFEE B OZ MILK 16 oz

4 oz JUICE

4 oz

3/4c BREAKFAST PASTR~ lEA

2/lc FRIED EGGS

2 EA

3/4C SAUSAGE PATTY 1 EA

2 EA O'BRIE:N ~OTATOE$

lC

2 TSP BISCUIT

2 EA'

B OZ FRUIT
16 oz MARGARINE
JELLY

1 SERV 3 TSPI
1 oz

COFFEE

a oz~

MILK

16 oz 1

I

< SERV BOLOGNA/CHEESE 3 oz SAU~G~/RICE/SOY

lc

B oz POTATO SALAD

lC BEANS

2/Jc

COLESLAW

lC FRIED SQUASH

1/(C

SANDWICH BUN

1 EA GARLIC BREAD

2F:A

FRUIT

1 SERV FRUIT

1 sEav

MAYONNAISE!

1 oz MARGARINE

2 TSP

BEVERAGE

B OZ BEVERAGE

B Cz

D Vt.GETABLE SOUP
I HJ\MBURGER
N MI\SHED POTATO N GI...AZED CARROTS ~ MMBURGER BUN R C>.KE/ICING
MARGARINE
CliOPPED ONION
MUSTARD
BtVERAGE

lC BEVERAGE l EA
lC lC l EA 1 PCE 3 TSP l oz l oz e oz

-

--

B OZ SALISBURY STJi:AK
SCALLOt>ED POTATO
TURNIP GARLIC BREAD CAKE MARGARINE BEVERAGE

1 EA PORK PATTY lC CANDIED YAMS
1/2C GREENS 2EA BREAD 1 PCE COOKIES 2 TSP MARGARINE B OZ GRAVY
BEVERAGE

1 EA SLOPPY JO• 1/2C SCALLOPED POTATO 1/2C FRIED CABBAGE 2EA BUN 2EA CAKE 2 TSP BEVERAGE 1/4 c B OZ

li2C OVEN FRIED FISH 2/3C MASHED POTATO
lC GREENS 1 EA TARTAR SAUCE 1 PCE DINNER ROLLS B OZ BREA.O PUDDING
MARGARINE BEVERAGE

1 <A HOT DOGS 1/(C BAKED BEANS 1/<C FRIED CABBAGE 1 Cz COLESLAW 2EA HOT DOG BUN 2/Jc CAKE/ICING 2 TSP MUSTARD 8 cz MARGARINE
BEVERAGE

2 EA lC
1/2C lC
2EA 1 PCE
1 oz
2 TSP
B OZ

-

- ---

--··--

---

- - --

-

---

-

-

F~OD SERVICE DIRECTORS MA~ MAKE SUBSTITUTIONS WHE~ NECESSARY IN AtCORDANCE WITH FOOD SERVICE MANU~L GUIDELINES. ~ORTION SIZES ARt AS WRITTEN ON THE MENU. FRESH/FROZEN PRODUCE MAYSE SUBSTITUTED SEASONALLY.
T~E MASTER MENU ALTERNATE ENTREE ts 2 OZ CHEESE 0~ PEANUT BUTTER
FOR BREAKFAST AND 1 1/2 C BEANS FOR NOON AND EVENING MEALS.

Signed copy on file LINDA SHEA~, MS, RD

lnmateConespcmdence
of . ....Frol!l th~. O.!fre~
<s. J. \V~eeler ·.
siii\ICir: . .W. arde'n-.- :;_\';,··,· '----

MEMORANDUM

TO: FROM:

Inmate Christina Acker #327094
~
B. J. Wheeler, Warden Seni

j{J5

DATE:

September 23, 2008

RE:

Limitation of Grievance Filings (OP 866.1)

The Inmate Grievance Procedure (OP #866.1) allows inmates to seek administrative remedies for a variety of concerns in a timely manner. All inmates have access to and can 1110 the grievance procedure in good faith for problem-resolution purposes.
Inmates "who abuse the grievance procedure by excessive filings or habitual misuse of the procedure hinder access by other inmates and impede staff's ability to investigate and nsolve complaints within specified time limits". All inmates at Fluvanna Correctional Center deserve the right to have equal access to the grievance procedure as detailed in OP #866.1.
It has been noted that you were advised on numerous occasions of the P"oper procedure to file a grievance. You refuse to follow proper procedure when submittiog grievances, but continue to abuse and misuse the grievance procedure.

The number ofgrievances that you continue to submit has been deemed excessive. Per 866.1 (1·3); "Where an inmate is adjudged to be abusing the inmate grievance process, it is the responsibility of the Warden/Superintendent to regulate that inmate's usage of the regular and emergency grievance procedures". This continued excessive submission cL grievances demonstrates that you are nnt utilizing the Grievance Procedure in a good faith effort to resolve your complaints as policy mandates. Your excessive filing of grievances also hinde!ll access by other inmates and impedes staff's ability to invstigate and resolve complaints as specified within the time limits of OP #866.1.

\/ You bave demonstrated an excessive misuse and abuse of the grievance procedure. As a result, you are being limited to one (1) grievance and one informal complaint per week. This limitation will become effective September 29, 2008.
Please understand that there will be no limitations on your use of the Emergency Grievance Procedure as it pertains to your life, health and safety. Also, as a reminder the following guidelines must continue to be followed regarding the use of the l'iimate Request Forms and Informal Complaint Forms as follows:

1.

You may be permitted to use only the standard Inmate Request Form (IMS) when writing staffmembelll or

departments. Correspondence on paper other than the standard form will be returned.

2.

When using the Inmate Request Form, only one staff member or department may be written regarding a

particular issue. In the event, multiple staff members are written or theforms are sent to a staff memb..- or

department outside the Chain of Command, the requestform will be returned.

3.

You may write only one issue per request form. In the event that there are multiple issues per request form,

the form will be returned.

. This limitation will be reviewed ninety (90) days from the date of September 29, 2008.

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 42 of 67 Pageid#: 791

To: Inmate C. Acker # 327094
War~ From: B.J. Wheeler,
Re: Limitation ofEmergency Grievance Filings (OP #866. I)
Date: December 8, 2008
The Offender Grievance Procedure (OP #866.1) allows offenders to seek administrative remedies for a variety of concerns in a timely manner. All offenders have access to and can use the grievance procedure in good faith for problem-resolution purposes.
Offenders "who abuse the grievance procedure by excessive filings or habitual misuse of the procedure hinder access by other offenders and impede staff's ability to investigate and resolve complaints within specified time limits". All offenders at Fluvanna Correctional Center deserve the right to have equal , access to the grievance procedure as detailed in OP #866.1.
It is noted that you have been advised on numerous occasions ofthe proper procedure for submitting an emergency grievance. You have been advised that the definition of an Emergency Grievance is clearly stated at the top of the Emergency Grievance Form as, "Emergencies are defined as situations or conditions which may subject the offender to immediate risk of serious personal injury or irreparable hann."
After continued attempts by staffto ensure you that you are receiving the DOC required 16 ounces of milk, you continue to submit numerous emergency grievances stating "that you are not getting 24 ounces" of milk daily as you desire.
You were provided with a copy of the DOC Menu on November 12, 2008, by Officer Soukup. You yourself acknowledged this in your IMS to Officer Soukup dated 11/16/2008. The menu clearly states that you are to receive 16 ounces of milk daily and in the Emergency Grievances that you have submiti:d since that day, you have acknowledge that you have in fact received the DOC required 16 ounces of milk. You also acknowledge in your IMS to Officer Soukup that you had previously obtained a copy of the DOC menu that stated 16 ounces ofmilk daily prior to the one provided to you by Officer Soukup. In your IMS you continue by stating that you "will continue to grieve anything less than 24 ounces of milk daily."
Due to your continued submissions ofemergency grievances for an issue that is not valid you are not to submit any further emergency grievances pertaining to milk when you are receiving the amount called for in the DOC menu. There will be no limitations on your use ofthe Emergency Grievance Procedure as long as any grievances submitted meet the criteria of an emergency grievance and are ofa valid nature.
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 43 of 67 Pageid#: 792

lbis limitation directive is in addition to the limiting letter that you received on September 23, 2008. lbis limitation will be reviewed ninety (90) days from the date of December 8, 2008. cc: FCCW Food Services
Administrative Duty Officers Institutional Ombudsman Regional Ombudsman
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 44 of 67 Pageid#: 793

Ex Itt iS ~~-

of recouls); understaffing; and la.< suicide prevention proc-edures. Plainly, based on the three plaintiffs' experiences, concern

Muslim Virginia Prisoner Entitled to 2,200 Calories During Ramadan

for suicidal prisoners was mortally inadequate. These flawed policies of the

A federal district court has issued a injunctive relief to prevent future violc

county made them directly liable under

preliminary injunction requiring tions and harm. The court granted th

42 U.S.C.§ 1983, if only by omission of the Virginia Department of Corrections defendants' motion for summary jud~

constitutionally adequate safeguards for (VDOC) to provide a Muslim prisoner ment in part. finding that some of Couch

the mental health and well-being of the with "food items containing 2,200 calo- claims were barred by the statute of limi

decedents. A major point in Abdollahi's ries" daily during Ramadan. a month-long tations and others for failure to exhau'

suit was that he was experiencing severe period of religious fasting.

administrative remedies. The remainin.

heroin withdrawal, specialized needs for

This action was brought by Keen exhausted claims were allowed to prooeed

which were simply ignored. In Summers Mountain Correctional Center prisoner See: Couch ''· Jabe, 479 F.Supp.2d 56'

suit, falsified records of non-existent cell William R. Couch. who is a Sunni Mus- (W.D.Va. 2006).

checks were found contributory. Finally, lim. Couch's complaint alleged claims

ii.n ruling on the preliminary injunc

the inadequate suicide prevention policy under the First Amendment and Religious tion motion. the district court found th1

at the time of Arambula's death was ac- Land Use and Institutionalized Persons defendants did not present evidence t<

cepted by the court as a triable issue.

Act (RLUIPA), stating that prison of- contradict Couch's claim that he suffere<

Named defendants included staff- ficials had "deprived him of adequate physical injury of weight loss due to re

ers in the Sheriff's department as well as nutrition and calories during Ramadan" duced caloric intake during Ramadan

nurses provided under comracJ from the in 2002, 2DD3, 2DD4 aJ>d 2005.

Nor did they refute that the smaller baf

University of California at Davis. The

VDOC operating procedures at- breakfast only provides about l ,000 calo·

settlement provided that the county would low each prison to decide whether to rieKer dayo.\.

pay $450,000 while the University paid the provide Ramadan participants with the

The court held that such weight loS!

remaining $550,000. Of the $1,000,000, same full, hot breakfast that is served is "an injury that amounts to irreparablt

half went to Katz and the three attor- to the general prison population or to harm." The defendants offered no evi·

neys who worked for years gaining relief provide a significantly smaller, cold bag dence that the preliminary injunction, if

for tile plaintiffs. Arambula's two sons meal. Prison officials always opted to granted, would "disrupt the orderly opera-

each received $100,000 annuities while serve the bag meal. During previous tion of the food service process at Keen

his parents received $50,000. Abdollahi's Ramadans, Couch was provided with Mountain and other prison~As such,

son was paid $150,000 and Summers' . only\"approximately 1.000 calories per the district court entered preliminary mother received $100,000. See: Abdollahi~ day." As a result. he said he experienced injunctive relief requiring prison officials

v. CowllyofSacramento, U.S.D.C. (E. D. .:;:.weight loss of about 13 pounds, con- to provide Couch with 2,200 calories
Cal.) Case No. CIV-S-02-2488 FCD JFM (i stan! hunger, "hunger headaches" and daily during Ramadan. See: Couch 1'. Jabe..

(consolidated cases). The settlements are listlessness.(

USDC WD.Va., Case No. 7:05-cv-00642-

posted on PLN's website. ll'

For thaamadan fast in 2006, prison PMS (Sept. 22, 2006).

officials advised Couch they would follow

The case settled on undisclosed tenns

Dictionary ofthe Law- Random House
Thousands of clear concise definitions See page 45 for ordering information

the previous Ramadan procedures. Couch on March 19,2007, and the court retained then filed suit on the previous violations jurisdiction to enforce the settlement
of his religious rights and for preliminary agreement between the parties. ll'

-,..-· ..........,... =•~a.s-s; •

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 45 of 67 Pageid#: 794

w '7~~?--~-r:~ ('~#
) ...s;1% ;6;)Hyt/it!~«./.~A-/.c"?"c"u~&~~1~/bd-n<~4d/--'~/ i_H .t~~~~

')u~_ /.1~/ --1-krf~ ?V<--;-£-

/

/

.

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 46 of 67 Pageid#: 795

£'/;/L'/ 7o 7/1L
,f' C'O'---
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 47 of 67 Pageid#: 796

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 48 of 67 Pageid#: 797

- - - - - - · - - - - - Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 49 of 67 Pageid#: 798 .

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 50 of 67 Pageid#: 799

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 51 of 67 Pageid#: 800

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 (F~ile)d 01/30/09 Page 52 of 67 Pageid#: 801

, I i Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 53 of 67 Pageid#: 802

) )

I

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 54 of 67 Pageid#: 803

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 55 of 67 Pageid#: 804

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 56 of 67 Pageid#: 805

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 57 of 67 Pageid#: 806

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 58 of 67 Pageid#: 807

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 59 of 67 Pageid#: 808

I
Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 60 of 67 Pageid#: 809

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 61 of 67 Pageid#: 810

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 62 of 67 Pageid#: 811

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 63 of 67 Pageid#: 812

~/~:Z £~Z --~· ;;·.n7 ~ -~ h'c"~ A 4~~ ~
-Ll~'r -1~t/ ~-e.cr ~~1<-0/ /?z;.Z ~~ r..e .... .e

"2! · 7/ie. /~~-:w<:~r /~- -~~":/
·~- / £€4-e .• ,_,:r ..:::zr f?"J?-4~~.;(; -~~

--ar~~
a>'?"~ c:;-Z' ;FC'C"~

/t a.4. /(az~._.~.ArZ-~4/$>.~.c/a!?u ?.-<f4~cya-"-a£;~'/~~,¢~~~ ~?t-~ee-~ t(-;. Y-c ~7~ ~

~~ d.J
v_~k)~,-/7~;,~0

g ~~ ~ff-uz4/,;u..u_,__}_';~!A/'-~:--~Mt~'~~-Jz~.-~..ZeL~/c~ z7 - ..~u~ -
. ;J-~tU-n4 e~e-~ .~-c..aG...-<L.se ~· ~~ ' / ~ e~

./e'~:·&~e.";;~ _zi~ /?e . £!7.4-r;,~~ ~ j" ~~ •

_<:<~~ ~J""IL/ c·.£%x/~
·"'~- ~~~. 7J- -~~

r1- 6.'-"!r-~ c~ ~C'.-1
~ . ~~a~-~~~~~L

~ ;c2'h~..ti~~!'.c/-r~~,~.??-~:~b/)U1-41'4r~~.4·~ ~'. /~ ~ ~ -~ ?~ ._ C:~4~-7~.~~-~ - 4~t~ /"~k-/.0~~

~'~ ~ £~?>--. f~~y _.,?e-uu~ ~z-:~ ~, ~

~~~~vu- .,«~ ~z ~ # 7r #/c;~ ~

/77'..-?c.--t-v [/f.~/7'/J'V ['.~~/...v?~ , •. ~·"'__e ~~~
7'r tv~ c:-~«~ . 7 4 f't~ b7~z pu:..e /-f..u?~~

, .· . 1 c~ c_~ik~+' t-p~ 7-fd ;. ~~0U--~~~.~D·'c·e~./~/ /:1iz7;J ·#,;c~ un..·eW.- 4M.d~~/?E£}.£-d<~~~3.r-.A~.~-c~77.c'·7a7<?-, ~•

qjfl ( ~ CUI~ /(..e~ £zf,J.~.Cr.C:c~J~~Af~"!--.!e?!?u~)z".'b?z~..r.C;-~p~ ;~~:~;t77-fct-('e C t/-d ~ o: .&~n/;:6z~/~~

/ /A~~ 6?.JV'. L~ Z?~ d.e.(J>..-i'-. 4--z!'U ./~ £_

.0 i

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Docum.~ent 95 /tF:iled 01/30/09 Page 64 of 67 Pageid#: 813
'

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 65 of 67 Pageid#: 814

i
I
'

I

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 66 of 67 Pageid#: 815

I,

Ms. Christina Acker #327094 Fl~vanna Correction Cen~er For W{)l)]..,
Bld#8 Wing#C Bed.~IDS P.O. Bo, 1000
rROY. VA 22974

0606

z~oos

__ -~-·--'---'--:.......

"""'-'-

']' UNITED DISTRIO"COURT
DISTRICT OF WESTERN VIRGINIA
i P.o. sox
.,I ROANOKE, VA 24006

'

Case 7:05-cv-00642-PMS Document 95 Filed 01/30/09 Page 67 of 67 Pageid#: 816

 
 CLOSED,PRIS,PROSE
U.S. District Court Western District of Virginia (Roanoke) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:05−cv−00642−PMS

Couch v. Jabe et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/17/2005 Date Terminated: 03/19/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Willam R. Couch

represented by Willam R. Couch 186347 Keen Mountain Correctional Center P.O. Box 860 Oakwood, VA 24631−0860 PRO SE

V. Defendant John Jabe
Defendant Larry Huffman
Defendant Linda B. Shear
Defendant Kathleen Bassett
Defendant R. B. Phillips
Defendant Major K. Pickerel

represented by William W. Muse Office of the Attorney General 202 North Ninth Street Richmond, VA 23219 804−786−0046 Fax: 804−786−4239 Email: wmuse@oag.state.va.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William W. Muse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William W. Muse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William W. Muse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William W. Muse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William W. Muse (See above for address)

Defendant Mike Oslin

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William W. Muse (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/19/2005
10/25/2005 10/27/2005
10/27/2005 10/27/2005 11/01/2005 11/07/2005 11/22/2005
12/15/2005 12/19/2005 01/05/2006 01/12/2006 01/12/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against all defendants , filed by Willam R. Couch. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment to Complaint# 2 Exhibit A − L# 3 Exhibit M − U)(tvt)
2 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT re; inmate account information by Willam R. Couch. (tvt)
3 Order entered conditionally Filing this action; Assessing a filing fee of $ 250.00; Deferring all action in this case; Pltf is granted in forma pauperis; Pltf to return consent form within 20 days Advising inmate to comply within the allotted time and to notify of changes in address or risk dismissal re 1 Complaint . Signed by Judge Michael F. Urbanski on October 19, 2005. (eot )
4 Consent to Fee by Plaintiff Willam R. Couch. (eot )
5 Order entered Directing the Clerk to attempt service of process by mailing notice of waiver of service of summons and appropriate paperwork to each of the defts c/o Office of Attorney General . Signed by Judge Michael F. Urbanski on October 26, 2005. (eot )
6 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to John Gabe, et al. on October 27, 2005. Waiver of Service due by 11/28/2005. (eot )
7 Certified Mail Receipt re Order, Request for Waiver and Peition sent to all defts c/o Office of Atty General (eot ) Modified on 10/27/2005 to state what was sent (eot, ).
8 RETURN of service of Order, Waiver and Petition on October 28, 2005 upon c/o Office of Atty. General (eot )
9 Letter by Willam R. Couch advising that Keen Mountain Correctional Center has changed its address to P.O. Box 860 Oakwood, Va 24631. (eot )
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by John Jabe, Larry Huffman, Linda B. Shear, Kathleen Bassett, R. B. Phillips, Major K. Pickerel, Mike Oslin. John Jabe waiver sent on 10/27/2005, answer due 12/27/2005; Larry Huffman waiver sent on 10/27/2005, answer due 12/27/2005; Linda B. Shear waiver sent on 10/27/2005, answer due 12/27/2005; Kathleen Bassett waiver sent on 10/27/2005, answer due 12/27/2005; R. B. Phillips waiver sent on 10/27/2005, answer due 12/27/2005; Major K. Pickerel waiver sent on 10/27/2005, answer due 12/27/2005; Mike Oslin waiver sent on 10/27/2005, answer due 12/27/2005. (Muse, William)
11 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by John Jabe, Larry Huffman, Linda B. Shear, Kathleen Bassett, R. B. Phillips, Major K. Pickerel, Mike Oslin. (Muse, William)
12 ORDER granting 11 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response; Responses due by 1/13/2006. Signed by Judge Michael F. Urbanski on December 19, 2005. (eot )
Filing fee: $ 51.84, receipt number 700006110 (kab)
13 MOTION for Summary Judgment by John Jabe, Larry Huffman, Linda B. Shear, Kathleen Bassett, R. B. Phillips, Major K. Pickerel, Mike Oslin. (Muse, William)
14 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by John Jabe, Larry Huffman, Linda B. Shear, Kathleen Bassett, R. B. Phillips, Major K. Pickerel, Mike Oslin. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Bassett − Exh. 1 (part 1 of 3)# 2 Affidavit Bassett − Exh. 1 (part 2 of 3)# 3 Affidavit Bassett − Exh. 1 (part 3 of 3)# 4

01/13/2006 01/25/2006 01/30/2006 02/07/2006
02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/09/2006
02/09/2006 02/09/2006 02/10/2006
02/21/2006
02/22/2006
02/28/2006 03/27/2006 03/27/2006 03/28/2006 03/29/2006
03/31/2006 04/10/2006 04/11/2006 04/14/2006 05/04/2006

Affidavit Olsin − Exh. 2# 5 Affidavit Phillips − Exh. 3# 6 Affidavit Pickerel − Exh. 4# 7 Affidavit Shear − Exh. 5)(Muse, William)
15 Roseboro Notice re Motion for summary judgment 13 (eot )
17 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Willam R. Couch, John Jabe. (eot ) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
16 RESPONSE in Opposition re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Willam R. Couch. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4)(eot )
18 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Pamela Meade Sargent for all further proceedings. Judge James C. Turk no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on February 2, 2006. (eot )
19 Letter by Willam R. Couch. (eot )
20 Letter sent to William Couch with copy of brief. (Attachments: # 1 Copy of Brief in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment)(eot )
21 MOTION to Supplement Pleadings re 1 by Willam R. Couch. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Pleadings# 2 Exhibit I# 3 Exhibit II # 4 Exhibit III # 5 Exhibit IV# 6 Exhibit V# 7 Exhibit VI # 8 Exhibit VII # 9 Exhibit VIII# 10 Exhibit IX # 11 Letter/Envelope)(eot )
22 Letter by Willam R. Couch. (eot )
23 Letter sent to William Couch. (eot )
24 ORDER directing the defendants to respond to plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Pleadings within 10 days of the date of entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 2/10/06. (Bordwine, Robin)
25 Response re 24 Order Response To The Court's February 10, 2006, Order filed by John Jabe, Larry Huffman, Linda B. Shear, Kathleen Bassett, R. B. Phillips, Major K. Pickerel, Mike Oslin. (Muse, William)
26 MINUTE ORDER granting 21 Motion to Supplement Pleadings and ordering Clerk's Office to file supplemental pleading attached to motion as supplemental complaint. Defendants shall file responsive pleadings within 20 days. Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 2/22/06. (Sargent, Pamela)
27 Objections to Motion for enlargement of time by Plaintiff Willam R. Couch re 25 (eot )
Filing fee: $ 29.98, receipt number 700007166 (kab)
28 Letter by Willam R. Couch. (eot )
29 ORDER regarding Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, 26 Responses due by 4/4/2006. Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 3/28/06. (eps, )
30 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Supplemental) filed by John Jabe, Larry Huffman, Linda B. Shear, Kathleen Bassett, R. B. Phillips, Major K. Pickerel, Mike Oslin. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit R. Sandifer − Exhibit I# 2 Affidavit Kathleen Bassett − Exhibit 2# 3 Affidavit Louis B. Cei − Exhibit 3)(Muse, William)
31 "MOTION to Strike Defendants' response to supplemental pleadings," re: 25 Response by Willam R. Couch. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter and envelope)(kab)
32 Response re 30 Supplemental Brief filed by Willam R. Couch. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(eot )
33 Letter by Willam R. Couch requesting copy of docket report. (eot )
34 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Willam R. Couch. (kab)
35 NOTICE of Change of Address by Willam R. Couch. New address: Keen Mountain Correctional Center Post Office Box 860 Oakwood, Va 24631−0860 (eot )

05/16/2006 07/07/2006 07/17/2006 07/21/2006 08/17/2006 08/17/2006 08/30/2006 08/30/2006 08/30/2006 08/30/2006 09/06/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006
09/19/2006
09/20/2006 09/20/2006 09/22/2006 09/22/2006 09/22/2006
09/25/2006 10/03/2006 10/05/2006 10/06/2006 10/06/2006 10/16/2006

Filing fee: $ 14.00, receipt number 700007930 (kab)
36 Letter by Willam R. Couch. (tvt)
Filing fee: $ 49.16 for William Couch, receipt number 700008813 (eot )
37 Letter by Willam R. Couch. (tvt)
38 Letter by Willam R. Couch. (eot )
39 Docket sheet sent to William Couch on 8/17/06. (eot )
40 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Willam R. Couch. (kab)
41 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 40 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Willam R. Couch. (kab)
42 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 40 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Willam R. Couch. (kab)
43 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Willam R. Couch. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter and envelope)(kab )
44 MOTION to Post Security for Preliminary Injunction by Willam R. Couch. (tvt)
45 ORDER denying 43 Motion to Appoint Counsel . Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 9/8/06. (eps, )
46 ORDER regarding MOTION for Preliminary Injunction 40 filed by Willam R. Couch,, MOTION to Post Security for Preliminary Injunction 44 filed by Willam R. Couch; Set Motion Deadlines as to 40 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 44 MOTION to Post Security for Preliminary Injunction: Responses due by 9/21/2006. Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 9/8/06. (eps, )
47 Response To Motion For Preliminary Injunction And Motion To Post Security For Preliminary Injunction filed by John Jabe, Larry Huffman, Linda B. Shear, Kathleen Bassett, R. B. Phillips, Major K. Pickerel, Mike Oslin. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Exhibit I − Shear# 2 Affidavit Exhibit II − Lockhart)(Muse, William)
48 Letter regarding defendant's possible filing for extension of time by Willam R. Couch. (tvt)
Filing fee: $ 55.61, receipt number 700009786 (kab)
49 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 9/22/06. (lmh)
50 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion for Summary Judgment . Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 9/22/06. (lmh)
51 ORDER granting 40 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion to Post Security for Preliminary Injunction . Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 9/22/06. (lmh)
52 Reply to defendants re 47 Response to motion for preliminary injunction, filed by Willam R. Couch. (tvt)
53 MOTION to Amend Order 50 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by Willam R. Couch. (tvt)
54 MOTION to Take Deposition by John Jabe, Larry Huffman, Linda B. Shear, Kathleen Bassett, R. B. Phillips, Major K. Pickerel, Mike Oslin. (Muse, William)
55 ORDER denying 53 Motion to Amend/Correct . Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 10/6/06. (eps, )
56 ORDER granting 54 Motion to Take Deposition . Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 10/6/06. (ejs, )
57 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Willam R. Couch. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Appoint Counsel# 2 Exhibit)(tvt)

11/15/2006 11/17/2006 11/29/2006 12/07/2006
12/07/2006
12/08/2006 12/14/2006
12/14/2006
12/18/2006 12/18/2006 12/21/2006
01/03/2007
01/08/2007 01/09/2007 01/09/2007 01/23/2007 01/23/2007
01/24/2007 01/24/2007 01/25/2007
01/25/2007

58 REQUEST for Admissions by Willam R. Couch. (Attachments: # 1 Letter and request for admissions addressed to William H. Muse)(tvt)
Filing fee: $ 49.41, receipt number 700010666 (slt)
59 NOTICE of Hearing: Jury Trial set for 1/23/2007 09:30 AM in Abingdon before Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent. (eps, )
60 Order Directing the Warden at Keen Mountain Correctional Center to transport the plantiff to Court for jury trial on 01/23/07. Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 12/7/06. (Bordwine, Robin)
61 SCHEDULING ORDER: Jury Trial set for 1/23/2007 09:30 AM in Abingdon before Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent. Exhibit List and Witness List due by 1/12/2007. Jury Instructions due by 1/16/2007. Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 12/7/06. (Bordwine, Robin)
62 NOTICE of Hearing: Jury Trial reset for 2/16/2007 09:30 AM in Abingdon before Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent. (eps, )
63 Order Directing the Warden at Keen Mountain Correctional Center to transport the plantiff to Court for hearing on 2/16/07. Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 12/14/06. (Bordwine, Robin)
64 SCHEDULING ORDER: Jury Trial set for 2/16/2007 09:30 AM in Abingdon before Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent. Exhibit List and Witness List due by 2/2/2007. Jury Instruction due by 2/9/2007. Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 12/14/06. (Bordwine, Robin)
65 Letter by Willam R. Couch. (Attachments: # 1 Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions sent by William R. Couch)(tvt)
66 MOTION to Continue re: Letter 65 by Willam R. Couch. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − E)(tvt)
67 NOTICE to Take Deposition of William R. Couch and Leroy Lovelace by John Jabe, Larry Huffman, Linda B. Shear, Kathleen Bassett, R. B. Phillips, Major K. Pickerel, Mike Oslin.(Muse, William)
68 INTERROGATORIES Propounded to Kathleen Bassett, Linda Sheer and Michael Olsin by Willam R. Couch. (Attachments: # 1 To Kathleen Bassett# 2 To Linda Sheer# 3 To Michael Olsin# 4 Letter to William Muse)(tvt)
69 MOTION for Court to Declare the Court's Statutory and Discretionary Authority to Pay Witness Fees and Expenses by Willam R. Couch. (tvt)
70 Letter by Willam R. Couch requesting docket sheet. (tvt)
71 Copies of Docket Sheet and letter stating that this is a courtesy by the court, but future copies will be at a rate of $.50 per copy to William Couch by U.S. Mail. (tvt)
72 RENEWED MOTION to Continue by Willam R. Couch. (tvt)
73 Response to Renewed Motion for Continuance filed by John Jabe, Larry Huffman, Linda B. Shear, Kathleen Bassett, R. B. Phillips, Major K. Pickerel, Mike Oslin. (Muse, William)
74 NOTICE of Hearing: Jury Trial reset for 5/22/2007 09:30 AM in Abingdon before Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent. (eps, )
75 NOTICE of Hearing − Prisoner: Settlement Conference set for 2/16/2007 10:00 AM in Abingdon before Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent. (eps, )
76 ORDER taking under advisement 57 Motion to Appoint Counsel, granting 66 Motion to Continue, denying 69 Motion for Court to Delcare the Court's Statutory and Discretionary Authority to Pay witness Fees and Expenses, granting 72 Motion to Continue . Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 1/24/07. (eps, )
77 Order Directing the Warden at Keen Mountain Correctional Center to transport the plantiff to Court for hearing on Feburary 16, 2007 and May 22, 2007 . Signed by Judge

02/12/2007 02/12/2007 02/12/2007 02/16/2007
03/02/2007 03/07/2007 03/07/2007
03/08/2007 03/08/2007
03/14/2007 03/16/2007
03/19/2007 03/22/2007 03/23/2007 03/26/2007
11/07/2007 11/07/2007 01/30/2009

Pamela Meade Sargent on 1/24/07. (eps, )
78 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Willam R. Couch. (tvt)
79 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Willam R. Couch. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(tvt)
80 Response re 68 Interrogatories Propounded filed by Willam R. Couch. (tvt)
81 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Pamela Meade Sargent : Settlement Conference held on 2/16/2007. Parties continuing to negotiate and will attempt to reduce agreement to writing. (Sargent, Pamela)
82 Prisoner Motion "To publish Court's Decision" by Willam R. Couch. (tvt)
83 Letter to plaintiff and Mr. Muse from Judge Sargent. (Bordwine, Robin)
84 ORDER, setting response due deadline for defendant to respond to 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment: Responses due by 3/21/2007. Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 3/7/07. (ejs, )
85 Letter by Willam R. Couch to Judge Sargent. (eps, )
86 Letter by John Jabe, Larry Huffman, Linda B. Shear, Kathleen Bassett, R. B. Phillips, Major K. Pickerel, Mike Oslin Letter to the Honorable Pamela M. Sargent, U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Muse, William)
87 MINUTE ORDER denying 31 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 3/14/07. (Sargent, Pamela)
88 Response Order filed by John Jabe, Larry Huffman, Linda B. Shear, Kathleen Bassett, R. B. Phillips, Major K. Pickerel, Mike Oslin. (Attachments: # 1 Letter to the Clerk USDC Roanoke)(Muse, William)
89 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on March 19, 2007. (tvt)
90 Letter by Willam R. Couch. (tvt)
91 Letter to plaintiff. (Bordwine, Robin)
92 Docket Annotation; The items filed are duplicates from 82 that was filed by plaintiff. The court responded to request/motion on 3/23/07 (Attachments: # 1 Letter regarding motion to publish# 2 Motion to publish court's decision)(tvt)
93 Request for Copies by Willam R. Couch. (kab)
94 Letter from deputy clerk in re 93 . (kab)
95 Additional Evidence by Christina Acker. (kab)