e Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB

Document 27-2

•Filed 11/19/2008

Page 1 of 6

FILED

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF WYOMING

NOV 19 2008

Bruce Salzburg Attorney General
John W. Renneisen Deputy Attorney General

Stephan Harris, Clerk. Cheyenne
STEPHEN L. PEVAR. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 32 Grand Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 293-1559

Christine Cox Senior Assistant Attorney General 2424 Pioneer, Second Floor 123 State Capitol Cheyenne, WY 82002 (307) 777-7250

JENNIFER HORVATH American Civil Liberties Unio n of Wyoming PO Box 20706 1603 Capitol Avenue, Suite 510 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 (307) 637-4537

Attorneys for the Defendants

AITORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

IN THE UNITED STATES DIST RI CT CO URT FOR THE DIS TRICT OF \VYOMING

JOSEPH MILLER,

)

and HURIE PURDIMAN, JR .

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs.

)

)

MI CHAEL M URPHY and,

)

ROBERT LAMPERT, in their offi cial )

and indivi dua l capacities,

)

)

Defendants. )

Civ . No . 08-CY-090B

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DI SMISSAL

1. The two Plaintiffs, Joseph Miller and Hurie Purdiman, Jr. , are Muslim

priso ners present ly incarcerated in the W yoming State Peniten tiary (WSP) in Rawlins,

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 27-2 Filed 11/19/2008 Page 2 of 6
Wyoming. Plaintiffs are under the care , custody , and control of the named defendants, Micha el Murphy, Wa rden of WSP, and Robert Lampe rt, Director of the Wyomi ng Department of Correction s.
2. Plaintiffs filed this action seeking relief under the First Amendment to the U.S . Constitution and under the Reli gio us Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act , 42 U.S.c. §§ 2000cc et seq. (RLUl PA). Plaintiffs devote certain times each day to prayer, and certain days each year to fasting. Plaintiffs claim that a prison policy requiring pris one rs to consume thei r meals within twent y (20) minutes substantially burdens their ability to practice their religion, as they must choose between eating their mea ls and praying. Defendants claim, however, that the policy com plained of was revised prior to the filing of the lawsuit and deny that the previous policy or the current policy burden Plaintiffs' re ligious practices.
3. The parties have reached a compromise that this Court fin ds fair and reasonable. The terms of this com promise are as set forth below:
a. Defendants have implemented Warden's Memorandum # 7-2008 , iss ued March 24, 2008 , a copy of which is attached to and incorporated herein. This memorandum permits prisoners who recei ve their meals in their cell s or pods to take up to thirty (30) min utes to eat, and moreover, pr isoners receiving religious meals may keep those meals in their cells until the next meal is served.

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 27-2 Filed 11/19/2008 Page 3 of 6
b. Those prisoners who eat in the dining hall and receive special meals (including religious meals) will be permitted to go to the front of the serving line to get their meals. In addition, all prisoners will have at least twenty (20) minutes to eat their meals in the dining hall beginning from the time that the last person in the serving line receives his meal.
c. Defendants will amend their policies and procedures to include a requirement that prison staff deliver a verbal notice, either over the intercom or by some other audible announcement, to the pod at least 10 min utes pr ior to, and again approximately five (5) minutes prior to, the pod being escorted to the dining hall.
d. Defendants will amend their pol icies and procedures to state that prisoners wishing to engage in personal religious fasts lasting more than six (6) consec utive meals but no longer than thirty (30) days, must provide written notice of the starting time and date, the intended duration of the fast, and the ending time and date to WSP, as directed in the policy , at least seven (7) calendar days in advance of the fast. For fasts ending at sundown, prisoners who pro vide such notice will receive a meal that is nutritionally equivalent to the last meal missed after sunset on the day of the sixth consecutively missed meal, and after sunset on each day thereafter during the fast, and will not need to wait until the next regularly scheduled meal. Accommodation may be made for sack meals at times when the food service department or dining facility is

Case 2:08-cv-000QO-CAB Document 27-2 Filed 11 /19/2008 Page 4 of 6
normall y closed. (Prisoners who engage in a personal fast lastin g less than six (6) consecutive meals will not be provided any special meal service.) Th is policy will appl y only to personal religious fasts and not affect \VSP's accommodation of regularly scheduled religiou s fasts such as Ramadan. In addition, WSP will accommodate the Muslim holidays of Hajj and Muharram, if prior notice is provided as set forth above, by providing prisoners tw o meals a day beginning on the first day of the fast for a maximum of three days each holiday, with the meals made available to prisoners prior to sunrise and after sunset.
e. Defendants will install a second microwa ve oven in the dining hall dedicated speci fically to only non-pork food items, and will assure that officers enforce the restriction.
f. Defendants will make individually wrapped sanitary wipes available for prisoner purchase through the commissary, and will permit prisoners to bring several wipes with them to the dining hall in order to clean the microwave.
4. Defendants will issue and implement these policies and procedures, if they have not already done so, within thirty (30) days after the entry of this order by the Court , and they will maintain these policies and procedures for the life of this decree.
5. The Court has been advised that the parties have resolved Plaintiffs' claim for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 27-2 Filed 11/19/2008 Page 5 of 6

6. Accordingly, the Court finds that all matters raised in Plaintiffs' Complaint have been resolved through this settlement and by the adoption of this consent decree. Therefore, the matter may now be, and is hereby, dismissed. The Court commends the parties for reaching a reasonable result that accommodates Plaintiffs' religious exercises while not unduly threatening the needs of prison officials to maintain order and security.

Dated this fY'!:. day of

MW!h t"cR1. , 2008.
(~c'L

Approved as to form:
/s/ Christine Cox Christine Cox , Attorney for the Defendants
/s/ Stephen L. Pevar Stephen L. Pevar, Attorney for the Plaintiffs
/s/ Jennifer Horvath Jennifer Horvath , Attorne y for the Plaintiffs

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB
" M lcna ~ 1 Murpny - VVrlW / -":VVO .lJU t .~
(

Document 27-2

Filed 11/19/2008 Page 6 of 6
j

STATE OF WYOMING MEMORANDUM

BTATE OF WYOMING DEPT. OF COMECTIONS

. f, "

" . . . .... -. -. '

"APR 0 32D08

RECEJVED

TO: ....c.PopuJatiou

DATE :

March 24,2008

FROM: Michael J. Mwpby Warden

SUBJECT: IA·Pod Mea1I

Re: WanlaI', MmIlonadull: #f7-2001

Etrcctiveimmediately. all imna1es who an: fed m,..pod are allowed up to thiny minutes to ccnsumc 1hcirIIlCll1.

AIl CltCCptionis made for those with specill! diets (including bothmedicuJ and rellgiocs); inmates
who are IICt'YCd IpCciaI dlets may keep possessicn of their mcaI and conJ\mlC &t u:JY time prior to
the KMng otd1C nat meal . ~ previous meallihould be disposed before 1benext meal is
issued.

AI a1wayJ. it b ags.iuat WDOCpolky for any Inmate to accept, give away. tBdc, barter or sell my food itl:m provided by the w~ StatePcnitmtiAly.

FOR. THE WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WYOMING STATBPENlTEN11AR.Y

Michael J. Mwp WIl"dlm
M.JM,jlt C; DireI:tarLampert
Depu1y Director Undly Prison Di't'ision A.dm.inistra1or Keppler Deputy PrisonAdIniDistrstor Abbott Inv=tigBlion Unit Depu1y Warden Housiog MJmagcr

Unit Managcn Security Major Security Captains
sccurity~
Security Lic;..tmllDu
Gric'vlmal MIIDlIF Depar1mcW SupCrvilIon

M illerlPurdiman 000260

 
 STEPHEN L. PEVAR American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 32 Grand Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 293-1559
JENNIFER HORVATH American Civil Liberties Union of Wyoming PO Box 20706 1603 Capitol Avenue, Suite 510 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 (307) 637-4537
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING

JOSEPH MILLER,

)

and HURIE PURDIMAN, JR.

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs.

)

)

MICHAEL MURPHY and,

)

ROBERT LAMPERT, in their official )

and individual capacities,

)

)

Defendants. )

________________________________ )

Civ. No. 08-CV-090B
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,
AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Joseph Miller and Hurie Purdiman, Jr., are Muslim prisoners

incarcerated in the Wyoming State Penitentiary ("WSP"). They file this motion in

an effort to immediately halt further violations of rights guaranteed them by the

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 114 Stat. 804, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc.
Defendant Michael Murphy is the Warden of WSP, and Defendant Robert Lampert is the Director of the Wyoming Department of Corrections ("WDOC"). These prison officials adopted, and their subordinates at WSP enforce, a policy known as the "twenty-minute" rule. This policy requires segregated prisoners to eat their meals within twenty minutes after delivery by guards. Food not eaten within twenty minutes will be confiscated and discarded.
The "twenty-minute" rule substantially burdens Plaintiffs' religion in violation of RLUIPA on those occasions when meals are delivered during one of Plaintiffs' religious exercises, that is, during their prayers or their religious fasting. On those occasions, Plaintiffs are faced with a "Hobson's choice": either they must violate their religious beliefs by abruptly terminating their religious exercise and choose to eat, or they must follow their conscience and complete their religious exercise, but forfeit their meal. On these occasions, in other words, Plaintiffs must relinquish their food in order to follow their faith.
Plaintiffs asked Warden Murphy in January 2008 to grant them an exemption from the "twenty-minute" rule when meals are delivered during a religious exercise, by allowing them extra time to eat their meals on those occasions. Warden Murphy denied that request, stating that "[f]or years now" the prison has maintained a policy that allows prisoners only "twenty (20) minutes to eat their meals" and no exceptions are allowed. See Letter of Warden Michael Murphy dated January 22, 2008 (attached as "Exhibit 1.")
2

For reasons explained below, Defendants' "twenty-minute" rule violates RLUIPA. Indeed, as the Supreme Court made clear in Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005), RLUIPA was intended to eradicate the very type of prison policy challenged here. See Cutter, 544 U.S. at 716-17 & n.5 (noting that RLUIPA was enacted "[t]o secure redress for inmates who encountered undue barriers to their religious observances," citing as one example of an undue barrier a policy of forcing inmates to choose between completing a religious exercise and eating).
Before proceeding further, the Court should be aware of one additional set of facts. As just noted, Warden Murphy staunchly defended his "twenty-minute" rule as recently as January 22, 2008. As a result, the instant lawsuit was filed on April 3, 2008. After the complaint was filed, however, Plaintiffs learned that Warden Murphy had suddenly abandoned his "twenty-minute" rule ten days earlier, on March 24, 2008, when he issued Warden's Memorandum # 7-2008, a copy of which is attached as "Exhibit 2." This new rule is precisely the type of exemption that Plaintiffs had requested in January. Rather than require prisoners engaging in a religious exercise to consume their meals within twenty minutes, the new rule permits such persons to retain their meals until the next meal is served (which, of course, will be hours later). Thus, Warden Murphy repealed the "twenty-minute" rule, replacing it with a very accommodating policy.
The problem is--and the reason why Plaintiffs seek preliminary injunctive relief--many WSP employees continue to enforce the "twenty-minute" rule. On April 5, 2008, for instance, Correctional Officer Fuller confiscated meals served to Plaintiffs Miller and Purdiman. When Mr. Purdiman grieved the loss of his meal,
3

Officer Fuller cited the "twenty-minute" rule as the reason. (A copy of Officer Fuller's response is attached as "Exhibit 3.") Mr. Purdiman then asked his caseworker, Mr. Markum, if anything could be done to change the "twentyminute" rule. Mr. Markum replied on April 7, 2008, stating that he is unable to change the rule. (A copy of Mr. Markum's statement is attached as "Exhibit 4.") On April 24, 2008, a supervisory officer, Corporal Paulsing, enforced the "twentyminute" rule on a Jewish prisoner, David Jones. (See Declaration of David Jones, attached as "Exhibit 5," at 2.) As recently as May 8, 2008, an officer enforced the "twenty-minute" rule against Mr. Purdiman. (See Declaration of Hurie Purdiman, attached as "Exhibit 6.")
As discussed infra, the "twenty-minute" rule violates RLUIPA, and its continued enforcement is causing Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable injury. Plaintiffs respectfully move this Honorable Court to issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enjoining all further enforcement of the "twenty-minute" rule. See Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 963 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding that a prisoner was entitled to a preliminary injunction in a circumstance similar to the one faced here by the Plaintiffs). Frankly, a fitting injunction would be one that merely requires Defendants to implement their own March 24 policy, Warden's Memorandum # 7-2008. In other words, the Court need only order Defendants to do what Warden Murphy has stated that he wants to do, but which his subordinates have yet to implement with any consistency.
4

STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS 1. Plaintiffs Joseph Miller and Hurie Purdiman, Jr. are prisoners of WSP. Both men have been followers of the Muslim faith for more than fifteen years. See Declarations of Hurie Purdiman, Jr., and Joseph Miller, attached respectively as "Exhibit 6" and "Exhibit 7." For reasons set forth in their Declarations, Plaintiffs pray five times each day and periodically engage in religious fasts from sunup until sundown. In addition, they receive special religious ("Halal") meals from WSP due to their religious dietary constraints. 2. Defendant Michael Murphy is the Warden of WSP. Defendant Robert Lampert is the Director of WDOC. 3. Based on Plaintiffs' information and belief, WDOC and WSP receive federal monies. 4. The events giving rise to this action commenced on December 23, 2007, when Defendants first began to enforce the "twenty-minute" rule against the Plaintiffs. On that date, Mr. Purdiman was assigned to C-Unit, where meals are served in a common area but are sometimes delivered directly to the prisoners’ cells. Mr. Purdiman was engaged in a religious fast from sunup until sundown in observance of Zul-Hajjah, or The Pilgrimage. A guard delivered a meal to Plaintiff Purdiman in his cell. Some minutes later, two other guards came to his cell and told him that he "had better change [his] religion fast" because he only had a few minutes to eat due to a "new rule." Mr. Purdiman was then ordered to leave his cell while these officers conducted a search. When Mr.
5

Purdiman was allowed to return, he discovered that his meal had been confiscated. See Exhibit 6.
5. Plaintiff Miller, who was housed in a different unit than Mr. Purdiman on December 23, 2007, was likewise subjected to the "twenty-minute" rule for the first time on that date. Mr. Miller was unable to immediately eat his dinner for religious reasons when it was served. Twenty minutes after its delivery, an officer returned and confiscated his meal, explaining that, according to an email, prisoners with special religious meals were only permitted 20 minutes to eat. Mr. Miller subsequently had other meals confiscated after 20 minutes. See Exhibit 7.
6. On December 31, 2007, a guard delivered a Halal meal to Plaintiff Purdiman at approximately 4:00 p.m. Mr. Purdiman set aside the meal to eat it at the end of his fast at sundown. After 20 minutes, a guard confiscated his meal pursuant to the "twenty-minute” rule. Plaintiff Purdiman submitted an institutional grievance complaining about this confiscation. See Exhibit 6. WSP's Grievance Manager, Jason Bohl, responded to this grievance on January 16, 2008, acknowledging the existence of the unwritten "twenty-minute" rule and defending its strict enforcement. (Jason Bohl’s Memorandum is attached as "Exhibit 8.")
7. Plaintiff Miller submitted a grievance to Warden Murphy regarding the "twenty-minute" rule. In a letter dated January 22, 2008, Warden Murphy responded to Plaintiff Miller’s complaint, stating that, "[f]or years now, it has been the practice to allow WSP inmates twenty (20) minutes to eat their meals . . ." See Exhibit 1. Mr. Miller appealed the Warden's decision to the Deputy Director of WDOC, Steve Lindly. However, in a letter dated January 29, 2008, Mr. Lindly
6

affirmed the Warden's decision and upheld the strict enforcement of the "twenty minute" rule, stating that the Warden had "advised the staff to enforce the standard of 20 minutes to eat a meal." (Deputy Director Lindly’s letter is attached as "Exhibit 10.")
8. Prisoners of other religious faiths also complained about the enforcement of the "twenty-minute" rule. Attached as "Exhibit 9" is the response that a Jewish prisoner received from WSP's acting chaplain, Sgt. Denise Neu, on January 28, 2008. Sgt. Neu defended the strict enforcement of the rule.
9. On March 24, 2008, Warden Murphy issued Warden's Memorandum # 7-2008, which repealed the "twenty-minute" rule and allows prisoners with special meals, including religious meals, to keep their meals until the next meal is delivered. See Exhibit 2.
10. On April 1, 2008, Director Lampert responded to Plaintiff Purdiman’s grievance regarding the December 31 confiscation of his meal, and Mr. Purdiman received the response on April 7. According to Director Lampert, Warden’s Memorandum # 7-2008 resolved the grievance. (Director Lampert’s response is attached as "Exhibit 11.")
11. The "twenty-minute" rule, however, continues to be enforced, and many WSP employees either are unaware of the new rule or have chosen not to implement it. On April 5, 2008, Plaintiff Miller and Plaintiff Purdiman resided together in C-Unit. They received their Halal meal sacks, but the hot portion of the meal contained processed foods violative of their Halal diets, and these items should not have been included in the sacks. They showed the meals to Officer
7

Fuller and requested assistance in obtaining a new meal, but Officer Fuller refused to assist them. They then showed their meals to Sgt. Borah, who agreed to request new meals. While they waited for their religious meals to be delivered, all prisoners were sent to their cells to be counted. Both men left the untainted portion of their meals on a dining table and planned to retrieve it after "count." When "count" was completed, both men discovered that Officer Fuller had discarded their meals. See Exhibits 6 and 7. Plaintiff Purdiman sent an Inmate Communication Form (the first step in WSP's grievance process) to Officer Fuller. Officer Fuller replied that the "twenty-minute" rule required him to confiscate Mr. Purdiman's meal. See Exhibit 3. Plaintiff Purdiman then sent an Inmate Communication Form to his Caseworker, Mr. Markum, protesting the confiscation of his meal. Mr. Markum--apparently unaware, as was Officer Fuller, that the "twenty-minute" rule had been repealed two weeks earlier--stated that he could not change the "twenty-minute" rule. See Exhibit 4.
12. Prisoner Dan Goodrick first learned about Warden's Memorandum # 7-2008 when he received a copy of it on April 21, 2008, from counsel Stephen Pevar. He immediately showed it to Officer York. Officer York stated that he had never seen the Memorandum before. (Dan Goodrick’s Declaration is attached as "Exhibit 12.")
13. On April 24, 2008, a Jewish prisoner, David Michael Jones, received his religious (Kosher) meal sack at approximately 4:30 p.m. After Mr. Jones took the meal to his cell, Corporal Paulsing told him that he had to confiscate the meal pursuant to the "twenty-minute"rule. When Mr. Jones told Corporal Paulsing
8

about the change in policy due to the March 24 Memorandum, Corporal Paulsing responded that he had not seen any such Memorandum. See Exhibit 5.
14. Mr. Purdiman appealed the April 5 confiscation of his meal to Warden Murphy. In a response dated May 5, 2008, Warden Murphy acknowledged that "Officer Fuller probably should not have thrown away [Mr. Purdiman’s] meal." (Warden Murphy’s response is attached as "Exhibit 13.")
15. On May 8, 2008, Mr. Purdiman was served his Halal meal. When his housing unit was offered access to exercise a few moments later, he requested permission to store his religious meal in his cell, as Warden's Memorandum # 72008 would permit. Guards, however, denied that request, so Mr. Purdiman left the meal on the dining table. When he returned from exercise, he discovered that guards had confiscated his meal. See Exhibit 6.
ARGUMENT 1. The Legislative History and Remedial Purpose of RLUIPA
The legislative history of RLUIPA is clear and compelling. As the Supreme Court recognized in Cutter, "RLUIPA is the latest of long-running congressional efforts to accord religious exercise heightened protection from government-imposed burdens . . . ." Id., 544 U.S. at 714 (emphasis added). Ten years before RLUIPA’s enactment, the Supreme Court had held in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 878-882 (1990), that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause does not prohibit enforcement of otherwise valid laws of general application that burden religious conduct. See Cutter at 714. A wide variety of religious exercises were thus subject to
9

government prohibition as a result of "neutral" laws. In Smith, for instance, the Court held that a general prohibition on the possession of peyote could be applied to prohibit, without violating the Free Exercise Clause, Native Americans from possessing peyote for sacramental purposes.
The Court recognized in Smith, however, that the political branches of the federal and state governments were free to enact legislation that provided protections to religious exercise beyond those imposed by the Constitution. Id. at 890. Responding to that invitation, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. This prophylactic legislation sought to prohibit the state and federal governments from "substantially burden[ing]" a person’s exercise of religion unless the government could demonstrate that the burden "(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." See § 2000bb-1. RFRA, in short, imposes strict scrutiny when governmental action inhibits religious activity.
Congressional intent, however, was thwarted in part by the Supreme Court's decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). RFRA had been enacted pursuant to Congress' enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held in Boerne v. Flores that those powers were insufficient to overcome the protections against federal authority afforded to states by the Tenth Amendment. RFRA, in other words, was applicable to the federal government but not to the states.
10

Congress again responded. After holding three years of hearings, see Cutter, 544 U.S. at 716, Congress enacted RLUIPA. This time, rather than invoking authority under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress narrowed the scope of its prohibitions and invoked its authority under the Spending and Commerce Clauses. See Cutter, at 715. Whereas RFRA applies to all actions of government, RLUIPA applies to only two: Section 2 of the Act applies to land use regulations, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, and Section 3 relates to religious exercises performed by institutionalized persons. See § 2000cc-1. Moreover, in order to remain within its constitutional boundaries under the Spending Clause, Congress limited the application of Section 3 to "a program or activity [in an institution] that receives Federal financial assistance." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(b)(1).1
RLUIPA, the Supreme Court held in Cutter, is valid legislation. In reaching this conclusion, the Court illuminated RLUIPA's legislative history. In addition to discussing Employment Division v. Smith and Boerne v. Flores, the Court summarized the testimony elicited during the congressional hearings, during which numerous witnesses informed Congress that religious exercises by prisoners were often impeded or prohibited by unnecessary barriers. Among the examples cited by the Court were refusals to provide Muslim prisoners with Halal food, mistreatment or confiscation of religious items, and--especially relevant here--compelling prisoners to choose between eating meals and participating in religious exercises. See Cutter, at 716 n.5.
1All prisons in the United States, the Court noted in Cutter, receive Federal financial assistance. See Cutter, 544 U.S. at 716 n.4. Consequently, WSP must comply with RLUIPA, and the Plaintiffs are entitled to its protection.
11

RLUIPA was intended to protect institutionalized persons "who are unable to freely attend to their religious needs and are therefore dependent on the government's permission and accommodation for exercise of religion." Cutter, at 721. RLUIPA, like RFRA, is designed to assist prisoners obtain information regarding, and to practice, their religion. See Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.2d 950, 961 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing Cong. Rec. S14,465, daily ed. Oct. 27, 1993, Statement of Orrin Hatch: "We should accommodate efforts to bring religion to prisoners.")
The vehicle employed by Congress to accomplish these remedial purposes under RLUIPA is the "compelling interest test," which imposes a higher level of scrutiny than the "reasonableness" test. See Cutter, at 712. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that Free Exercise claims must be examined under the "reasonableness" test. Thus, RLUIPA subjects government actions which impact a prisoner's religious exercise to a "stricter standard of review" than under the Free Exercise Clause. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 888 (9th Cir. 2008). RLUIPA affords confined persons "greater protection of religious exercise than what the Constitution itself affords." Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 186 (4th Cir. 2006). 2. The Burden of Proof under RLUIPA
RLUIPA identifies which party has the burden of proof with respect to each element of a RLUIPA claim. Section 3 of the Act provides that "[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . even if the burden results from a rule of general
12

applicability" unless the government demonstrates that the burden is "in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and is "the least restrictive means of furthering that . . . interest." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). The Act further states that the plaintiff "bear[s] the burden of persuasion on whether the . . . government practice that is challenged by the claim substantially burdens the exercise of religion," after which the government must prove that the challenged regulation "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." Id. §§ 2000cc-1(a), 2000cc-2(b).
Thus, there are four essential elements to a RLUIPA claim; the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the first two, and the government the latter two. The plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that the activity in question is a religious exercise, and (2) that this exercise is being substantially burdened by defendant's actions. If the plaintiff carries that burden, the government must show that (1) the regulation in question serves a compelling governmental interest, and (2) that this regulation is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. Id. §§ 2000cc-1(a), 2000cc-2(b). See Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007); Shakur v. Schiriro, 514 F.3d at 889.
Significantly, RLUIPA defines "religious exercise" to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A) (emphasis added). See Cutter, at 715-16. Consequently, as the Tenth Circuit has recognized, a plaintiff need not prove that the exercise in question is required by the plaintiff's religion. See Kikumura, 242
13

F.3d at 961 ("Under the definition of 'religious exercise' in 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc5(7)(A), however, a religious exercise need not be mandatory for it to be protected under" RLUIPA).2
In RLUIPA cases, therefore, the plaintiff need not prove that the practice being burdened is central to plaintiff's faith. Rather, the question is whether the exercise in question is religious and whether the government is substantially burdening that exercise. See Cutter, at 725 n.13 (stating that RLUIPA "bars inquiry into whether a particular belief or practice is 'central' to a prisoner's religion.") See also Kikumura, 242 F.3d at 961; Greene v. Solano County Jail, 513 F.3d 982, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2008); Van Wyhe v. Reisch, 536 F. Supp. 1110, 1125 (D.S.D. 2008) (holding that it was unnecessary to determine whether a religiously acceptable diet "is central to the exercise of [plaintiff's] religion" because that inquiry is irrelevant in RLUIPA cases). 3. Plaintiffs Miller and Purdiman Are Entitled To Prevail Under RLUIPA
(a) Plaintiffs satisfy their burden of proof Plaintiffs easily satisfy their burden of proof on the first two elements of their RLUIPA claim. That is, (1) the activities in question--prayer and religious fasting--are religious exercises, and (2) forcing Plaintiffs to forfeit their meals in order to engage in those exercises is a substantial burden. The declarations filed by Plaintiffs Purdiman and Miller establish that the Plaintiffs, like millions of other Muslims the world over, pray five times a day, with
2The plaintiff in Kikumura was a federal prisoner who sought relief under RFRA. The Tenth Circuit noted, however, that RLUIPA was equally as applicable to federal prisoners, and the court employed RLUIPA's definition of "religious exercise." Applying that definition, the court held that pastoral visits, although not required in order for the plaintiff to practice his religion, were nevertheless a "religious exercise" protected by RFRA and RLUIPA.
14

the timing of their prayers influenced by the rising and setting of the sun. See Exhibits 6 and 7. Prayer, of course, is an inherently religious exercise. See, e.g., Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 425 (1962); Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587-93 (1992). Plaintiffs' Declarations also establish that on certain occasions (as during the entire month of Ramadan), Plaintiffs engage in religious fasting between sunrise and sunset, joining millions of other Muslims in that exercise. Many religions, including both the Muslim and Jewish religions, expect adherents to fast on particular occasions as an important aspect of their religious duties. Such fasting clearly is a religious exercise. Thus, Plaintiffs satisfy the first RLUIPA element: the exercises at issue are religious.
Plaintiffs also satisfy the second element because the "twenty-minute" rule substantially burdens these religious exercises by depriving Plaintiffs of food. It is as if Defendants enacted a rule stating: "Prisoners who wish to pray will be punished by a loss of food." That is the net effect of Defendants' "twenty-minute" rule.
These types of choices, in which adherents can remain faithful to their religious beliefs only by sacrificing a state benefit, have long been viewed as placing a substantial burden on religious practice. See, e.g. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404 (1963) (holding that the government placed a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a Seventh Day Adventist when she was denied unemployment compensation for refusing for religious reasons to work on Saturdays); Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, 717-18 (1981) (holding that the state puts "substantial pressure on an
15

adherent to modify his behavior" when a state benefit can be obtained only if the adherent engages in conduct inconsistent with his faith); Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n of Florida, 480 U.S. 136, 141 (1987).
Based on this Supreme Court precedent--and given the broad remedial purposes of RLUIPA--courts in RLUIPA cases have broadly defined "substantial burden." See Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272, 280 (3d Cir. 2007) ("Congress intended to create a broad definition of substantial burden.") As the Third Circuit stated last year, summarizing the prevailing case law:
For the purposes of RLUIPA, a substantial burden exists where: 1) a follower is forced to choose between following the precepts of his religion and forfeiting benefits otherwise generally available to other inmates versus abandoning one of the precepts of his religion in order to receive a benefit; OR 2) the government puts substantial pressure on an adherent to substantially modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs. Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d at 280. See also Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 187 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating that, "for RLUIPA purposes, a substantial burden on religious exercise occurs when a state or local government, through act or omission, puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs."); Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d at 995-96 (same). Defendants' "twenty-minute" rule places significant pressure on Plaintiffs Miller and Purdiman to abandon their religious beliefs. The rule forces these men to chose between options "that are mutually unacceptable." See Shakur, 514 F.3d at 889. On April 5, 2008, when Officer Fuller discarded Plaintiffs' meals after twenty minutes (despite the enactment two weeks earlier of Warden's Memorandum # 7-2008), Fuller punished these men for not eating within the
16

twenty-minute limitation, even though Plaintiffs could not have complied with that rule without violating their religious precepts.
The Ninth Circuit's decision in Shakur is instructive. In that case, prison officials gave a Muslim prisoner the choice between eating food that was religiously acceptable ("Halal") but which caused him gastric distress, and eating the prison's regular food that cured his medical problem but which violated his religious beliefs. Prison officials refused to offer other types of Halal food that were readily available and medically palatable to Mr. Shakur. The district court granted summary judgment to prison officials on Mr. Shakur's RLUIPA claim, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. Prison officials were giving Mr. Shakur a "Hobson's choice" that violated RLUIPA, requiring him to choose between eating and remaining faithful to his religious beliefs. Id., 514 F.3d at 890. This is precisely the choice the "twenty-minute" rule requires of Plaintiffs.
In numerous RLUIPA cases, courts have broadly applied the "substantial burden" test, finding various restrictions--including many far less onerous than the one at issue here--to be unacceptable burdens on religious exercise. See Greene v. Solano County Jail, 513 F.3d 982, 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (denying a prisoner the right to participate in a group religious service is a "substantial burden" under RLUIPA); Washington v. Klem, 497 at 278-81 (limiting prisoners to four religious books in their cells at one time is a "substantial burden"); Spratt v. R.I. Dept. of Corrs., 482 F.3d 33, 38 (1st Cir. 2007) (denying prisoner the opportunity to preach to other prisoners is a "substantial burden"); Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 187-88 (4th Cir. 2006) (denying a Muslim prisoner access to
17

Halal foods merely because prison officials had observed him eating non-Halal foods is a "substantial burden"); Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 996 (forcing a prisoner to remain in his cell until he agreed to have his hair cut in a manner that violated his faith is a "substantial burden"). See also Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 961 (10th Cir. 2001) (denying a prisoner the opportunity to be visited by a pastor is a "substantial burden" under RFRA).
Defendants' "twenty-minute" rule punishes Plaintiffs for engaging in practices required by their religious precepts. The "twenty-minute" rule substantially burdens Plaintiffs' religious exercise by forcing Plaintiffs to choose between eating a meal and completing their religious activity. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proof under RLUIPA, and are entitled to prevail unless the government can satisfy its burdens. In order to overcome Plaintiffs' prima facie case, Defendants must now demonstrate that the continued enforcement of their "twenty-minute" rule "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." Id. §§ 2000cc-1. See Cutter, at 712.
(b) Defendants cannot satisfy their burden of proof Plaintiffs are willing to concede for the purposes of resolving the instant motion for preliminary injunctive relief that Defendants' "twenty-minute" rule satisfies a compelling governmental interest. The indisputable fact is that Defendants' "twenty-minute" cannot possibly survive the "least restrictive means" test. After all, Warden's Memorandum # 7-2008, adopted March 24, 2008, repealed the strict and burdensome "twenty-minute" rule and replaced it with a
18

completely accommodating standard that allows a prisoner engaged in a religious exercise to keep his meal until the next meal is served, hours hence. Consequently, we know for certain that the continued enforcement of the "twentyminute" rule is not the least drastic means of accomplishing Defendants' compelling interests (and it probably never was).
Every application of the "twenty-minute" rule after March 24, 2008 on prisoners engaging in a religious exercise--and the record demonstrates that there have been several already--were clear violations of RLUIPA. The very existence of Warden's Memorandum # 7-2008 proves that the far more restrictive "twenty-minute" rule is unnecessarily burdensome and, hence, violative of RLUIPA. See Shakur, 514 F.3d at 887 (holding that where defendant prison officials already have a less drastic rule than the one under scrutiny but are refusing to apply it to the plaintiff, a RLUIPA violation seems obvious). 4. Plaintiffs Are Entitled To Preliminary Injunctive Relief
Guards should no longer be enforcing the "twenty-minute" rule, and yet some of them are still doing so. Under Tenth Circuit protocol:
A movant is entitled to a preliminary injunction if he can establish the following: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case; (2) irreparable injury to the movant if the preliminary injunction is denied; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the injury to the other party under the preliminary injunction; and (4) the injunction is not adverse to the public interest. Kikumura, 242 F.3d at 955, citing Country Kids 'N City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen, 77 F.3d 1280, 1283 (10th Cir. 1996). Clearly, Plaintiffs Miller and Purdiman are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. First, Plaintiffs have a substantial
19

likelihood of success on the merits of their case. The existence of Warden's Memorandum # 7-2008 proves that Defendants' "twenty-minute" rule is indefensible under RLUIPA.
Second, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury each time the "twentyminute" rule is enforced against them because the rule deprives them of food. Each application of the rule burdens Plaintiffs' exercise of religion in violation of RLUIPA, and these violations cannot be adequately compensated monetarily. Thus, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury by the continued enforcement of the "twenty-minute" rule. See Kikumura, 242 F.3d at 963 (reversing a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to a prisoner seeking relief under RFRA, noting that "'the denial of the plaintiff's right to the free exercise of his religious beliefs is a harm that cannot be adequately compensated monetarily.'") (Citing Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 482 (2d Cir. 1996). Accord: Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 1001-02 (reversing a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to a prisoner seeking relief under RLUIPA). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have satisfied the second prong of the test for a preliminary injunction.
The third and the fourth prongs of the preliminary injunction test also weigh in Plaintiffs' favor. Clearly, a preliminary injunction that does nothing more than order a public agency to comply with its own policy is unlikely to cause injury to that agency or to the public. Here, the only remedy Plaintiffs seek through this motion is enforcement of Warden's Memorandum # 7-2008. Defendants can hardly claim that such enforcement will cause them or the public to suffer some
20

injury, as the very promulgation of this policy indicates that they support its application.
Defendants are likely to claim that Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief is moot because the "twenty-minute" rule was repealed and replaced it Warden's Memorandum # 7-2008. While it is true that the Warden's new rule, if properly implemented, should cure the defect in the old rule, it is also true that guards continue to enforce the "twenty-minute" rule. Having already suffered numerous violations of their rights, Plaintiffs should no longer remain at risk of additional injury. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief is not moot, and Plaintiffs are entitled to the protection that only an injunction can provide. See Skinner v. Uphoff, 234 F. Supp.2d 1208, 1216 (D. Wyo. 2002) (holding that even though WDOC officials claimed to have implemented new rules, it remained unclear that these rules would be fully and immediately implemented, thus necessitating the issuance of injunctive relief). Accord: Ginest v. Board of County Comm'rs of Carbon County, Wyoming, 333 F. Supp.2d 1208-09 (D. Wyo. 2004).
Once federal violations have been shown, a request for injunctive relief must be granted unless "(1) it can be said with assurance that 'there is no reasonable expectation . . .' that the alleged violation will recur, and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation." County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979). The party alleging mootness has the burden of proof, and "the burden is a heavy one." United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953). See generally Skinner, 234 F. Supp. at 1216. Here, given that guards continued to enforce the
21

"twenty-minute" rule weeks after that rule was repealed, Defendants are in no position to claim that Warden's Memorandum # 7-2008 "completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation" and that no similar violations will or can happen again. See County of Los Angeles, 440 U.S. at 631; Ginest, 333 F. Supp.2d at 1208-09.
CONCLUSION The only baffling question in this entire case is this: Why did Warden Murphy and Deputy Director Steve Lindly staunchly defend in January 2008 a rule that so clearly violated RLUIPA, enacted in 2000? The answer to that question, however, is reserved for trial. At present, the only question before the Court is whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction to protect against further applications of Defendants' "twenty-minute" rule. The answer to that question is obvious. Defendants' own documents demonstrate that prison guards--even weeks after Warden's Memorandum # 72008 was enacted--continued to enforce the "twenty-minute" rule against the Plaintiffs, causing Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable injury in violation of their rights under RLUIPA. Plaintiffs have suffered enough, and they are entitled to the protection of an injunction. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue preliminary injunctive relief, enjoining Defendants and all persons under their command from failing to apply Warden's Memorandum # 7-2008 instead of the Warden's "twenty-minute" rule.
22

Respectfully submitted this 29th day of May, 2008. ________________________________ Stephen L. Pevar ________________________________ Jennifer Horvath
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that an exact copy of the foregoing document was sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to Christine Cox, Office of the Attorney General, 2424 Pioneer, 2d Floor, Cheyenne, WY 82002, on the 29th day of May, 2008.
_______________ _____________ Jennifer Horvath
23

 
 Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 1 of 19

STEPHEN L. PEVAR American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 32 Grand Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 293-1559
JENNIFER HORVATH American Civil Liberties Union of Wyoming PO Box 20706 1603 Capitol Avenue, Suite 510 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 (307) 637-4537
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

FILED U S DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF WYOMING
APR 032008
Stephan Harris, Clerk Cheyenne

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING

JOSEPH MILLER,

)

and HURIE PURDIMAN , JR.

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs.

)

)

MICHAEL MURPHY and,

)

ROBERT LAMPERT, in their official )

and individual capacities,

)

)

Defendants. )

------------------------)

08 Civ. No.

C V

COMPLAINT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In 2000, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act ("RLUIPA") to protect the sincerely held religious beliefs of persons
incarcerated in state prisons throughout the nation. As the U.S. Supreme Court
RSeucmemipot n#s:_~;"_:":JlsD.sI.?u4e1d'3J
___not issued

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 19
explained in 2005, "RLUIPA is the latest of long-running congressional efforts to accord religious exercises heightened protection from government-imposed burdens." Cutter v. Wilkinson , 544 U.S. 709, 714 (2005). The purpose of this federal law--passed by a unanimous Congress--is to protect "institutionalized persons who are unable freely to attend to their religious needs and are therefore dependent on the government's permission and accommodation for exercise of their religion." Cutter, 544 U.S. at 721 . In a word, RLUIPA is designed to ensure that prisoners have a right to engage in certain religious exercises, even if is inconvenient for prison officials to accommodate that right, unless prison officials have a compelling need to suppress these religious activities.
The two named Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are Muslims incarcerated in the Wyoming State Penitentiary. As a matter of faith, Plaintiffs devote specific time each day to prayer, and certain days of each year to fasting. As a result of the prison policy challenged herein, Plaintiffs must choose between adhering to their deeply held religious beliefs and eating meals. Defendants' policy requires prisoners to eat their meals within twenty minutes after delivery, after which the meals are confiscated. Plaintiffs have requested of Defendants that they be exempted from this rule when a religious exercise, such as prayer or fasting, renders consuming the meal within twenty minutes impracticable, but Defendants have denied these requests. Consequently, Defendants' policy substantially burdens Plaintiffs' religion because it coerces them to violate their religious beliefs or forego a meal. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damages.
2

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 3 of 19
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This action seeks relief under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 , and 42 U.S.C § 1983. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C §§ 1343(3) and (4) confer jurisdiction on the Court. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
PARTIES 2. Plaintiffs Joseph Miller and Hurie Purdiman, Jr. are serving criminal sentences in the state of Wyoming and are incarcerated in the Wyoming State Penitentiary (WSP). Plaintiffs have been placed under the care, custody, and control of the Wyoming Department of Corrections (WDOC). Each Plaintiff is a member of the Muslim faith. 3. Defendant Michael Murphy is a citizen and resident of Wyoming. At all times relevant to this action, Mr. Murphy has been the Warden of WSP. As such, he has a duty to operate and administer WSP in a manner consistent with state and federal law. 4. Defendant Robert Lampert is a citizen and resident of Wyoming. At all times material to this action, Mr. Lampert has been the Director ofWDOC. As such, he is the official ultimately responsible under state law for the operation and administration of WSP, including the operation and implementation of the policy and practice challenged in this action, and he has a duty to ensure that WSP is administered in a manner consistent with state and federal law. 5. All acts and omissions of Defendants described below were done under color of state law and were performed during the scope of their employment. Both Defendants are sued in their official and individual capacities.
3

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 4 of 19
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 6. Defendants have issued, and they enforce, the following rule known herein as the "twenty-minute" rule. This rule affords prisoners only twenty minutes to eat their meals. After twenty minutes, prison guards are required to confiscate the prisoners' meals. 7. To Plaintiffs' knowledge, the "twenty-minute" rule has not been issued in written form. However, as discussed below, prison administrators have acknowledged the existence of the rule, and aggressively enforce it. 8. To Plaintiffs' knowledge, although Defendants claim that the "twentyminute" rule has been in existence for years, Defendants began enforcing it only within the past few months. 9. The "twenty-minute" rule is ignored by some guards but enforced by others. Some guards, for instance, have permitted Plaintiffs to complete their prayers and then eat their meals, whereas other guards have refused to accommodate Plaintiffs religious exercises and have confiscated Plaintiffs' meals when they were not eaten within twenty minutes. This same discriminatory enforcement of the "twenty-minute" rule has been applied to Jewish prisoners, as well. One prisoner is prepared to testify, for instance, that he heard a guard make the following statement when a Jewish prisoner requested additional time to finish a meal due to his religious fasting : "I don't give a s__ _ about your Jew stuff. Comply with the twenty-minute rule or don't eat." A prisoner will also testify that he observed a guard remove meals being eaten by Jewish prisoners when time expired and laughing about it as he threw their meals in the garbage.
4

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 5 of 19
10. Like millions of other Muslims, Plaintiffs formally pray several times a day and also fast on certain occasions. When Plaintiffs fast, they do not consume food from sunrise to sunset. On those occasions when a meal is delivered prior to sunset and a prisoner is fasting, the meal may be confiscated if it is not consumed within twenty minutes, and the fasting prisoner must then wait until the next morning before receiving a meal.
11 . Plaintiffs are confined in a "close custody" housing unit, C-Unit. Prisoners in C-Unit are locked in individual cells for more than 22 hours a day. Meals are brought into C-Unit and are served in a common area. Once the meals are available, an announcement is made and a guard begins opening individual cell doors so that prisoners may exit their cells to eat their meals. However, if the Plaintiffs are praying at the time their door is ready to be opened, they must immediately choose between interrupting their prayer or exiting the cell to eat. If they do not quickly exit, many (but not all) guards will not give them another chance to exit within the next twenty minutes, and their meals are discarded. Recently, for instance, one Plaintiff finished his prayer a few minutes after a guard offered to open his cell door. Plaintiff then asked the officer in the Control Center if he could be allowed out of his cell to eat. The officer replied: "Your prayer, your problem," and refused to allow the Plaintiff to access his meal.
12. Plaintiffs' exercise of religion has been substantially burdened as a result of Defendants' "twenty-minute" rule. This rule forces Plaintiffs to choose between observing their sincerely held religious beliefs and eating their food, and imposes on them substantial pressure to violate those beliefs.
5

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 6 of 19
13. In Plaintiffs' religious belief system, prayer is necessary to obtain salvation; to lead a spiritual, fulfilling, and meaningful life; and to remain healthy in mind and body. Prayer at particular intervals, as is common for Muslims the world over, is also a unifying force, uniting all believers in one spiritual discipline.
14. RLUIPA expressly protects all religious exercises, even those "not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc5(7). In this instance, however, the religious exercise at issue--prayer--is central to Plaintiffs' religion. No religious exercise is more important to Plaintiffs than prayer.
15. Jewish prisoners at WSP, as well as Muslim prisoners, have been adversely impacted by Defendants' "twenty-minute" rule. Both Jewish and Muslim prisoners have grieved the rule through the prison's administrative grievance process, to no avail.
16. In response to one Jewish prisoner's grievance, Acting-Chaplain Sergeant Denise Neu stated:
It is reasonable to say that each person has a right to practice a religion and a belief of their own and to follow in the ways of the religion(s) [sic] faith and beliefs as scripted by time, but regardless an inmate's chosen religious belief, an unfortunate consequence of his incarceration is that one may be required to consume their meal in a manner which may not be to their religious preference. The 20 minutes is reasonable for consumption and for which the time frames are allotted by the institution.
See Memorandum of Denise Neu dated January 28, 2008 (attached as "Exhibit 1 ").
6

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 7 of 19
17. Plaintiff Purdiman submitted an institutional grievance complaining about the fact that a guard had confiscated his meal as a result of the "twentyminute" rule. WSP's Grievance Manager, Jason Bohl, responded to this grievance on January 16, 2008. Mr. Bohl justified the confiscation of Mr. Purdiman's food on the following grounds:
At present time, a memorandum does not exist indicating that religious diets be confiscated after a specific period of time. However, the warden has agreed with this practice to ensure that inmates receiving these diets are not hoarding food or maintaining possession of the plastic bag it is delivered in, which may be used in the process of fermentation. See Memorandum of Jason Bohl dated January 16, 2008 (attached as "Exhibit 2.") 18. Plaintiff Miller has also grieved the "twenty-minute" rule. On January 22, 2008, Warden Murphy sent a memorandum to Mr. Miller in which he claimed that "for years now" the prison has maintained a policy that allows WSP prisoners only "twenty (20) minutes to eat their meals." According to the Warden, the purpose of the rule is to prevent prisoners from hoarding their food . See Memorandum of Warden Michael Murphy dated January 22, 2008 (attached as "Exhibit 3.") Relying on his unwritten rule, Defendant Murphy rejected Plaintiff Miller's request for additional time to consume his meal on those occasions when he is praying or fasting at the time that the meal is delivered. 19. Warden Murphy's January 22, 2008 Memorandum ("Exhibit 3") indicates that all Unit Managers and Lieutenants at WSP were issued a copy of the memorandum.
7

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 8 of 19
20. Plaintiff Miller appealed the Warden's decision through the grievance process, and his appeal was answered by Deputy Director of WDOC, Steve Lindly. Mr. Lindly affirmed the Warden's decision and upheld the strict enforcement of the "twenty-minute" rule. According to Mr. Lindly, the strict enforcement of this rule "seems to make the matter of eating meals and the time allowed more equal, rather than less equal." See Memorandum of Steve Lindly dated January 29, 2008 (attached as "Exhibit 4.") Using that rationale, Mr. Lindly denied Plaintiff Miller's request for additional time to eat his meals on those occasions when a meal is delivered during a religious exercise.
21 . Notably, in none of these responses to prisoner grievances has any prison official sought to address the critical issue of whether WSP's "twentyminute" rule furthers a compelling governmental interest or whether any such interest could be accomplished in a less restrictive manner on those occasions when a meal is delivered during the time that a prisoner is engaging in a religious exercise.
21 . The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. ("RLUIPA"), states that prison facilities may not "substantially burden" a prisoner's religious exercise unless the prison demonstrates that the imposition of the burden "(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of
furthering that compelling governmental interest." See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 .
RLlIlPA also states that the government must meet this stricter standard even in
8

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 9 of 19
those instances when the burden on a prisoner's religion "results from a rule of general applicability." See id.
22. Warden Murphy has failed to demonstrate, and cannot demonstrate, that the "twenty-minute" rule furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Prison officials, in response to prisoner grievances, have identified two justifications for the rule. One justification is that the rule prevents the hoarding of food . However, allowing prisoners engaged in a religious exercise to have more time, such as two hours for instance, in which to consume their meals would not undermine that governmental interest. A two-hour limit would still prevent the hoarding of food . The other justification offered by defendants is that the plastic bags distributed with Plaintiffs' meals can be used for fermentation. But here again , allowing prisoners engaged in a religious exercise to return their plastic bags two hours after receiving them rather than in twenty minutes would not undermine that governmental interest, as it would still prevent the bag from being used for fermentation .
23. Moreover, the prison maintains a Commissary from which prisoners are allowed to purchase a wide variety of food products, many of which are wrapped in plastic, and to store these items in their cells for days at a time. Indeed, the Commissary's "Canteen Price List" contains a recipe for "Spread," which (according to the recipe) serves four persons and requires five packages of Ramen Noodles, which come in plastic wrapping. Thus, while defendants claim that religious adherents must eat their meals within twenty minutes in order
9

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 10 of 19
to avoid hoarding and to prevent prisoners from storing plastic wrapping, Defendants permit all prisoners to purchase and to store food in their cells with plastic wrapping.
24. Mr. Lindly stated in his memorandum to Plaintiff Miller that requiring all prisoners to finish their meals within twenty minutes fosters equality among prisoners. See Exhibit 4. However, Mr. Lindly's analysis contravenes federal law.
Congress has determined that public officials may not enforce rules of "general
applicability" so as to unnecessarily burden any individual's freedom of religion. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 . Stated differently, under RLUIPA, all persons are equally entitled to an accommodation or exemption in those situations where, as here, a rule of general applicability will impose an unnecessary and substantial burden on a religious exercise.
25. Warden Murphy has exhibited a similar indifference towards, and intolerance of, Plaintiffs' religious freedoms in other decisions regarding Plaintiffs' religious beliefs. For instance, Plaintiff Purdiman asked Warden Murphy to be given food consistent with a strict Halal diet, as required by his religious dietary needs. In a memorandum dated January 2, 2008, Warden Murphy rejected Mr. Purdiman's request on the following grounds: "I have great confidence in the advice and counsel of Mr. [Doe, a WSP employee], a faithful , practicing, and knowledgeable Muslim. He has told me that a faithful Muslim can eat the nopork option meal that WSP offers and be in full adherence to the Muslim faith. Therefore at this point I consider your request for a strict Halal diet is only your personal preference, not an authoritative requirement of your faith ." The
10

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 11 of 19
Warden's unwritten rule of "If it's good enough for Mr. [Doe], it's good enough for you" violates the standards set forth in RLUIPA. The issue is not whether some other adherent might be satisfied with the Warden's decision. The question is whether WSP has a compelling governmental interest that outweighs Mr. Purdiman's sincerely held religious beliefs, an issue that Warden Murphy refuses to consider. As one court stated in a similar context: 'While defendants argue that other Muslims interpret these creeds less strictly, . . . for the purposes of the RLUIPA, it matters not whether the inmate's religious belief is shared by ten or tens of millions. All that matters is whether the inmate is sincere in his or her own views." See Williams v. Bitner, 359 F. Supp.2d 370,375-76 (M.D. Pa. 2005). See also Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 960 (10th Cir. 2001). Thus, Defendant Murphy consistently applies the wrong legal standard in determining whether to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of prisoners who are members of minority faiths.
26. To whatever extent the "twenty-minute" rule furthers a legitimate penological interest, it is an exaggerated response to that interest. Far less onerous restrictions on religious exercises than this one are available to Defendants that would not unduly compromise their legitimate interests.
27. Based on information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that WDOC and WSP receive, directly or indirectly, federal monies, thus making RLUIPA applicable in this context.
11

- - -- - - - - - - _._- _._...-
Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 12 of 19
CLAIM FOR RELIEF 26. Based on the facts set forth above, Plaintiffs Miller and Purdiman seek injunctive relief, enjoining Defendants Lampert and Murphy in their official capacities (and all persons acting under their command) from enforcing their present policy under which employees are required to remove Plaintiffs' meals after twenty minutes even in those instances when Plaintiffs are engaged in a religious exercise at the time their meals are delivered. Defendants' policy violates rights secured to the Plaintiffs by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000,42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. Plaintiffs also seek nominal damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc and 42 U.S .C. § 1983.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court will: 1. Issue declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, declaring that Defendants' "twenty-minute" rule violates Plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. 2. Issue injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of Plaintiffs Miller and Purdiman, enjoining Defendants from enforcing their "twenty-minute" rule or any other such strict time limit in a manner that substantially burdens Plaintiffs' religious exercise and violates their federal rights. 3. Grant Plaintiffs Miller and Purdiman nominal damages.
12

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 13 of 19 4. Grant such additional ahtl further relief as the Court may deem proper
under the circumstances, including an award of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this litigation.
~J.P~
S;ept;llLPevar
r;k,(f2i
13

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 14 of 19

OOice ofthe: INSTITlJ110NAL
AC'f7lIlTIES

January 28, 2008

COORDINATOR

SUBJECT: Inmate Grievance Fonn #321
Received January 24, 2008

Mr. Jones #14474

I am in receipt of your grievance form #321 .

Inmate Statement:
This WDOC grievance addresses and challenges as patently unconstitutional, Under definition of the First Amendment to the United States Constitutional, the recently fonnulated and placed into practice WSP rule which require that under pain of complete forfeiture, Jewish prisoners receiving Kosher dietary bags must consume the food stuffs within twenty (20) minutes from delivery. The rule is being enforced on the Saturday (Sabbath) when the meal is delivered at
approximately 1600 hours but under Hebrew law cannot be heated or consumer
until after sundown.

Response: It does state in the Judaism religion that there are general rules for preparing, cleanSing, and consumption of the kosher meal.

It does state in the Judaism religion that Shabbath (Shabbat) is the most important ritual observance in Judaism. It is the only ritual observance instituted in the Ten Commandments. It is also the most important special day. Shabbat is primarily a day of rest and spiritual emichment. The word "Shabbaf' comes from the root Shin-Beit-Tav, meaning to cease, to end, or to rest

A Typical Shabbat (day of rest). Shabbat, like all Jewish days, begins at sunset (Friday), because in the story of creation in Genesis Ch. 1, you will notice that it says, "And there was evening, and there was morning, one day.• From this, we infer that a day begins with evening, that is, sunset.

Conclusion:

It is reasonable to say that each person has a right to practice a religion and a
belief of their own and to follow in the ways of the religion(s) faith and beliefs as
sCripted by time, but regardless an inmate's chosen religious beliefs, an

1

"

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 15 of 19

unfortunate consequences of his incarceration is that one may be required to consume their meal in a manner which may not be to their religious preference. The 20 minutes is reasonable for consumption and for which the time frames are allotted by the institution.

C--""\ Cordially,

\ ~-~,:= ",::- ,,- ~.~-

5g!. Denise Neu

, . - "'

Facilitating chapel duties for

\

Wyoming State Penitentiary

'------"

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 16 of 19

STATE OF WYOMING
MEMORANDUM

TO: Hurie Purdiman #22768 '

DATE: 01/16/2008

FROM: Jason Bohl Grievance Manager

SUBJECT: Grievance 21*

Summary: You contend that on 12/31/2007, you claim that Officer Dauwen came into your cell and took a letter from the warden that was in your possession for the purpose of making a copy. Initially, said officer did not return this letter to your cell however after speaking with Sergeant Romero, the letter was then returned to you. In addition to this incident~ Officer Lynch confiscated your HaIaI meal ba shortl after it was re ared in the microwave for ou~ You feel that the officers are harassing you base on your religious preference and skin color and have requested that any similar behavior nO longer occur in the future.

Investigation: Information from assigned staff member.

Conclusion: At present time, a memorandum does not exist indicating that religious diets be confiscated after a specific period' of tiine however the warden has agreed with this practice to ensure that inmates receiving these diets are not hoarding food or maintaining possession of the plastic bag it is delivered in which may be used in the process of fermentation. As such; this writer finds that Officer Lynch was without fault in requesting your Halal meal bag on said date.

In reference to the letter you claim Officer Dauwen removed from your cell, this writer was informed by Lt. Kevin Edwards, who spoke with Officer Dauwen, that you willingly gave the letter to said officer through the cuff port after he asked to view it. The officer made a copy of the letter at which time it was returned to you.1here is no substantiation to your claims that this action or those of Officer Lynch were representative ofharassment. As stated in a previous response bithis writer, you may want to reevaluate what jssues truly merit the grievance process as some can be resolved simply by speaking with the staff member involved. Obviously you have raised several issues involving your religious beliefs or tenets being violated and in several of these cases this writer genuinely feels that it was a misunderstanding or miscommunication between yourself and staff.

Additionally, you failed in this grievance and many previous grievances to make an attempt to resolve these issues using the communication continuum. As such, this writer will no longer accept grievances unless you have made an attempt to resolve at the lowest level possible. Several issues you have grieved recently were reasonable concerns and this wri ter has continued to allow them through in an effort to help resolve their! however this writer will no longer be so generous: Please follow all steps of the grievance policy before you tum in a grievance form. ~

EXHIBIT
12 --~-

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 17 of 19 STATE OF WYOMING MEMORANDUM
The Grievance Manager finds grievance 21" resolved. You may appeal my decision by submitting a form 322 within seven days to the Warden.
FOR THE DEPARlMENT OF CORRECTIONS
WYOMING STATE PENITENTIARY
Jg~o~~
Grievance Mariager Cc: grievance files
Central Office
\

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 18 of 19

Wyoming State Penitentiary
Office ofthe Warden
January 22, 2008
Joseph Miller #23387 UnitC-2
Re: Meal Timelines
Dear Mr. Miller,
Twice now you have written to me regarding the timelines for serving meals. Unit Manager Ron Schmitz gave you a thorough reply to your answers, and did so on my behalf.
For years it has been the practice to allow WSP inmates twenty (20) minutes to eat their meals, longer on those special meal days such as Thanksgiving Day. This is pretty much the standard at prisons across the cowrtry. I do not know why this rule has suddenly become an issue for you.
The ru Ie is also applied to those who eat their meals in the pod or cells. In that food is not allowed to be taken out of the dining hall, neither are ;nmates in the units allowed to save back fOod. Food that is saved back creates sanitaIy issues and sometimes security issues.
The rules apply to all, even those . special or religious diets.

Cc: E. J. Wllson, DcputyWarden
Ron DeFauw, Unit Manager Ron Schmitz, Unit Manager Janell Thayer, Unit Manager Major John Jacobs All Lieutenants Jason Bohl, Grievance Manager

EXHIBIT
I - - -3 -

Case 2:08-cv-00090-CAB Document 1 Filed 04/03/08 Page 19 of 19

THE

WYOMING

Dave Freudenthal Governor

Department of Corrections 700 Wesl21~ Street Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 Telephone: (307) n7-7208 Fax: 307-7n-7479

Robert O. Lampert Director

January 29, 2008
Mr. Joseph S. Miller #23387 P.O. Box 400 Rawlins, WY 82301
Dear Mr. Miller:
Thank you for your letter dated January I, 2008, related to a 20 minute time limit to eat your meals, as well as other issues related to a lack of showers and flag time while on POS, along with missing property. I had hoped to respond sooner.
You may know the answer to your question about the 20 minutes to eat your meals by the time you receive my letter. It is my understanding the matter was initially raised as to why all inmates were not kept to the same amount oftime to eat a meal, which is 20 minutes. For example, inmates receiving non-religious diet trays must return them within 20 minutes. It should not be applied in a bias way and, in fact, seems to make the matter of eating meals and the time allowed more equal, rather than less equal.
Warden Murphy has advised the statIto enforce the standard of20 minutes to eat a meal. It would seem if you are expected to warm your meals and the unit microwave is not working, some exception would have to be made for that situation. I am uncertain if the Warden has put out a memo to the inmates advising them of the meal time frame.
! will ask Warden Murphy for his input relative your issues while in PDS, including the missing property.
We need to enforce rules and policies in a consistent manner and it appears that is what Warden Murphy is attempting to do around the meal issue. Hopefully I have addressed your question on the meal issue.

xc: Warden Murphy

Sincerely,
~4/1,7 Steve Lindly
Deputy Director

 
 Case: 2:08-cv-90 As of: 07/14/2010 06:57 AM MDT 1 of 3
U.S. District Court District of Wyoming (Cheyenne) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:08−cv−00090−CAB

TERMED

Miller et al v. Murphy et al Assigned to: Judge Clarence A Brimmer Referred to: Judge William C Beaman Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights Plaintiff Joseph Miller
Plaintiff Hurie Purdiman, Jr

Date Filed: 04/03/2008 Date Terminated: 11/19/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Jennifer Horvath AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Wyoming Chapter P O Box 20706 Cheyenne, WY 82003 307/637−4565 Fax: 307/637−4565 Email: jhorvath@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen L Pevar AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 2074 Park Street Hartford, CT 06106 860/570−9830 Fax: 860/570−9840 Email: pevaraclu@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer Horvath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen L Pevar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Michael Murphy individually
Defendant

represented by Christine Annette Gilbert Cox WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Herschler Building, 1st Floor NW Cheyenne, WY 82002 307/777−5457 Fax: 307/777−8920 Email: ccox1@state.wy.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:08-cv-90 As of: 07/14/2010 06:57 AM MDT 2 of 3

Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary Warden in his official capacity also known as Michael Murphy

represented by Christine Annette Gilbert Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Robert Lampert individually

represented by Christine Annette Gilbert Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Wyoming Department of Corrections Director in his official capacity also known as Robert Lampert

represented by Christine Annette Gilbert Cox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/03/2008 05/05/2008 05/05/2008 05/29/2008
05/29/2008 06/02/2008
06/02/2008
06/02/2008
06/03/2008 06/03/2008 06/06/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT (summons(es) issued) ( Filing fee $350 receipt #Chy004131.), filed by Joseph Miller, Hurie Purdiman, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(sjlg, ) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
2 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Robert Lampert waiver was sent on 4/4/2008, answer due 6/3/2008. (Cox, Christine) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Michael Murphy waiver was sent on 4/4/2008, answer due 6/3/2008. (Cox, Christine) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
4 REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Plaintiffs Joseph Miller, Hurie Purdiman, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction)(szf, ) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
5 REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. MOTION for Steven Pevar to appear pro hac vice; Check tendered; filed by Plaintiffs Joseph Miller, Hurie Purdiman, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(szf, ) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Christine Annette Gilbert Cox on behalf of Michael Murphy, Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary Warden, Robert Lampert, Wyoming Department of Corrections Director (Cox, Christine) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
7 NOTICE of complexity by Defendants Michael Murphy, Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary Warden, Robert Lampert, Wyoming Department of Corrections Director ; this case is non−complex. (Cox, Christine) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
8 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Affirmative Defenses, by Defendants Michael Murphy, Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary Warden, Robert Lampert, Wyoming Department of Corrections Director.(Cox, Christine) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
9 ORDER by the Honorable Judge William C Beaman denying 5 Motion to appear pro hac vice (szf, ) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
10 NOTICE of Initial Pretrial Conference: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 7/8/2008 08:30 AM in Cheyenne before Judge William C Beaman. (sdb, ) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
11 NOTICE of complexity by Plaintiffs Joseph Miller, Hurie Purdiman, Jr ; this case is non−complex. (szf, ) (Entered: 06/06/2008)

Case: 2:08-cv-90 As of: 07/14/2010 06:57 AM MDT 3 of 3

06/06/2008 06/06/2008 06/06/2008 06/06/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/19/2008
06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/27/2008 07/25/2008
08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/12/2008 08/13/2008 11/19/2008

12 REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. MOTION to Reschedule Initial Pretrial Conference filed by Plaintiffs Joseph Miller, Hurie Purdiman, Jr. (szf, ) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
13 REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. MOTION for Stephen Pevar to appear pro hac vice; Check not tendered; filed by Plaintiffs Joseph Miller, Hurie Purdiman, Jr. (szf, ) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
14 ORDER by the Honorable Judge Clarence A Brimmer granting 4 Motion to File Excess Pages Non−Dispositive (szf, ) (Entered: 06/08/2008)
15 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support filed by Plaintiffs Joseph Miller, Hurie Purdiman, Jr. (szf, ) (Entered: 06/08/2008)
16 NOTICE RESETTING Initial Pretrial Conference: Initial Pretrial Conference reset for 7/16/2008 08:30 AM in Cheyenne before Judge William C Beaman. (sdb, ) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
17 ORDER by the Honorable Judge William C Beaman granting 13 Motion to appear pro hac vice admitting Stephen L Pevar for Joseph Miller and Hurie Purdiman, Jr (szf, ) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
18 REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Stipulated MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Defendants Michael Murphy, Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary Warden, Robert Lampert, Wyoming Department of Corrections Director. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cox, Christine) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
19 ORDER by the Honorable Judge William C Beaman granting 18 Motion to File Excess Pages Non−Dispositive (szf, ) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
20 RESPONSE to 15 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendants Michael Murphy, Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary Warden, Robert Lampert, Wyoming Department of Corrections Director. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Attachments)(Cox, Christine) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
21 REPLY to 20 Response to Motion, filed by Plaintiffs Joseph Miller, Hurie Purdiman, Jr. (Horvath, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
22 INITIAL PRETRIAL ORDER by the Honorable Judge William C Beaman: Plaintiff Expert Witness Designation deadline 10/6/2008. Defendant Expert Witness Designation deadline 11/7/2008. Discovery due by 11/21/2008. Stipulation Deadline 12/1/2008. Motion filing deadline 11/21/2008. Motion response deadline 12/5/2008. Dispositive Motion Hearing set for 12/11/2008 10:30 AM in Cheyenne before Judge Clarence A Brimmer. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/8/2009 10:30 AM in Cheyenne before Judge Clarence A Brimmer. Bench Trial set for 2/9/2009 01:30 PM (three days, stacked #1) in Cheyenne before Judge Clarence A Brimmer. (sdb, ) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
23 REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. MOTION for Order to Depose Prisoner filed by Defendants Michael Murphy, Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary Warden, Robert Lampert, Wyoming Department of Corrections Director. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cox, Christine) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
24 REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. MOTION for Order to Depose Prisoner filed by Defendants Michael Murphy, Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary Warden, Robert Lampert, Wyoming Department of Corrections Director. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cox, Christine) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
25 ORDER by the Honorable Judge William C Beaman granting 24 Motion for Leave to Take Inmate Deposition (szf, ) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
26 ORDER by the Honorable Judge William C Beaman granting 23 Motion for Leave to Take Inmate Deposition(szf, ) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
27 CONSENT DECREE and ORDER of Dismissalby the Honorable Judge Clarence A Brimmer.(sjs, ) (Additional attachment added on 11/24/2008: #1 − CORRECTED DOCUMENT) (sdn, ). (Entered: 11/20/2008)