Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 129 Filed 01/25/11 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 


MATSON WILLIS, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-815-JMS-DML ) ) ) )

ORDER

The Court recently entered its Final Judgment and Injunction in this case. [Dkt. 114.]

Therein, it ordered the Department of Correction (“DOC”) to supply a kosher meal option for

any inmate whose sincerely held religious beliefs require it. The Court further ordered that all

kosher meals must be certified as kosher by appropriate religious authorities selected by the

DOC, which may be accomplished by purchasing pre-packaged meals certified as kosher or oth-

erwise ensuring that meals are kosher at the frequency specified by the religious authorities. Fi-

nally, the Court awarded nominal damages to Mr. Willis on his individual claim.

Presently before the Court is DOC’s motion to stay the injunction during the pendency of

the appeal. [Dkt. 118.] The parties agree, however, that the judgment should be stayed solely as

it relates to nominal damages. [Dkt. 128 at 1.]

A motion to stay a district court ruling pending appeal “is a request for extraordinary re-

lief.” Chan v. Wodnicki, 67 F.3d 137, 139 (7th Cir. 1995); see also Hinrichs v. Bosma, 410

F.Supp. 2d 745, 748-49 (S.D. Ind. 2006) (“a stay is considered extraordinary relief for which the

moving party bears a ‘heavy burden’”) (quotation omitted). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c) and Fed.

R. App. P. 8(a), such extraordinary relief is appropriate only where a movant demonstrates the

propriety of a stay according to the balance of four factors: (1) the movant’s likelihood of suc-

- 1 -


Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 129 Filed 01/25/11 Page 2 of 6
cess on the merits; (2) the likelihood of irreparable injury to the movant absent a stay; (3) whether a stay will substantially injure other parties to the litigation; and (4) “where the public interest lies.” Glick v. Koenig, 766 F.2d 265, 269 (7th Cir.1985).
A) Does the DOC have a likelihood of success on the merits on appeal? Unlike the standard for a preliminary injunction, the party moving to stay an injunction
must “demonstrate a substantial showing of likelihood of success [on appeal], not merely the possibility of success.” Id. at 1301. Furthermore, the “mere recitation of arguments previously made and rejected” is not sufficient to meet the requisite finding of a likelihood of success on appeal. Endress + Hauser, Inc. v. Hawk Measurement Systems Pty. LTD., 932 F. Supp. 1147, 1149 (S.D. Ind. 1996).
Here, the DOC recites two arguments it made in its motion for summary judgment—that avoiding the cost of providing kosher meals in the face of budgetary concerns is a compelling governmental interest, and that providing vegan meals that are not kosher is the least restrictive means of achieving that compelling interest. [Dkt. 119 at 3-4.] It does not raise any new issues that would make the case more meritorious on appeal than it was when this Court reviewed it in the first instance.
As to the first argument, the Court has already held that cost avoidance alone cannot be a compelling governmental interest under RLUIPA. Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 800 (7th Cir. 2008). As to the second argument, the Court has already rejected the DOC’s assertion that providing vegan meals is the least restrictive means of promoting any compelling government interest, and the DOC presents no additional reason to validate its assertion here. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc1(a).
Because the DOC has not demonstrated a substantial showing that it is likely to succeed on appeal, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of denying the stay.
- 2 -


Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 129 Filed 01/25/11 Page 3 of 6
B) Is there likelihood of irreparable injury to the DOC absent the stay? The Seventh Circuit has held that “[m]ere injuries, however substantial, in terms of mon-
ey, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough” to satisfy the irreparable harm requirement for a stay, and that “injury resulting from attempted compliance with government regulation ordinarily is not irreparable harm.” American Hospital Ass’n v. Harris, 625 F.2d 1328, 1331 (7th Cir. 1980). Irreparable harm, in addition to being more than the financial burdens that come with complying with most government regulations, must be certain and immediate, rather than speculative or theoretical. River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, Ill., 611 F.3d 367, 391 (7th Cir. 2010).
Here, the DOC argues that it “will incur significant monetary costs in complying with the judgment,” and that “the expenditures would likely impact negatively on the operation of the prisons placed throughout Indiana and upon the rehabilitation of those confined.” [Dkt. 119 at 4, 5-6.] Although the DOC alludes to its potential inability to pay prison guards or otherwise maintain public safety, however, it has not—at any point during this litigation—attempted to calculate the actual cost of complying with the Court’s order or provided any admissible evidence to justify its assertion. Moreover, despite this Court’s explicit acknowledgement that kosher diets and Hallal diets are not interchangeable, [dkt. 103 at 5], the DOC continues to include the cost of providing kosher meals to Muslim inmates as it opines vaguely about the impending cost of providing kosher diets. [Dkt. 119 at 2-3.] Again, even if cost were a compelling interest— which it is not—Hallal diets are not the subject of this litigation and should not feature in DOC’s consideration of the cost of kosher meals.
As the Court mentioned in its Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, [dkt. 103], the DOC’s obligations under RLUIPA arise from complying with a federal regulation that is part and parcel of receiving federal funding that, in part, funds DOC’s compliance. See 42
- 3 -


Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 129 Filed 01/25/11 Page 4 of 6
U.S.C. 2000cc-1(b)(1). The financial burdens that coincide with DOC’s voluntary acceptance of federal funds are foreseeable—they do not constitute the type of “peculiar” harm necessary for a stay. See American Hospital Ass’n, 625 F.2d at 1331.
Because the DOC has not shown that it will experience irreparable injury absent the stay, this factor also weighs in favor of denying the stay.
C) Will the issuance of a stay substantially injure other parties in the proceeding? The Seventh Circuit has held that “in the context of RLUIPA’s broad definition of reli-
gious exercise, a . . . regulation that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise is one 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). In the context of dietary restrictions, “a prisoner’s religious dietary practice is substantially burdened when the prison forces him to choose between his religious practice and adequate nutrition.” Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 869 (7th Cir. 2009) (finding that denying a non-meat diet during Lent and on Fridays substantially burdened the religious practice ofw a Roman Catholic prisoner).
The DOC does not directly address the fact that inmates will continue to face substantial injury if denied kosher meals pending appeal. Instead, it reiterates that providing vegan meals would satisfy RLUIPA. [Dkt. 119. At 7-8.]
Despite the DOC’s disagreement with the ruling in this case, however, the Court has determined—consistent with Seventh Circuit authority—that the denial of kosher diets substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ religious exercise. [Dkt. 103 at 13.] Therefore, the longer the DOC fails to provide kosher meals to Plaintiffs, the longer it will continue burdening their religious exercise, thereby causing Plaintiffs immediate and certain harm.
- 4 -


Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 129 Filed 01/25/11 Page 5 of 6
Because Plaintiffs will be substantially injured by a stay pending appeal, this factor, too, weighs in favor of denying the stay.
D) Does the public interest favor a stay? In its recently filed Statement of Interest, the United States Government expressed the
“well-settled” position that “the public has an interest in protecting the civil rights of all persons.” [Dkt. 126 at 3.] Citing to Cutter v. Wilkinson, it continued: “The federal government’s interest in protecting individual rights is particularly salient in the context of the religious protections afforded by RLUIPA, the latest of long-running congressional efforts to accord religious exercise heightened protection from government-imposed burdens.” 544 U.S. 709, 713 (2005). Additionally, the United States noted that “facilitating the religious exercise of incarcerated persons serves the important societal interest in rehabilitation of inmates.” [Dkt. 126 at 4.]
The DOC argues, and Plaintiffs do not dispute, that the public has “a strong interest in the orderly, efficient, safe, and effective operation of the prison system within the State of Indiana.” [Dkt. 119 at 4.] Nevertheless, the DOC has not shown how providing kosher meals might undermine this interest; it has merely provided speculative examples of various areas within its $691 million budget that could possibly be affected by a cost increase that might—but will not necessarily—result from providing kosher meals in compliance with RLUIPA.
In light of the public’s interest in protecting the right to religious exercise, inmate rehabilitation, and agency compliance with regulation, and in the corresponding absence of any evidence indicating that the provision of kosher meals would negatively impact the safety and welfare of the prison system, this factor favors denying the stay.
Because each of the four factors considered by the Court favors denying the stay on the injunction necessitated by RLUIPA, the DOC’s motion to stay the injunction is GRANTED solely as it pertains to nominal damages and otherwise DENIED. [Dkt. 118.]
- 5 -


Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 129 Filed 01/25/11 Page 6 of 6

01/25/2011

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via ECF only:
Eric James Beaver INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL eric.beaver@atg.in.gov
Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA kfalk@aclu-in.org
Cory Christian Voight INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL cory.voight@atg.in.gov

- 6 -


 
 Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 126 Filed 01/14/11 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MASTON WILLIS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; et. al.
Defendants.

Case No. 1:09-cv-815-JMS-DML
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES

I. INTRODUCTION
The United States files this Statement of Interest, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517, because this litigation implicates the proper interpretation and application of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (“RLUIPA”). In addition to private plaintiffs, Congress gave the United States the authority to bring suit to protect the federal religious rights of individuals confined to institutions. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(f). Accordingly, the United States has a strong interest in ensuring that RLUIPA’s requirements are vigorously and uniformly enforced.
This case presents an issue of significant importance to the interpretation of RLUIPA: whether the Court should stay an injunction of prison policies that the Court has determined violate federal law and impinge upon fundamental freedoms in response to the assertion of concerns about the cost of complying with the injunction during the pendency of the appeal. The United States believes the financial interests asserted by the Indiana Department of Corrections (“DOC”) in this litigation do not entitle the DOC to the extraordinary relief they request, nor do they justify perpetuating the substantial burden imposed on prisoners’ religious liberty, one of

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 126 Filed 01/14/11 Page 2 of 8
our society’s most fundamental rights. See Mayweathers v. Newland, 314 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2002) (RLUIPA is designed to “guard against unfair bias and infringement on fundamental freedoms”). As President Clinton said in signing RLUIPA, “[r]eligious liberty is a constitutional value of the highest order, and the Framers of the Constitution included protection for the free exercise of religion in the very first Amendment. This Act recognizes the importance the free exercise of religion plays in our democratic society.” See Statement by President William J. Clinton Upon Signing S. 2869, 2000 U.S.C.C.A.N. 662 (September 22, 2000).
Indeed, Congress enacted RLUIPA to combat “egregious and unnecessary” restrictions on religious exercise, “[w]hether from indifference, ignorance, bigotry, or lack of resources.” 146 Cong. Rec. 16698-99 (2000). DOC’s failure to provide kosher meals because of an asserted lack of resources is precisely the type of unnecessary restriction targeted by the Act. The United States has a strong interest in the resolution of this matter and urges this Court to deny Defendants’ Motion to Stay its injunction. II. ARGUMENT
A motion to stay a district court ruling pending appeal “is a request for extraordinary relief.” Chan v. Wodnicki, 67 F.3d 137, 139 (7th Cir. 1995); see also Hinrichs v. Bosma, 410 F.Supp. 2d 745, 748-49 (S.D. Ind. 2006) (“a stay is considered extraordinary relief for which the moving party bears a ‘heavy burden’”) (quotation omitted). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 8(a), such extraordinary relief is appropriate only where a movant demonstrates the propriety of a stay according to four factors: (1) the movant’s likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the likelihood of irreparable injury to the movant absent a stay; (3) whether a stay will substantially injure other parties to the litigation; and (4) “where the public interest lies.” Glick v. Koenig, 766 F.2d 265, 269 (7th Cir.1985).
2

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 126 Filed 01/14/11 Page 3 of 8
As set forth in Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Stay (“Pls’ Opp.”), DOC’s arguments in support of its Motion for Stay are unavailing. The United States submits this Statement of Interest, however, primarily to underscore the important public interests advanced by RLUIPA’s protections for religious freedom and the irreparable harm that inmates suffer by the failure to accommodate their religious practices. These interests militate strongly against issuing a stay in this matter, regardless of this Court’s analysis of the other relevant factors. A. The Public Interests Animating RLUIPA Weigh Against a Stay
It is well-settled that “the public has an interest in protecting the civil rights of all persons.” Edmisten v. Werholtz, 287 Fed. Appx. 728, 735 (10th Cir. 2008) (reversing denial of preliminary injunctive relief). The federal government’s interest in protecting individual rights is particularly salient in the context of the religious protections afforded by RLUIPA, “the latest of long-running congressional efforts to accord religious exercise heightened protection from government-imposed burdens.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 713 (2005). RLUIPA passed both houses of Congress unanimously and was supported by more than seventy religious and civil rights groups representing a diversity of religious and ideological viewpoints. See 146 Cong. Rec. S7777-78. Its enactment followed a three year Congressional investigation into free exercise violations involving the religious practices of institutionalized persons. River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Vill. of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367, 380 (7th Cir. 2010). As set forth in a joint statement by RLUIPA co-sponsors Orrin Hatch and Edward Kennedy, Congress found that “[w]hether from indifference, ignorance, bigotry, or lack of resources, some institutions restrict religious liberty in egregious and unnecessary ways.” See 146 Cong. Rec. 16698-99 (2000). The restrictions identified by the Congressional record include a prison’s refusal to provide Halal
3

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 126 Filed 01/14/11 Page 4 of 8
food to Muslim inmates while offering Kosher food to Jewish prisoners, unwillingness to provide Jewish inmates with sack lunches to facilitate breaking their fasts after nightfall, and denial of Sacramental Wine for use by Catholic prisoners to celebrate the Mass. See Cutter, 544 U.S. 716, n.5.
Moreover, facilitating the religious exercise of incarcerated persons serves the important societal interest in rehabilitation of inmates. This interest in rehabilitation was one of the motivations for Congress’s passage of RLUIPA. When introducing the bill that would become RLUIPA, Senator Kennedy specifically noted that restrictions on the practice of religion in the prison context could be counter-productive: “[s]incere faith and worship can be an indispensible part of rehabilitation.” See 146 Cong. Rec. S6689. Further, this interest has been repeatedly recognized by federal courts. In a decision affirming a district court’s finding that a prison violated RLUIPA by denying prayer oils to a Muslim inmate, the Seventh Circuit explained that “RLUIPA’s attempt to protect prisoners’ religious rights and to promote the rehabilitation of prisoners falls squarely within Congress’ pursuit of the general welfare.” Charles v. Verhagen, 348 F.3d 601, 607 (7th Cir. 2003); see also, e.g., Benning v. Georgia, 391 F.3d 1299, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004) (“rehabilitation of prisoners is also a[n] [] interest underlying RLUIPA”).
DOC’s general citations to cost concerns to support its argument that a stay would be in the public interest are unpersuasive. Congress underlined the importance of eradicating burdens on religious exercise by explicitly providing that compliance with RLUIPA “may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(c). Indeed, as this Court recognized, “the idea that cost alone could provide a compelling government interest directly contravenes Seventh Circuit precedent.” (Order at 16). See also Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 800 (7th Cir. 2008) (while
4

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 126 Filed 01/14/11 Page 5 of 8
“efficient food service” is a legitimate penological interest in the First Amendment context, “no appellate court has ever found th[is] to be [a] compelling interest[]”). Just as the Court determined that DOC’s cost concerns are inadequate to justify a substantial burden inmates’ practice of religion under RLUIPA, so should those same interests be inadequate to burden inmates’ religious practice during the pendency of the DOC’s appeal.
DOC’s failure to provide a kosher diet substantially burdens a fundamental freedom and frustrates RLUIPA’s objectives. Staying this Court’s injunction would perpetuate these ills. B. Issuing a Stay Would Perpetuate Irreparable Harm to Jewish Inmates
Further, staying this Court’s injunction would perpetuate serious harm to Jewish inmates incarcerated at DOC facilities. Plaintiffs are sincere adherents of the Jewish faith attempting to follow the laws of kasruth, an intrinsic part of the daily life of observant Jews. Pls’ Mot. for Summ. J. (Dkt. No. 81) at 3. As this Court recognized in its Order, DOC’s failure to provide a kosher diet violates Plaintiffs’ sincerely-held beliefs and substantially burdens their religious practice. Order at 13-14. Indeed, Plaintiffs believe that forced consumption of non-kosher food harms their souls. Pls’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 3. Plaintiffs have already been forced to choose between enduring this harm and consuming nutritionally adequate meals since DOC discontinued its kosher food program in June 2009. Staying this Court’s injunction would needlessly prolong their hardship.
Even a temporary inability to obtain a kosher diet will irreparably harm Plaintiffs and substantially burden their religious practice. The Seventh Circuit has held “that a prisoner’s religious dietary practice is substantially burdened when the prison forces him to choose between his religious practice and adequate nutrition.” Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 879 (7th Cir. 2009). “Given the strong significance of keeping kosher in the Jewish faith, [a Department of
5

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 126 Filed 01/14/11 Page 6 of 8

Correction’s] policy of not providing kosher food may be deemed to work a substantial burden

upon [an inmate’s] practice of his faith.” Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 125 (5th Cir. 2007).

The failure to keep kosher even for a few months or a year while the appeal is pending will still

result in a substantial burden on Jewish inmates’ religious practice and cause irreparable harm.

Indeed, the status quo forces Jewish inmates to choose between exercising their religious beliefs

and consuming nutritionally adequate meals. As the Supreme Court has explained in the First

Amendment context, “the loss of [] freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably

constitutes irreparable harm.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976).

By contrast, DOC’s broad claims about the cost of complying with this Court’s order do

not allege an irreparable injury. Indeed, DOC fails to even identify the specific cost of its

compliance. Even if the DOC did identify these costs, however, “[m]ere injuries, however

substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay,

are not enough” to warrant the extraordinary relief DOC requests. American Hospital Ass'n v.

Harris, 625 F.2d 1328, 1331 (7th Cir. 1980) (denying hospital association’s motion to enjoin

regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare).

* * *

In short, staying this Court’s injunction would extend the injuries wrought by DOC’s

denial of kosher meals and frustrate the important public interests underlying RLUIPA. The

United States respectfully asks that the Court decline DOC’s invitation to do so.

III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court should deny Defendants’ Motion to Stay. With

the Court’s permission, counsel for the United States will be present at any hearings on this

Motion.

6

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 126 Filed 01/14/11 Page 7 of 8

Respectfully submitted, FOR THE UNITED STATES:

TIMOTHY MYGATT Special Counsel Civil Rights Division
MICHAEL J. SONGER Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division
/s/ Michael J. Songer TIMOTHY D. MYGATT [PA Bar 90403] MICHAEL J. SONGER [DC Bar 975029] Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 514-6255

7

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 126 Filed 01/14/11 Page 8 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I have this day electronically filed the foregoing STATEMENT OF INTEREST with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all parties in this matter via electronic notification or otherwise:
Cory C. Voight David A. Arthur Deputy Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor 302 W. Washington St Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770 cory.voight@atg.in.gov david.arthur@atg.in.gov
Kenneth J. Falk ACLU of Indiana 1031 E. Washington St Indianapolis, IN 46202 kfalk@aclu-in.org
This 14th day of January, 2011.
/s/ Michael J. Songer MICHAEL J. SONGER Attorney Special Litigation Section
8

 
 !
!
753$F.Supp.2d$768$(2010)!
Maston$WILLIS,$et$al.,$Plaintiffs,$ v.$
COMMISSIONER,$INDIANA$DEPARTMENT$OF$CORRECTION,$et$al.,$ Defendants.$
No.!1:09)cv)815)JMS)DML.!
United$States$District$Court,$S.D.$Indiana,$Indianapolis$Division.!
November!1,!2010.!
769*769!Kenneth!J.!Falk,!ACLU!of!Indiana,!Indianapolis,!IN,!for!Plaintiff.!
Cory!Christian!Voight,!Eric!James!Beaver,!Indiana!Office!of!the!Attorney!General,! Indianapolis,!IN,!for!Defendants.!
Joseph!T.!Williams)El,!Michigan!City,!IN,!pro!se.!
Earl!Raheem!Michigan!City,!IN,!pro!se.!
Roman!Jones,!Michigan!City,!IN,!pro!se.!
T.!Harris,!Michigan!City,!IN,!pro!se.!
Failis!Ramsey,!Michigan!City,!IN,!pro!se.!
ORDER$
JANE!MAGNUS)STINSON,!District!Judge.! Presently!before!the!Court!are!the!parties'!Cross)Motions!for!Summary!Judgment,[1]![dkt.! 80]!83],!in!this!action!seeking!770*770!enforcement!of!inmates'!rights!to!obtain!kosher!meals! to!properly!exercise!their!religious!beliefs!during!their!incarceration!at!the!Indiana! Department!of!Correction.!
I.$ STANDARD$OF$REVIEW$

A!motion!for!summary!judgment!asks!that!the!Court!find!that!a!trial!based!on!the! uncontroverted!and!admissible!evidence!would!—!as!a!matter!of!law!—!conclude!in!the! moving!party's!favor!and!is!thus!unnecessary.!See!Fed.!R.!Civ.!Pro.!56(c).!When!evaluating! a!motion!for!summary!judgment,!the!Court!must!give!the!non)moving!party!the!benefit!of!all! reasonable!inferences!from!the!evidence!submitted!and!resolve!"any!doubt!as!to!the! existence!of!a!genuine!issue!for!trial!...!against!the!moving!party."!Celotex(Corp.(v.( Catrett,!477!U.S.!317,!330!n.!2,!106!S.Ct.!2548,!91!L.Ed.2d!265!(1986).!Nevertheless,!"the! Court's!favor!toward!the!non)moving!party!does!not!extend!to!drawing!inferences!that!are! supported!by!only!speculation!or!conjecture."!Singer(v.(Raemisch,!593!F.3d!529,!533!(7th! Cir.!2010).!The!non)moving!party!must!set!forth!specific!facts!showing!that!there!is!a! material!issue!for!trial!and!cannot!rely!upon!the!mere!allegations!or!denials!in!the!pleadings.! Fed.!R.!Civ.!Pro.!56(e)]!Celotex,!477!U.S.!317,!106!S.Ct.!2548.!Moreover,!the!non)moving! party!must!do!more!than!just!demonstrate!a!factual!disagreement!between!the!parties]!it! must!demonstrate!that!the!disputed!factual!issue!is!"material."!Outlaw(v.(Newkirk,!259!F.3d! 833,!837!(7th!Cir.2001).!The!key!inquiry!is!the!existence!of!evidence!to!support!a!plaintiff's! claims!or!affirmative!defenses,!not!the!weight!or!credibility!of!that!evidence,!both!of!which! are!assessments!reserved!to!the!trier!of!fact.!See(Schacht(v.(Wis.(Dep't(of(Corrections,175! F.3d!497,!504!(7th!Cir.1999).!
Cross)motions!for!summary!judgment!do!not!automatically!mean!that!all!questions!of! material!fact!have!been!resolved.!Franklin(v.(City(of(Evanston,!384!F.3d!838,!842!(7th! Cir.2004).!The!Court!must!evaluate!each!motion!independently,!making!all!reasonable! inferences!in!favor!of!the!nonmoving!party!with!respect!to!each!motion.!Id.!at!843.!
After!having!assessed!the!claims!of!the!parties!in!accordance!with!the!standards!outlined! above,!the!Court!concludes!that!Mr.!Willis,!on!behalf!of!the!class,!is!entitled!to!summary! judgment!on!Count!I,!and!that!Mr.!Willis!is!individually!entitled!to!declaratory!relief!as!to! Count!II.!Therefore,!in!what!follows,!the!Court!makes!all!reasonable!factual!inferences!in! favor!of!the!Defendants!(collectively,!the!"DOC,"unless!otherwise!indicated)!with!respect!to! the!class!claims.!With!respect!to!Mr.!Willis's!individual!claims,!the!Court!will!draw!all! reasonable!inferences!in!favor!of!the!non)moving!party.!See!Fed.!R.!Civ.!Pro.!56(c).!
II.$
BACKGROUND$
This!action!involves!a!claim!for!class!relief,!as!well!as!a!claim!for!individual!relief.!On!behalf! of!the!class!previously!defined!by!this!Court,!Mr.!Willis!argues!that!the!denial!of!kosher! meals!violates!the!religious!rights!of!all!the!class!members.![Dkt.!81!at!1.]!In!an!individual! capacity,!Mr.!Willis!further!argues!that!being!deprived!his!religious!meal!card!after!failing!to! eat!at!least!75!percent!of!his!meals!771*771!violated!his!individual!First!Amendment!rights.! [Id.!at!2.]!
A)$DOC's$Food$Service$
Since!2005,!the!DOC!has!contracted!with!Aramark!Correctional!Services,!Inc.!("Aramark")! to!provide!food!services!for!inmates.![Dkt.!84!at!3.]!The!contract,!which!is!updated!annually,!

establishes!a!per)meal!price!that!is!multiplied!by!the!daily!inmate!census!and!charged! accordingly.![Id.]!In!2009,!each!meal!cost!$1.154.![Id.]!The!DOC's!contract!with!Aramark! originally!provided!that!kosher!meals!would!be!billed!to!the!DOC!on!top!of!the!amount! already!billed!based!on!population!figures.!In!2005,!the!cost!of!kosher!meals!ranged!from! $3.99!to!$4.11!per!meal.![Id.]!
All!DOC!facilities!have!kitchens!staffed!by!Aramark!employees.![Id.!at!4.]!Each!kitchen!area! has!preparation,!cooking,!distribution,!and!cleaning!areas.![Id.]!In!larger!facilities,!trays,! glasses,!utensils,!and!some!pots!and!pans!are!washed!in!large!commercial!dishwashers]! the!larger!food!preparation!items!are!washed!in!three)bay!sinks.![Id.]!In!smaller!facilities,!all! items!are!washed!in!three)bay!sinks.![Id.]!
B)$Keeping$Kosher$
The!DOC!acknowledges!that!keeping!kosher!is!an!intrinsic!element!of!the!faith!of!some! Jews.![Id.]!Historically,!the!DOC!has!also!permitted!even!non)Jews!who!have!a!sincerely! held!religious!reason!for!requesting!kosher!meals!to!obtain!them.![Id.!at!7.]!
The!laws!of!kosher!address!a!comprehensive!dietary!system!—!including!not!only!the!types! of!foods!that!may!be!eaten,!but!also!the!preparation!requirements,!which!ensure!kosher! ingredients!are!not!"contaminated"!by!non)kosher!ingredients.![Dkt.!80)1!at!3.]!An! assurance!against!the!possibility!of!"contamination"!is!a!crucial!part!of!the!laws!of!kosher.! [Dkt.!83)14!at!7.]!According!to!the!laws!of!kosher,!dairy!and!meat,!both!of!which!must!be! kosher!in!their!core!ingredients,!must!be!totally!separated!during!preparation!and! consumption]!they!may!neither!be!served!at!the!same!meal!nor!mixed!with!plates/utensils! that!have!touched!the!other!category!of!food.![Id.!at!7)8]!dkt.!80)1!at!5.]!Observant!Jews! wait!one!hour!after!consuming!dairy!before!eating!meat!and!six!hours!after!consuming!meat! before!eating!dairy.![Dkt.!80)1!at!4.]!The!same!is!true!for!anything!touching!the!foods,!e.g.,! plates,!utensils,!glasses.![Id.!at!5.]!Although!the!laws!of!kosher!are!traditionally!complicated,! one!fundamental!tenet!is!non)contamination!of!kosher!food!products!with!non)kosher! products!during!and!after!preparation!—!as!such,!kosher!food!must!be!carefully!supervised! through!the!phases!of!production.![Dkt.!80)1!at!3.]!
C)$Past$DOC$Practice$Regarding$the$Preparation$of$ Kosher$Meals$
In!the!past,!the!DOC!has!ensured!non)contamination!of!kosher!meals!by!having!them! cooked!and!then!frozen!offsite!by!a!certified!kosher!food!vendor!contracted!by!Aramark.! [Dkt.!84!at!5.]!The!meals!would!then!be!heated!at!the!facilities!and!supplemented!by!other! foods!made!with!kosher!ingredients!(the!latter!of!which!were!prepared!at!the!facilities! without!utensils).![Id.]!Everything!in!the!prepackaged!kosher!meals,!as!well!as!the!utensils! and!cups!used!to!serve!them,!was!single)use!and!disposable.![Id.]!
DOC!policy!required!authorization!of!religious!personal!preference!diets!—!inmates!with! special!diets!were!issued!diet!cards.![Id.]!The!number!of!kosher!meals!prepared! corresponded!with!the!number!of!inmates!with!kosher!personal!preference!diet!cards.![Id.]!

At!meal)time,!inmates!would!present!their!personal!preference!772*772!diet!card,!and!the! food!service!supervisor!would!make!a!record!of!it.![Id.!at!6.]!The!supervisor!then!inspected! the!inmate's!tray!"to!ensure!it![was]!made!correctly."![Id.]!
When!pre)packaged!kosher!meals!were!served!on!a!daily!basis,!the!lunch!and!dinner!meals! were!pre)packaged,!but!the!breakfast!meals!were!not.![Dkt.!84!at!5.]!The!breakfast!meal! was!served!with!no!meat!and!with!the!kosher!ingredients!that!were!set!aside!for!the!kosher! meals.![Id.]!To!reduce!the!risk!of!contamination!between!kosher!and!non)kosher!foods,! breakfasts!were!to!be!prepared!without!utensils!when!possible,!and!all!items!used!to! prepare!and!serve!the!breakfast!meals!were!disposed!of!after!the!meal.![Id.]!The!cost!of! disposable!utensils!for!the!breakfast!meal!was!included!in!the!per)meal!cost!charged!by! Aramark!to!DOC.![Id.at!6.]!
Other!kosher!foods,!including!tuna!and!peanut!butter,!were!available!for!inmates!to! purchase!from!the!commissary.![Id.]!The!DOC!also!provided,!and!continues!to!provide,! "lacto)ovo!vegetarian"!diet!options!(i.e.,!vegetarian!meals!that!may!include!eggs!and!dairy)! and!diets!without!red!meat,!which!were!prepared!with!the!regular!meals!and!separated!at! the!time!of!serving,!thereby!rendering!them!non)kosher.![Id.!at!6.]!These!types!of!meals! involve!kosher!ingredients,!though!aren't!necessarily!kosher!given!the!way!they!are! prepared.![Dkt.!83)8!at!6.]!
In!addition!to!pre)packaged!kosher!diets,!the!DOC!briefly!provided!Hallal[2]!meals!to!Muslim! inmates.![Dkt.!84!at!6.]!Notably,!the!ingredients!in!the!pre)packaged!kosher!meals!meet!the! basic!requirements!of!Hallal,!but!preparation!and!service!of!Hallal!meals!does!not!present! the!issue!of!cross)contamination.![Id.!at!8.]!
D)$Cost$Reduction$at$DOC$
The!extra!cost!incurred!by!the!DOC!in!providing!kosher!meals!to!individuals!who!requested! them!—!some!of!whom!were!non)Jewish!but!requested!them!in!accordance!with!other! religious!beliefs,![dkt.!84!at!7],!was!initially!a!few!thousand!dollars!per!month.![Id.]!But!in!the! past!few!years,!the!number!of!kosher!meals!increased,!in!large!part!due!to!Muslim!inmates! who!did!not!have!access!to!Hallal!meals!but!found!sufficient!substitutes!in!kosher!meals.! [Id.]!DOC!chose!to!accommodate!the!Hallal!meal!requests!by!providing!pre)packaged! kosher!meals.![Id.]!The!cost!of!providing!kosher!meals!increased!accordingly.![Id.!at!7)8.]!By! the!fall!of!2008,!the!monthly!cost!of!pre)packaged!kosher!meals!had!risen!to!between! $40,000!and!$60,000.![Id.!at!9.]!
On!January!1,!2009,!in!an!effort!to!reduce!costs,!the!DOC!began!serving!Hallal!meals,!the! entrée!portions!of!which!were!prepared!offsite!and!substituted!for!the!entrées!served!in! regular!meals.![Id.]!The!cost!to!DOC!was!$2.00!per!meal!above!the!per)capita!cost,!just!half! the!cost!of!kosher!meals.![Id.]!However,!since!the!number!of!inmates!receiving!Hallal!meals! vastly!exceeded!the!number!of!inmates!who!had!been!receiving!pre)packaged!kosher! meals,!the!cost!of!the!Hallal!meals!continued!increasing!until!it!was!over!$100,000!for!the! month!of!February.![Id.!at!10.]!
In!April!2008,!DOC!instituted!a!policy!("the(75Ipercent(policy")!in!an!attempt!to!curb! increasing!religious!preference!costs.!DOC!already!had!in!place!a!policy!suspending!special!

diets!for!offenders!who!failed!to!pick!up!25!percent!of!medically!prescribed!diets.![Id.!at!11.]! The!medical!diet!policy!was!developed!in!part!by!DOC's!Director!of!Religious!Services!and! Community!773*773!Involvement,!Dr.!Hall,!one!of!the!individual!Defendants!named!here.! [Dkt.!83)8!at!22.]!Under!the!policy!as!amended,!if!an!inmate!with!any!personal!preference! diet!card!failed!to!"participate!in"!at!least!75!percent!of!all!religious!meals,!the!personal! preference!diet!card!was!suspended.![Dkt.!84!at!11.]!Aramark!was!to!provide!the!chaplains! a!weekly!list!showing!the!compliance!of!individual!inmates.!Chaplains!would!decide!whether! inmates'!diet!card!use!violated!the!policy.![Id.]!If!an!inmate!disagreed!with!the!chaplains'! decision,!he!could!file!a!grievance!to!be!reviewed!at!the!facility.![Id.]!The!inmate!could!then! appeal!the!result!of!the!grievance!to!Dr.!Hall.![Id.]!
Despite!this!policy,!the!cost!of!religious!preference!diets!continued!growing!beyond!what! DOC!deemed,!"an!acceptable!level!due!to!the!massive!increase!in!the!numbers!of! offenders!who!wanted!pre)packaged!religious!meals."![Id.!at!12.]!DOC!offered!no!evidence! that!this!"massive!increase"!was!caused!because!of!kosher!meal!requests.[3]!There!is!also! no!evidence!that!DOC!tried!or!considered!ways!to!reduce!costs!of!kosher!meals!at!this! point.!Instead,!because!"the!DOC!did!not!have!the!funds!to!absorb!the!increase!in!cost!of! providing!these!meals,"!(again,!not!limited!to!kosher,)!on!June!1.2010,!the!DOC! "discontinue[d]!providing!prepackaged!meals!to!offenders!who!requested!personal! preference!diets!for!religious!reasons!and!offered!them!vegan!meals![(i.e.,!meals!that!use! exclusively!plant)based!ingredients)]!prepared!in!the!facilities."![Id.]!Discontinuing!the!pre) packaged!kosher!and!Hallal!meals!reduced!the!DOC's!additional!costs!to!zero,!as!Aramark! will!supply!vegan!meals!as!part!of!its!base!price!on!the!contract.![Id.!at!12)13.]!
E)$DOC's$Stipulation$
DOC!acknowledges,!"The!laws!of![kosher]!require!Jews!to!keep!kosher!in!their!diet,!which! includes!both!the!types!of!foods!that!may!be!eaten!and!preparation!requirements!to!ensure! those!ingredients!are!not!contaminated.![Dkt.!84!at!4.]!Therefore,!DOC!does!not!claim!that! the!vegan!meals!are!kosher.![Dkt.!83)8!at!6.]!In!fact,!DOC!affirmatively!states,!"[DOC!does]! not!offer!affirmative!proof!that!the!vegan!meals!are!in!fact!kosher!according!to!the!plaintiff's! definition."![Dkt.!90!at!3.]!
Instead,!DOC!asserts!that!the!food!is!"being!served!as!part!of!a!menu!that!does!not!contain! items!that!are!restricted!by!the!laws!of!kosher."![Id.]!Nevertheless,!despite!the!fact!that!the! ingredients!used!in!vegan!meals!are!themselves!kosher,!the!parties!agree!that!a!meal! made!from!these!ingredients!is!not!necessarily!kosher:!The!problem!lies!in!the!preparation,! for!if,!at!any!point,!non)kosher!ingredients,!water,!or!plates/utensils!that!have!touched!non) kosher!food!contaminates!the!vegan!food,!the!meal!is!no!longer!kosher.![Dkt.!83)6.]!
F)$Vegan$as$an$Alternative$to$Kosher$
Despite!its!acknowledgement!that!vegan!meals!are!not!necessarily!kosher,!DOC!attempts! to!prepare!vegan!food!in!accordance!with!kosher!principles.![Dkt.!84!at!13.]!However,!these! attempts!are!not!fail)safe.!For!example,!in!every!facility,!there!is!a!separate!area!for!the! preparation!of!vegan!food]!and!pots,!pans,!utensils,!and!trays!are!specifically!designated!to! be!used!774*774!for!vegan!food!preparation.![Id.]!Nevertheless,!the!same!dishwashers!and!

three)bay!sinks!that!are!used!to!wash!these!items!are!used!to!prepare!and!serve!non)vegan! meals,!in!violation!of!the!laws!of!kosher.![Id.]!Although!the!dishwashers!and!three)bay!sinks! are!"supposed!to!be!completely!cleaned!and!sanitized!before!washing"!anything!used!to! prepare!and!serve!vegan!meals,!DOC!can!offer!no!assurance!that!this!process!is!actually! carried!out!at!every!meal.![Id.]!Likewise,!sporks,!cups!and!glasses!are!"supposed!to!be! identified!as!vegan,"!and!washed!and!stored!separately!from!trays!on!which!non)vegan! meals!are!served,!but!this!policy!may!have!little!bearing!on!actual!DOC!practice.[4]![Id.J!dkt.! 83)2!at!15.]!Finally,!although!there!are!separate!sponges!and!rags!to!clean!food!surfaces! that!are!designated!for!vegan!food,!there!is!no!supervision!of!their!actual!use.![Id.]!
In!an!effort!to!regulate!these!policies,!two!DOC!employees!perform!unannounced!on)site! audits!of!all!DOC!facilities!in!which!Aramark!provides!food!services.![Dkt.!83)1!at!5.]! Additionally,!DOC!conducts!follow)up!audits!to!ensure!that!issues!identified!in!an!audit!are! resolved.![Id.]!The!DOC!has!audited!every!facility!serving!vegan!meals,!and!"none!of!these! audits!are!known!to!have!revealed!any!significant!issues!concerning!actual!or!potential! contamination!of!vegan!meals!being!prepared!in!the!same!facility!as!non)kosher!meals."! [Id.!at!6.]!But!although!DOC's!audits!do!include!a!review!of!food!service!operations!of!vegan! meals!to!ensure!guidelines!separating!vegan!from!regular!meals!are!met,![Id.!at!5],!the! audits!themselves!are!simply!to!ensure!that!food!services!meet!"minimum!accreditation! standards"!and!to!address!any!issue!identified!by!the!Department!of!Health!—!not!to!ensure! compliance!with!the!laws!of!kosher.![Id.!at!5.]!DOC!therefore!recognizes!that!these! practices!simply!"decrease!the!likelihood!of!cross)contamination!of!vegan!meals"!—!they!do! not!eliminate!the!possibility.![Dkt.!84!at!15.]!
DOC!maintains!that!imposing!stricter!measures!to!ensure!non)contamination!would!be! costly:!"It!is!far!cheaper!to!use!re)usable!trays!and!silverware!and!wash!them."![Id.]!It!says! that!it!will!continue!to!attempt!to!improve!its!procedures!to!ensure!vegan!meals!can!be! prepared!in!a!kosher!manner,!but!that!there!are!no!known!alternatives!that!will!not!increase! the!costs!to!DOC.![Id.]!That!said,!the!DOC!has!made!no!attempt!to!determine!if!other! providers!could!deliver!kosher!diets!less!expensively!or!to!quantify!the!alleged!expense! associated!with!improved!supervision.![Dkt.!89!at!13.]!
G)$Maston$Willis$
Maston!Willis!is!an!Orthodox!Jew!who!has!been!continuously!incarcerated!in!DOC!since! 2003.![Dkt.!83)14!at!2)3.]!Mr.!Willis'!incarceration!has!been!primarily!at!Miami!Correctional! Facility!("MCF").![Id.!at!2.]!Consistent!with!the!traditions!of!Orthodox!Judaism,!observing!the! laws!of!kosher!are!essential!to!Mr.!Willis'!faith.![Id.!at!3)4.]!According!to!Mr.!Willis,!whether! or!not!food!is!kosher!depends!on!the!ingredients!and!how!it!is!prepared,!and!he!will!not!eat! unreliably!prepared!meals.[5]!775*775![Dkt.!83)14!at!7.]!Like!many!observant!Jews,!Mr.!Willis! will!not!consume!dairy!for!six!hours!after!eating!meat.![Id.!at!19.]!
Mr.!Willis!eats!neither!the!vegan!meals!nor!the!vegetarian!meals!because!they!are!not! kosher.![Dkt.!83)14!at!19.]!When!kosher!diets!were!available!at!MCF,!Mr.!Willis!signed!up! for!and!received!the!kosher!food.![Id.!at!8.]!But!because!breakfast!at!MCF!was!not!pre) packaged,!Mr.!Willis!did!not!eat!it!out!of!concern!about!cross)contamination.![Id.]!So!that!he! did!not!have!to!stand!in!line!and!pick!up!a!non)kosher!breakfast!only!to!throw!it!away,!Mr.! Willis!obtained!permission!from!an!official!to!stay!in!his!cell!during!breakfast.![Dkt.!89!at!25.]!

He!obtained!this!permission!before!the!75)percent!policy!was!imposed.![Dkt.!95!at!19.]!At! this!point,!it!"may!have!been!possible"!for!Mr.!Willis!to!try!to!go!through!the!breakfast!line! and!submit!his!diet!card!for!his!participation!to!be!marked!and!then!decline!to!accept!the! meal.![Dkt.!84!at!20.]!In!April!2009,!upon!learning!that!Mr.!Willis!only!used!his!diet!card!for! 62!percent!of!meals,!Chaplain!Hodges,!the!other!Defendant!in!this!case,!suspended!Mr.! Willis'!diet!card.![Dkt.!83)14!at!16.]!
In!May!2009,!MCF!discontinued!the!distribution!of!pre)packaged!kosher!meals!altogether.! [Dkt.!84!at!21.]!Any!inmate!who!requested!a!diet!for!religious!reasons!was!instead!offered!a! personal!preference!diet!card!for!a!vegan!meal.![Id.]!On!May!26,!2007,!Mr.!Willis!requested! in!writing!that!his!kosher!diet!be!restored!the!next!day.![Id.]!Chaplain!Hodges!approved!the! request!but!offered!Mr.!Willis!the!vegan!diet.!Mr.!Willis!refused.![Id.]!
Mr.!Willis!grieved!the!revocation!of!his!kosher!diet!card,!and!the!prison's!administrative! assistant!denied!his!grievance.![Id.]!Mr.!Willis!then!appealed!his!grievance,!and!his!appeal! was!likewise!denied.![Id.]!
III.$
DISCUSSION$
In!Count!I!of!his!Second!Amended!Complaint,!Mr.!Willis!alleges,!on!behalf!of!the!class,!that! the!denial!of!kosher!meals!for!inmates[6]!who!requested!them!for!religious!reasons!violates! the!Religious!Land!Use!and!Institutionalized!Persons!Act!("RLUIPA"),!42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc) 1(a).!In!Count!II,!Mr.!Willis!seeks!declaratory[7]relief!against!DOC!for!implementing!a!policy! that!violated!his!rights!under!RLUIPA.![Dkt.!84!at!1.]!He!further!seeks!nominal!damages! under!§!1983!against!Defendants!Dr.!Hall!and!Chaplain!Hodges!for!creating!and!enforcing! DOC!policy!that!required!inmates!to!use!their!religious!diet!cards!for!at!least!75!percent!of! prison!meals,!lest!the!card!be!revoked,!in!violation!of!the!First!Amendment.![Id.]!
A)$Does$the$DOC's$Termination$of$Kosher$Diets$ Violate$RLUIPA?$
RLUIPA!was!"enacted!...!in!part,!to!protect!inmates!and!other! institutionalized!776*776persons!from!substantial!burdens!in!freely!practicing!their! religions."!Charles(v.(Verhagen,!348!F.3d!601,!606!(7th!Cir.2003).!The!burden!of! implementing!RLUIPA!applies!to!any!facility!owned!or!operated!by!a!state!including!prisons! —!but!only!if!the!prison!system!receives!federal!funding.!42!U.S.C.!§§!2000cc)1,!1997(1).! Because!the!parties!agree!that!the!DOC!has!received!the!benefit!of!federal!funding!for!its! facilities,!it!is!obligated!to!comply!with!the!conditions!Congress!attached!to!that!funding.! [Dkt.!17!at!5.]!Accordingly,!RLUIPA!prevents!the!DOC!from!imposing!"a!substantial!burden! on!the!religious!exercise"!of!inmates,!unless!it!"demonstrates!that!imposition!of!the!burden! ...!(1)!is!in!furtherance!of!a!compelling!government!interest]!and!(2)!is!the!least!restrictive! means!of!furthering!that!compelling!governmental!interest."!42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc)1(a).!

In!making!a!claim!under!RLUIPA,!a!plaintiff!inmate!bears!the!burden!of!persuasion!on!the! issue!of!whether!the!challenged!practices!substantially!burden!the!exercise!of!their!religion.! 42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc)2(b).!Once!an!inmate!establishes!"this!prima!facie!case,!the!defendants! bear!the!burden!of!persuasion!on!any![other]!element!of!the!claim,!...!namely!whether!their! practice!is!the!least!restrictive!means!of!furthering!a!compelling!governmental! interest."!Koger(v.(Bryan,!523!F.3d!789,!796!(7th!Cir.2008)!(quotations!omitted).!
1.$Do$Kosher$Diets$Constitute$Religious$Exercise$ under$RLUIPA?$
The!first!question!under!RLUIPA!is!whether!the!termination!of!kosher!diets!affected!a! "religious!exercise,"!which!statute!defines!as!"exercise!of!religion,!whether!or!not!compelled! by,!or!central!to,!a!system!of!religious!belief."!42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc)5(7)(a).!"Although! RLUIPA!bars!inquiry!into!whether!a!particular!belief!or!practice!is!`central'!to!a!prisoner's! religion!...!the!Act!does!not!preclude!inquiry!into!the!sincerity!of!a!prisoner's!professed! religiosity."!Cutter(v.(Wilkinson,!544!U.S.!709,!725!n.!13,!125!S.Ct.!2113,!161!L.Ed.2d!1020! (2005).!
Here,!the!DOC!does!not!dispute!either!that!a!kosher!diet!is!part!of!the!sincerely!held! religious!beliefs!and!practices!of!some!observant!Jews,!or!that!it!is!fundamental!to!the! sincerely!held!religious!beliefs!and!practices!of!Plaintiffs.![Dkt.!89!at!13]!dkt.!84!at!16.]! Accordingly,!the!Court!finds!that!keeping!kosher!constitutes!religious!exercise!for!Plaintiffs.!
2.$Does$Denial$of$Kosher$Diets$Create$a$"Substantial$ Burden"$under$RLUIPA?$
Plaintiffs!bear!the!burden!of!persuasion!on!the!issue!of!whether!the!challenged!practices! "substantially!burden"!the!exercise!of!their!religion.!42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc)2(b).!The!term! "substantial!burden"!as!used!in!RLUIPA!is!not!specifically!defined!in!the!statute.!However,! the!Seventh!Circuit!has!"held!that!in!the!context!of!RLUIPA's!broad!definition!of!religious! exercise,!a!...!regulation!that!imposes!a!substantial!burden!on!religious!exercise!is!one!that! necessarily!bears!direct,!primary,!and!fundamental!responsibility!for!rendering!religious! exercise!...!effectively!impracticable."!Koger,!523!F.3d!at!799!(quoting!Civil(Liberties(for( Urban(Believers(v.(City(of(Chicago,!342!F.3d!752,!761!(7th!Cir.2003)).!In!the!specific! context!of!dietary!restrictions,!the!Seventh!Circuit!has!held!that!"a!prisoner's!religious! dietary!practice!is!substantially!burdened!when!the!prison!forces!him!to!choose!between!his! religious!practice!and!adequate!nutrition."!Nelson(v.(Miller,!570!F.3d!868,!869!(7th! Cir.2009)!(finding!that!denying!a!non)meat!diet!during!Lent!and!on! Fridays!777*777!substantially!burdened!the!religious!practice!of!a!Roman!Catholic!prisoner).! The!Seventh!Circuit!has!further!noted!that!for!an!observant!Jew,!demanding!a!kosher!diet!is! tantamount!to!"asking!for!accommodation!of!a!religious!exercise!rooted!in!sincerely!held! beliefs."!Koger,!523!F.3d!at!798]!see(also(Hunafa(v.(Murphy,!907!F.2d!46,!47!(7th! Cir.1990)!(involving!Muslim!inmates!forced!to!choose!between!pork!and!inadequate! nutrition).!Thus,!if!the!evidence!reveals!that!DOC!denies!kosher!meals!in!violation!of!the! plaintiff!inmates'!religious!dietary!practices,!Plaintiffs!will!have!established!a!prima!facie! case.!Nelson,!570!F.3d!at!869.!

In!response!to!Plaintiffs'!argument!that!the!denial!of!kosher!meals!burdens!their!religious! exercise,!the!DOC!does!not!claim!to!provide!kosher!meals.![Dkt.!83)8!at!20)21.]!It!does,! however,!maintain!that!"the!food![(i.e.,!vegan!food)]!is!being!served!as!part!of!that!menu! does!not!contain!items!that!are!restricted!by!the!laws!of!kosher."![Id.]!In!other!words,!the! DOC!uses!kosher!ingredients,!but!does!not!guarantee!meals!prepared!according!to!kosher! law.!The!DOC's!argument,!therefore,!is!that!"[a]lthough!it!may!be!a!substantial!burden!to!a! Jewish!prisoner's!exercise!to!be!required!to!eat!food!that!is!not!kosher,!the!mere(risk!of!food! with!kosher!ingredients!being!contaminated!and!rendered!non)kosher!does!not!present!a! substantial!burden!to!a!prisoner."![Dkt.!84!at!23!(emphasis!added).]!The!DOC!goes!on!to! argue!(although!not!until!its!reply)!that!because!varying!degrees!of!observance!exist!within! the!class!and!within!Judaism!at!large!—!some!of!which!adhere!to!the!laws!of!kosher!and! some!of!which!do!not!—!providing!kosher!meals!to!every!individual!involved!in!this!litigation! means!that!"the!State!has!effectively!aligned!itself!with!one!side!of!an!internal!debate!within! Judaism,"![dkt.!95!at!16],!potentially!in!violation!of!the!Establishment!Clause.![Dkt.!95!at!15.]!
The!Court!must,!however,!reject!the!DOC's!argument!for!three!reasons.!First,!the!provision! of!kosher!meals!does!not!burden!any!inmate!—!Jewish!or!not!—!who!prefer!to!eat!non) kosher!meals.!The!class!here!is!limited!to!individuals!who!have!self)identified!as!requiring!a! kosher!diet!to!properly!exercise!their!religious!beliefs.!The!parties!agree!that!the!term! "kosher"!implicates!not!only!ingredients!but!also!method!of!preparation.!Second,!merely! reducing!the!risk!that!kosher!ingredients!are!contaminated!does!not!make!vegan!meals! kosher,!nor!does!DOC!argue!otherwise.!Finally,!the!only!question!at!issue!here,!based!on! the!plain!language!of!RLUIPA,!is!whether!having!access!to!kosher!foods!is!part!of!the! sincere!religious!exercise!of!Plaintiffs.!42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc)2(a).!Again,!the!parties!agree! that!keeping!kosher!is!part!of!Plaintiffs'!sincerely!held!religious!beliefs,!and!the!class!is!so! defined.!Thus,!the!Court!concludes!—!consistent!with!Seventh!Circuit!authority!—!that!the! DOC!substantially!burdened!the!Plaintiffs'!religious!exercise!when!it!denied!them!kosher! food.!See(Nelson,!570!F.3d!at!868.!
3.$Has$DOC$Met$Its$Burden$under$RLUIPA?$
Because!Plaintiffs!established!that!the!denial!of!kosher!diets!substantially!burdens!their! religious!exercise,!the!DOC!can!only!avoid!a!violation!of!RLUIPA!if!it!can!demonstrate!that! the!imposition!of!this!burden!furthers!a!compelling!governmental!interest!and!it!is!the!least! restrictive!means!of!furthering!that!interest.!42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc)1(a),!)1(b).!
a)$Is$there$a$Compelling$Government$Interest?$
In!Cutter(v.(Wilkinson,!544!U.S.!709,!125!S.Ct.!2113,!161!L.Ed.2d!1020!(2005),778*778!the! United!States!Supreme!Court!stressed!that!RLUIPA's!legislative!history!demands!that! courts!enforcing!the!statute!give!"`due!deference!to!the!experience!and!expertise!of!prison! and!jail!administrators!in!establishing!necessary!regulations!and!procedures!to!maintain! good!order,!security!and!discipline,!consistent!with!considerations!of!costs!and!limited! resources.'"!Id.!at!723,!125!S.Ct.!2113.!However,!accommodating!a!religious!practice!will! generally!be!more!expensive!than!a!failure!to!accommodate]!as!such,!RLUIPA!specifically! contemplates!that!the!law!"may!require!a!government!to!incur!expenses!in!its!own! operations!to!avoid!imposing!a!substantial!burden."!42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc)3(c).!Because!the!

statute!expressly!anticipates!increased!costs,!the!fact!that!such!diets!may!be!more!costly! than!non)religious!diets!is!not!alone!a!compelling!governmental!interest!under!the!statute.!
Despite!the!general!rule!that!cost!alone!is!not!enough,!the!DOC!argues!that!cost!of!kosher! diets!—!when!added!to!the!Hallal!diets!—!was!unacceptably!high,!thus!creating!a! compelling!governmental!interest!in!reducing!"spiraling!costs."![Dkt.!90!at!15.]!Specifically,!it! notes,!"the!minimization!of!costs!is!a!compelling!governmental!interest!now!more!than! ever,"!given!the!one)billion!dollar!expected!revenue!shortfall!for!the!state.![Dkt.!84!at!28.]!
DOC,!however,!has!cited!absolutely!no!relevant!authority!to!support!the!conclusion!that! spiraling!cost!alone!is!a!compelling!government!interest.!The!DOC!incorrectly! cites!Baranowski(v.(Hart,!486!F.3d!112,!125!(5th!Cir.2007),!for!this!proposition.!There,!the! defendants!demonstrated!that!a!compelling!governmental!interest!in!eliminating!diets! existed!only!after!they!established!that!1)!the!Texas!Department!of!Criminal!Justice!budget! was!not!big!enough!to!either!provide!a!separate!kosher!kitchen!or!bring!in!kosher!food!from! the!outside!and!simultaneously!provide!a!nutritionally!appropriate!meal!to!other!offenders,! and!2)!that!such!a!policy!would!breed!resentment!among!inmates!that!would!result!in!a! security!risk,!and!3)!that!there!would!be!an!increased!demand!by!other!religious!groups!for! similar!diets.!Id.at!125.!As!such,!in!Baranowski,!an!increase!in!costs!was!only!one!factor! among!several,!including!a!security!risk!that!collectively!supported!a!compelling!government! interest.!Id.!
The!DOC!has!not,!however,!come!forth!with!evidence!establishing!the!factors!that!were!at! issue!in!Baranowski.!486!F.3d!at!125.!Here,!the!DOC!has!only!presented!evidence!of!a! budgetary!shortfall,!which!is!not!itself!a!Baranowski!factor.![Dkt.!83)12.]!DOC!argues!that! the!mere!fact!that!it!will!have!to!spend!money!to!satisfy!the!religious!needs!of!some! prisoners!is!itself!a!compelling!governmental!interest.![Dkt.!83!at!28.]!Insofar!as!the!DOC! asks!that!the!Court!find!that!a!budgetary!shortage!alone!can!qualify!as!a!compelling! interest,!the!Court!must!reject!that!claim.!Cutter,!544!U.S.!at!709,!125!S.Ct.!2113.!
Furthermore,!the!idea!that!cost!alone!could!provide!a!compelling!government!interest! directly!contravenes!Seventh!Circuit!precedent.!The!Seventh!Circuit!has!also!noted!that! "orderly!administration!of!a!prison!dietary!system,!and!the!accommodations!made! thereunder!are!legitimate!concerns!of!prison!officials....!The!problem!for!the!prison!officials,! however,!is!that!no!appellate!court!has!ever!found!these!to!be!compelling! interests."!Koger,!523!F.3d!at!800.!Without!offering!any!additional!reasons!for!terminating! kosher!meals,!the!Court!cannot!find!that!the!government!had!a!compelling!interest!that! might!justify!burdening!the!religious!exercise!of!Plaintiffs.!
Equally!important,!DOC!attempts!to!justify!its!decision!to!discontinue!kosher!779*779meals! because!of!the!"massive!increases"!it!incurred!when!it!made!the!decision!to!include! prisoners!requesting!a!Hallal!diet!with!those!requesting!a!kosher!diet.!The!alleged! significant!spikes!in!the!cost!of!kosher!meals!after!Hallal!meals!were!included!were!thus!the! result!of!the!DOC's!internal!decision!making,!and!not!result!of!an!increase!in!kosher!meal! requests.!DOC!has!produced!no!evidence!whatsoever!that!the!cost!of!providing!kosher! foods!to!the!more!limited!number!of!individuals!in!the!class!at!issue!would!so!"massive."! Certainly,!DOC!would!undergo!increased!expense!were!it!to!continue!the!same!practice!of!

providing!the!same!pre)packaged!kosher!meals,!but!it!has!provided!no!evidence!to!suggest! exactly!what!the!cost!would!be!to!provide!alternative!kosher!meals!to!the!class.!
The!DOC!has!failed!to!meet!its!burden!of!persuasion!to!show!a!compelling!government! interest!under!RLUIPA,!an!essential!element!for!which!it!bears!the!burden.!Summary! judgment!for!the!Plaintiffs!is!therefore!appropriate!on!this!basis!alone.!
b)$Is$Serving$Vegan$Meals$the$Least$Restrictive$Means$ of$Achieving$the$Compelling$Government$Interest?$
Even!if!the!DOC!could!establish!that!its!cost!concerns!amount!to!a!compelling!government! interest,!it!would!still!have!to!demonstrate!that!substituting!vegan!meals!for!kosher!ones!is! the!least!restrictive!means!of!furthering!that!compelling!governmental!interest!as!is!required! by!RLUIPA.!42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc)1(a).!It!has!not!done!so.!
Under!RLUIPA,!the!DOC!must!demonstrate!that!no!feasible!less!restrictive!means!exist!to! achieve!the!compelling!government!interest.!42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc)1(a).!"[A]!prison!`cannot! meet!its!burden!to!prove!least!restrictive!alternative!unless!it!demonstrates!that!it!has! actually!considered!and!rejected!the!efficacy!of!less!restrictive!measures!before!adopting! the!challenged!practice.'"!Shakur(v.(Schriro,514!F.3d!878,!890!(9th!Cir.2008).!
Here,!DOC!asserts!that!discontinuing!the!kosher!diet!was!the!least!restrictive!means!of! furthering!its!interest.![Dkt.!84!at!2.]!Furthermore,!DOC!argues!that!Mr.!Willis!has!not! presented!any!cost)neutral!alternatives!that!would!satisfy!inmates!who!request!kosher! meals.![Dkt.!95!at!14.]!In!so!arguing,!DOC!seems!to!misunderstand!or!ignore!the!controlling! law:!Under!RLUIPA,!it!is!not!the!plaintiff's!burden!to!show!that!reasonable! alternatives!do!exist!—!it!is!DOC's!burden!to!show!that!reasonable!alternatives!do!not!exist.! 42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc)1(a)!(emphasis!added).!Moreover!DOC's!cost)neutrality!argument! directly!contravenes!the!language!of!the!statute!which!contemplates!that!compliance!with! RLUIPA!"may!require!a!government!to!incur!expenses!in!its!own!operations!to!avoid! imposing!a!substantial!burden."!42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc)3(c).!
Although!DOC!contends!that!did!in!fact!consider!and!implement!several!approaches!to!cost! reduction,!including!allowing!Muslim!inmates!to!have!prepackaged!kosher!meals!(which,! according!to!the!prices!of!meals!stated!above,!increased!—!rather!than!decreased!—! costs),!offering!Muslim!inmates!prepackaged!Hallal!entrees,!and!applying!the!75)percent! participation!policy!to!religious!meals!to!ensure!against!abuse!of!religious!diets,![dkt.!90!at! 8)9],!DOC!has!not!considered!several!obvious!less!restrictive!alternatives!to!the!termination! of!kosher!meals,!and!no!evidence!exists!in!the!record!indicating!otherwise.![Dkt.!89!at!26.]!
Although!it!is!not!their!burden,!Plaintiffs!have!provided!a!substantial!list!of!additional!less! restrictive!alternatives!that!DOC!could!have!exercised,!or!attempted!to!780*780!exercise,!in! reducing!prison!costs!without!eliminating!kosher!meals!altogether.!For!example,!the!DOC! never!considered:!whether!there!were!less!expensive!kosher!vendors,!restructuring!its! contract!with!Ara)mark,!creating!a!kosher!kitchen!at!one!of!the!facilities,!or!providing!kosher! meals!that!do!not!have!to!be!frozen!or!refrigerated!as!an!alternative!to!the!frozen!meals,!

among!other!alternatives.![Dkt.!89!at!21)26.]!The!DOC!provides!no!response!to!Plaintiffs'! suggestions.!
Another!alternative!to!terminating!kosher!diets!outright!is!to!strengthen!safeguards!to! ensure!against!inmates!abusing!the!religious!diet!system!—!DOC!suspects!false!religious! diet!requests!because!the!meals!taste!better.![Dkt.!84!at!27.]!DOC!can!resolve!its! suspicions!by!evaluating!the!religious!sincerity!of!inmates!in!accordance!with!their!dietary! requests,!thereby!whittling!down!the!population!eating!kosher!meals!to!only!those!inmates! requesting!them!for!sincerely!held!religious!reasons.![Dkt.!94!at!7)8.]!The!parties!dispute!the! extent!to!which!it!is!appropriate!for!DOC!to!require!inmates!to!demonstrate!their!religious! sincerity!in!the!RLUIPA!context.![Dkts.!84]!90]!91.]!However,!the!Supreme!Court!has!been! clear!on!this!point:!"Although!RLUIPA!bars!inquiry!into!whether!a!particular!belief!or!practice! is!`central'!to!a!prisoner's!religion,!see!42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc)5(7)(A),!the!Act!does!not! preclude!inquiry!into!the!sincerity!of!a!prisoner's!professed!religiosity."!Cutter,!544!U.S.!at! 725,!125!S.Ct.!2113.!As!such,!contrary!to!DOC's!position,!the!Court!recognizes!that! instituting!safeguards!to!ensure!the!religious!sincerity!of!inmates!who!requested!kosher! meals!under!RLUIPA!—!although!requiring!effort!of!prison!officials!—!would!be!appropriate,! feasible,!and!less!restrictive!than!terminating!kosher!diets!altogether.!42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc) 1(a).!
Therefore,!even!if!cost!reduction!alone!were!a!compelling!government!interest,!DOC!has! not!met!its!burden!of!demonstrating!that!it!considered!and!rejected!the!many!obvious! alternatives,!and!that!no!feasible!less!restrictive!means!existed!to!achieve!that!interest.!42! U.S.C.!§!2000cc)1(a).!On!this!evidentiary!record,!the!Court!has!no!choice!but!to!find!that,!as! a!matter!of!law,!the!termination!of!kosher!diets!violated!RLUIPA,!42!U.S.C.!§!2000cc)1(a),! and!the!Court!must!grant!summary!judgment!in!favor!of!the!Plaintiffs.!
B)$Does$the$DOC's$75ZPercent$Policy$as$Applied$to$Mr.$ Willis$Violate$His$Individual$Rights?$
In!addition!to!requesting!summary!judgment!on!behalf!of!the!class,!Mr.!Willis!seeks! individual!declaratory[8]!relief!under!RLUIPA!and!under!42!U.S.C.!§!1983!for!First! Amendment!violations!concerning!the!application!of!the!75)percent!policy.![Dkt.!81!at!29.]! He!further!seeks!nominal!damages!under!§!1983!against!Dr.!Hall!and!Chaplain!Hodges!in! their!individual!capacities,!but!because!§!1983!does!not!provide!a!cause!of!action!for! damages!against!state!agencies,!he!does!not!seek!any!damages!against!the!DOC!itself.! [Id.]!
1)$Have$Mr.$Willis's$First$Amendment$Rights$been$ Violated?$
The!parties!agree!that!the!United!States!Supreme!Court!decision!in!Turner(v.(Safley!lays! out!the!calculus!for!determining!the!extent!of!inmates'!First!Amendment!rights.!482!U.S.!78,! 107!S.Ct.!2254,!96!L.Ed.2d!64!(1987).!It!held!that!the!government!violates!the!First! Amendment!if!it!burdens!fundamental!rights!for!781*781reasons!not!"reasonably!related"!to! legitimate!penological!interests.!Id.!at!87,!107!S.Ct.!2254.!While!the!courts!must!show!

deference!to!prison!officials'!policy!making!expertise,!the!reasonableness!of!their! regulations!will!be!tested!against!four!factors:!
•!whether!the!regulation!has!a!valid,!rational!connection!to!a!legitimate!governmental! objective]! •!whether!there!are!alternative!means!for!the!prisoners!to!exercise!the!rights!in!question]! •!what!impact!will!accommodation!of!the!right!in!question!have!on!guards!and!other!inmates! and!on!the!allocation!of!prison!resources!generally]! •!whether!there!are!ready!alternatives!to!the!regulation!in!question.!"[T]he!absence!of!ready! alternatives!is!evidence!of!the!reasonableness!of!a!prison!regulation!....!By!the!same!token,! the!existence!of!obvious,!easy!alternatives,!may!be!evidence!that!the!regulation!is!not! reasonable,!but!an!`exaggerated!response'!to!prison!concerns."!
Id.!at!89)90,!107!S.Ct.!2254.!
With!respect!to!the!first!factor,!the!legitimate!government!interest!proffered!by!the!DOC!in! support!of!the!75)percent!policy!is!saving!costs!by!reducing!the!number!of!inmates!who! receive!kosher!meals!without!a!sincere!religious!reason.![Dkt.!83)10!at!4)5.]!The!evidence! establishes,!however,!that!its!application!to!Mr.!Willis!does!not!rationally!relate!to!this! purpose.!Turner,!482!U.S.!at!89,!107!S.Ct.!2254.!
The!challenge!made!here!is!against!the!regulation!as!applied!to!Mr.!Willis.[9]![Dkt.!89!at!35.]! Mr.!Willis!was!suspended!from!his!kosher!diet!because!did!not!eat!75!percent!of!his!meals.! [Dkt.!94!at!8.]!The!undisputed!evidence!shows!that!Mr.!Willis!ate!all!of!the!pre)packaged! kosher!meals!available,![dkt.!89!at!25],!but!those!meals!were!not!sufficient!to!push!him!over! the!75!percent!threshold!because!pre)packaged!kosher!meals!were!only!served!at!two) thirds!of!mealtimes.!Mr.!Willis's!religious!beliefs!prevented!him!from!eating!breakfast]!he!did! not!consider!the!breakfasts!kosher.!He!lost!the!ability!to!eat!kosher!meals!either!because! the!DOC!did!not!provide!enough!kosher!meals!in!the!first!place,!or!because!DOC!chose!a! benchmark!in!excess!of!the!percentage!of!kosher!meals!it!provided.!Given!that!Mr.!Willis! sincerely!believed!the!breakfasts!DOC!provided!weren't!not!kosher,!he!was!doomed!to!fail! once!the!75)percent!policy!was!enacted!as!he!was!only!served!kosher!meals!66%!of!the! time.!Enforcing!the!75)percent!policy!against!Mr.!Willis!does!not!further!the!legitimate! government!interest!of!screening!out!insincere!inmates!—!it!actually!punishes!an!inmate! whose!sincerity!is!not!in!question.!Turner,!482!U.S.!at!89,!107!S.Ct.!2254.!
The!additional!Turner!prongs!likewise!favor!Mr.!Willis.!There!is!no!dispute!that!when!Mr.! Willis's!diet!card!was!taken,!he!had!no!alternative!to!the!kosher!diet!that!enabled!his! religious!exercise!—!he!could!only!receive!non)kosher!meals!for!breakfast,!which!his! religious!beliefs!prevented!him!from!eating.![Dkt.!81!at!31.]!Moreover,!continuing!to!provide! Mr.!Willis!with!kosher!meals!during!the!final!month!before!the!diets!were!terminated!would! have!had!minimal!impact!on!prison!resources.![Id.]!Finally,!as!Mr.!Willis!rightly!points!out,! the!clear!ready!alternative!to!enforcing!this!regulation!against!him!would!have!been!to! enforce!the!policy!against!individuals!who!were!using!religious!diet!cards!without!a!true! religious!commitment,!or!to!782*782!reduce!the!percentage!to!one!corresponding!to!the! number!of!kosher!meals!actually!served.[10]![Id.]!

Because!the!DOC's!enforcement!of!its!75)percent!policy!against!Mr.!Willis!fails!each!prong! of!the!Turner,!its!application!to!him!violates!his!First!Amendment!rights.!482!U.S.!at!78,!107! S.Ct.!2254.!
2)$In$Light$of$the$First$Amendment$Violation,$Is$DOC$ Liable$for$Violating$Mr.$Willis's$RLUIPA$Rights?$
The!First!Amendment!standard!is!less!demanding!on!the!DOC!than!RLUIPA!in!this!context.! Accordingly,!if!a!First!Amendment!violation!is!found,!a!RLUIPA!violation!also!exists.!Harvey( v.(Adams(County(Sheriff's(Office,!2008!WL!2396761!*2!(D.Colo.!June!4,!2008).!("Because! the!defendants!have!not!established!that!the!failure!to!provide!a!kosher!diet!was!reasonable! under!the!First!Amendment,!they!have!also!failed!to!meet!RLUIPA's!more!demanding! standard.").!Therefore,!because!termination!of!kosher!meals!violates!Mr.!Willis's!First! Amendment!rights,!it!necessarily!violates!his!rights!under!the!more!demanding!RLUIPA! standard.!Id.The!Court!therefore!finds!that!Mr.!Willis!is!entitled!to!declaratory!relief!against! DOC!for!violating!his!rights!under!RLUIPA.!
3)$Is$Mr.$Willis$Entitled$Nominal$Damages$against$Dr.$ Hall$and$Chaplain$Hodges$under$§$1983?$
In!addition!to!seeking!declaratory!relief!against!DOC!under!RLUIPA,!Mr.!Willis!seeks! nominal!damages!against!Dr.!Hall!and!Chaplain!Hodges!in!their!individual!capacities!under! §!1983!for!the!violation!of!his!First!Amendment!rights.[11]![Dkt.!89!at!25.]!
Mr.!Willis!seeks!nominal!damages!against!Dr.!Hall!for!formulating,!and!against!Chaplain! Hodges!for!applying,!the!75)percent!policy!that!resulted!in!the!denial!of!Mr.!Willis'! constitutional!rights.![Dkt.!89!at!26.]!
To!prevail!on!a!§!1983!claim,!Mr.!Willis!must!establish!that!(1)!he!had!a!constitutionally! protected!right,!(2)!he!was!deprived!of!that!right!in!violation!of!the!Constitution,!(3)!the! defendant!intentionally!caused!that!deprivation,!and!(4)!the!defendant!acted!under!color!of! state!law.!McNabola(v.(Chicago(Transit(Authority,10!F.3d!501,!513!(7th!Cir.1993).!Liability! can!be!based!only!on!a!finding!that!conduct!causing!a!constitutional!deprivation!occurred!at! the!defendant's!direction!or!with!his!knowledge!and!consent.!Gentry(v.(Duckworth,!65!F.3d! 555,!561!(7th!Cir.!1995).!In!other!words,!the!official!sued!"must!know!about!the!conduct!and! facilitate!it,!approve!it,!condone!it,!or!turn!a!blind!eye...."!Id.!The!Seventh!Circuit!has!stated! that!"in!order![for!an!inmate]!to!recover!damages!against!a!state!actor!under!§!1983,!a! plaintiff!must!show!the!actor!was!`personally!responsible!for!the!constitutional! deprivation.'"!J.H.(ex(rel.(Higgin(v.(Johnson,!346!F.3d!788,!793!(7th!Cir.!2003).!
As!discussed!above,!the!75)percent!policy!violated!Mr.!Willis's!First!Amendment!rights]! therefore,!the!first!two!elements!of!liability!are!established!as!to!both!Dr.!Hall!and!Chaplain! Hodges.!Additionally,!there!783*783!is!no!dispute!that!the!Defendants!were!acting!under! color!of!state!law.!With!respect!to!both!Defendants,!the!question!is!whether!the!third! element!is!met.!

With!respect!to!Dr.!Hall,!Mr.!Willis!asserts!that!Dr.!Hall's!development!of!75)percent!policy! against!him!constituted!a!knowing!violation!of!his!constitutional!rights.!However,!insofar!as! this!is!not!a!facial!challenge!to!the!75)percent!policy,!Mr.!Willis!only!seeks!to!hold!Dr.!Hall! liable!for!implementing!this!policy!against!Mr.!Willis.!To!this!point,!Defendants!assert!that!it! was!John!Schilling's!April!8,!2009!email!that!effectuated!the!implementation!of!the!75) percent!policy!against!inmates!with!religious!preference!diets.![Dkt.!84!at!30.]!Mr.!Willis! does!not!dispute!this!assertion.!Moreover,!although!Dr.!Hall!denied!Mr.!Willis's!appeal,!this! denial!alone!is!not!actionable.!See(Burks(v.(Raemisch,!555!F.3d!592,!595!(7th!Cir.! 2009)!(denial!of!a!prisoner's!grievance!is!not!actionable!as!a!deprivation!of!a!constitutional! right.)!Therefore,!as!a!matter!of!law,!Dr.!Hall!is!not!liable!for!nominal!damages.!
As!to!Chaplain!Hodges,!Mr.!Willis!asserts!that!Chaplain!Hodges!is!liable!for!nominal! damages!for!enforcing!the!policy!that!violated!his!constitutional!rights.!Whether!Chaplain! Hodges!intentionally!violated!Mr.!Willis's!constitutional!rights!depends!on!whether!Chaplain! Hodges!knew!that!in!directing!the!confiscation!of!Mr.!Willis's!diet!card,!he!was!in!fact! preventing!Mr.!Willis!from!complying!with!the!laws!of!kosher.!Gentry,!65!F.3d!at!561.!
Record!testimony[12]!reveals!that!Chaplain!Hodges!knew!that!the!breakfast!meals!were!not! kosher,!and!that!Mr.!Willis!did!not!eat!the!breakfast!meals!for!that!reason.![Dkt.!80)5!at!18) 20.]!Mr.!Willis!testified!that!upon!directing!the!confiscation!of!Mr.!Willis's!meal!card,! Chaplain!Hodges!spoke!to!Mr.!Willis!in!his!office!and!said!that!"he!wasn't!a!bad!guy,!he! wasn't!trying!to!violate![Mr.!Willis's]!rights,!although!he!did!agree!it!was!a!First!Amendment! Violation."![Dkt.!80)5!at!20.]!
DOC!is!silent!in!response!to!the!assertion!that!when!Chaplain!Hodges!ordered!the!removal! of!Mr.!Willis's!diet!card,!he!knowingly!violated!Mr.!Willis's!First!Amendment!rights.!Instead,! Chaplain!Hodges!argues!that!he!never!discriminated!against!Mr.!Willis]!rather,!he!even) handedly!applied!DOC's!75!percent!policy.[13][Dkt.!83)15!at!5.]!However,!knowingly!applying! a!policy!in!violation!of!an!inmate's!First!Amendment!rights!—!even!if!even)handedly!—!is! not!permitted!under!§!1983.!Since!Chaplain!Hodges!does!not!dispute!Mr.!Willis's!assertion! that!he!knowingly!violated!his!First!Amendment!rights,!the!Court!finds!that!he!is!personally! responsible!for!the!constitutional!deprivation.!Accordingly,!he!is!liable!for!nominal! damages.!Gentry,!65!F.3d!at!561.!
784*784!Therefore,!the!Court!determines!that,!as!a!matter!of!law,!that!Mr.!Willis!is!not! entitled!to!nominal!damages!against!Dr.!Hall.!Mr.!Willis!is,!however,!entitled!to!nominal! damages!against!Chaplain!Hodges.!
CONCLUSION$
For!the!foregoing!reasons,!the!Court!GRANTS!IN!PART!AND!DENIES!IN!PART!Plaintiff's! Motion!for!Summary!Judgment.![Dkt.!80.]!The!motion!is!granted!with!respect!to!Count!I.!As! to!Count!II,!the!Court!finds!that!the!DOC!violated!Mr.!Willis's!First!Amendment!and!RLUIPA! rights.!The!Court!grants!his!claim!for!nominal!damages!against!Chaplain!Hodges!and! denies!his!claim!as!against!Dr.!Hall.!
The!Court!further!GRANTS!IN!PART!AND!DENIES!IN!PART!Defendants'!Motion!for! Summary!Judgment.![Dkt.!83.]!As!to!Count!I,!summary!judgment!is!denied.!As!to!Count!II,!

the!Court!grants!summary!judgment!with!respect!to!Mr.!Willis's!claim!against!Dr.!Hall!and! denies!summary!judgment!with!respect!to!his!claim!against!DOC!and!Chaplain!Hodges.!
Mr.!Willis,!on!behalf!of!himself!and!the!class,!requests!injunctive!relief!in!accordance!with! this!Court's!declaratory!judgment.!DOC!does!not!dispute!that!insofar!as!the!class!as!a! whole,!and!Mr.!Willis!individually,!are!entitled!to!declaratory!relief,!they!are!likewise!entitled! to!injunctive!relief.!However,!at!this!point,!neither!party!has!presented!cogent!argument!as! to!whether!injunction!should!issue,!nor!illustrated!what!the!scope!of!any!injunction!should! be.!
Therefore,!the!Court!will!conduct!a!hearing!on!the!scope!of!injunctive!relief!to!take!place!on! November!30!at!1:30!pm!in!Room!307!at!U.S.!Courthouse,!46!East!Ohio!Street,! Indianapolis,!Indiana.!Each!side!will!have!20!minutes!for!oral!argument.!The!parties!are! encouraged!to!meet!and!confer,!with!the!assistance!of!the!Magistrate!Judge!if!requested,!to! attempt!to!agree!on!the!terms!of!an!injunction.!If!the!parties!cannot!agree,!they!must!each! file!a!proposed!form!of!injunction!by!November!23.!
[1]!Mr.!Willis!represents!a!certified!class!of!inmates!confined!within!the!Indiana!Department!of!Correction,!including! the!New!Castle!Correctional!Facility,!who!have!identified,!or!who!will!identify,!themselves!to!the!Indiana!Department! of!Correction!as!requiring!a!kosher!diet!in!order!to!properly!exercise!their!religious!beliefs!and!who!have!requested! such!a!diet,!or!would!request!it!if!such!a!diet!was!available.![Dkt.!47.]!As!explained!later,!Mr.!Willis!also!presents!an! individual!claim.!
[2]!"Hallal"!is!an!Arabic!word!meaning!"lawful"!or!"permitted"!and!refers!to!food!items!allowable!under!Islamic!dietary! restrictions.![Dkt.!81!at!9.]!
[3]!DOC!includes!the!number!of!inmates!receiving!Hallal!meals!in!this!increase!because!the!cost!of!providing!Hallal! meals!was!likewise!added!to!the!base!cost!Aramark!relied!upon!to!bill!the!DOC!for!providing!regular!meals.![Id.!at!9.]! Indeed,!in!April!2009,!93!offenders!at!MCF!were!receiving!Hallal!diets,!while!only!35!were!receiving!kosher!meals.! [Dkt.!83)15!at!3)4.]!However,!Hallal!diets!are!not!the!subject!of!this!litigation!and!should!not!feature!in!DOC's!figures! regarding!the!cost!of!kosher!meals.!
[4]!Spoons,!spatulas,!pans!to!hold!food,!stock!pots!and!the!like!were!etched!with!marks!to!identify!them!as!vegan.! [Id.!at!55.]!
[5]!Kosher!food!items!often!have!labels!with!symbols!indicating!who!conducted!the!kosher!certification]!some!of!the! symbols!are!more!reliable!than!others.!For!instance,!"O)U"!is!the!most!reliable!because!it!has!been!certified!by!a! rabbi.!A!"K"!indicates!the!item!is!kosher!but!does!not!indicate!a!rabbi!has!ever!toured!the!food!production!facility!and! so!this!designation!is!less!reliable.!Mr.!Willis!does!not!eat!food!with!only!the!"K"!designation.![Dkt.!83)14!at!7.]!
[6]!At!the!time!kosher!diets!were!suspended,!approximately!99!prisoners!were!authorized!to!receive!kosher!diets,!and! 23!Jewish!prisoners!were!temporarily!suspended!from!those!diets]!during!the!last!Passover!holiday,!74)79!prisoners! received!kosher!meals.![Dkt.!80)21!at!3.]!
[7]!Plaintiffs!also!request!that!the!Court!enjoin!DOC!from!terminating!the!religious!diets!of!plaintiff!and!the!putative! class!and!order!that!kosher!diets!be!restored!and!continued!into!the!future!for!qualified!prisoners]!however,!neither! party!has!cogently!addressed!the!propriety!or!scope!of!injunctive!relief.![Dkt.!17!at!13.]!At!this!point,!therefore,!the! Court!assesses!only!the!request!for!declaratory!relief.!
[8]!Mr.!Willis!also!seeks!injunctive!relief,![dkt.!17!at!13],!but!given!that!he!has!not!yet!properly!illustrated!the!scope!of! relief!sought,!the!Court!will!address!only!declaratory!relief.!
[9]!Neither!party!disputes!that!the!regulation,!as!applied,!should!be!assessed!under!the!Turner!factors.!

[10]!The!Court!recognizes!that!this!alternative!would!involve!screening!for!religious!sincerity!of!inmates.!However,!as! stated!above,!this!is!not!beyond!the!purview!of!DOC!and!would,!to!the!contrary,!help!the!DOC!ensure!rational! application!of!its!religious!diet!regulations.!
[11]!Mr.!Willis!concedes!that!under!the!Prison!Litigation!Reform!Act,!42!U.S.C.!§!1997e(e),!which!circumscribes!the! scope!of!damages!available!to!inmates,!a!violation!of!his!First!Amendment!rights,!absent!physical!injury,!only!entitles! him!to!nominal!damages.!Calhoun(v.(DeTella,!319!F.3d!936!(7th!Cir.2003).!
[12]!For!the!purpose!of!this!issue,!the!evidence!is!reviewed!in!the!light!most!favorable!to!the!nonmoving! DOC.!Celotex,!477!U.S.!at!330,!106!S.Ct.!2548.!
[13]!Chaplain!Hodges!further!states!that!insofar!as!there!was!nothing!precluding!Mr.!Willis!from!going!through!the!line! at!breakfast!(and!then!declining!to!accept!the!meal)!to!meet!the!75)percent!threshold,![dkt.!83)15!at!5],!Mr.!Willis!was! in!fact!responsible!for!the!confiscation!of!his!card!and!therefore!the!deprivation!of!his!own!rights.![Dkt.!84!at!32.]! There!is!conflicting!evidence!as!to!the!feasibility!of!Mr.!Willis's!alternatives!to!violating!the!75)percent!policy.![Dkt.!85! at!15]!dkt.!83)15!at!5.]!But!that!evidence!does!not!itself!raise!a!genuine!issue!of!material!fact!—!Mr.!Willis's!alleged! option!to!go!through!the!breakfast!line!does!not!abdicate!Chaplain!Hodges!of!his!responsibility!to!respect!Mr.!Willis's! First!Amendment!rights,!nor!does!it!bear!on!Chaplain!Hodges's!personal!involvement!in!the!deprivation!of!Mr.!Willis's! rights.!
!

 
 Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 1 of 24
CMP,MANDATE,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09−cv−00815−JMS−DML

WITMER et al v. COMMISSIONER INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al Assigned to: Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch Case in other court: 7th Circuit, 11−01071 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/01/2009 Date Terminated: 12/08/2010 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

ALEX WITMER

represented by Kenneth J. Falk ACLU OF INDIANA 1031 East Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46202−3952 (317) 635−4059 x104 Fax: (317) 635−4105 Email: kfalk@aclu−in.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ZOFO BENJAMIN

represented by Kenneth J. Falk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant COMMISSIONER INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
Defendant STEPHEN HALL in his official and individual capacity
Defendant MERLE HODGES in his official and individual capacity

represented by David A. Arthur INDIANA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 302 West Washington Street IGCS − 5th Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317)232−6286 Fax: (317) 232−7979 Email: David.Arthur@atg.in.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Arthur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A. Arthur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/01/2009
07/01/2009

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, filed by MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Offender Grievance)(NS) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (NS) (Entered: 07/01/2009)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 2 of 24

07/01/2009 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 07/13/2009 07/27/2009 07/27/2009 07/27/2009 07/27/2009
07/29/2009 07/29/2009 07/29/2009 08/10/2009
08/18/2009
08/18/2009
08/19/2009 08/19/2009 08/19/2009

3 RECEIPT #IP013391 in the amount of $ 350.00 (NS) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
4 Summons Issued as to INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES. (NS) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth J. Falk on behalf of Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (NS) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
6 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (NS) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
7 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Grievances)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Eric James Beaver on behalf of Defendants INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES. (Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
9 ANSWER to 7 Amended Complaint and Statement of Defenses, filed by all defendants.(Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Cory Christian Voight on behalf of Defendants INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES. (Voight, Cory) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
11 ENTRY REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 9/2/2009 at 10:00 AM in room #361 before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. The CMP is due no later than 14 days prior to the initial pretrial conference **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 7/27/2009.(DWH) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
12 RETURN of Service by CMRRR, filed by MASTON WILLIS. STEPHEN HALL served on 7/6/2009. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
13 RETURN of Service by CMRRR, filed by MASTON WILLIS. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION served on 7/6/2009. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
14 RETURN of Service by CMRRR, filed by MASTON WILLIS. MERLE HODGES served on 7/6/2009. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
15 MOTION to Amend/Correct File Second Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed amended complaint, # 3 Exhibit 1− to Proposed Amended Complaint, # 4 Exhibit 2−to Proposed Amended Complaint)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
16 ORDER granting 15 Motion to Amend Complaint. IT IS ORDERED that the previously tendered Second Amended Complaint − Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Individual Claim for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Nominal Damages is deemed filed as of this date. Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 8/18/2009. (TRG) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
17 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT − Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Individual Claim for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Nominal Damages against INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, filed by MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Offender Grievance Response Report Case Log #50876, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Offender Grievance Response Report Case Log #50024)(TRG) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
18 CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TENDERED, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Magistrate Judge Summary of CMP)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
19 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/19/2009)
20 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 19 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/19/2009)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 3 of 24

08/21/2009 08/26/2009 08/27/2009 08/28/2009 09/02/2009
09/02/2009
09/08/2009 09/10/2009
09/11/2009 09/16/2009 09/16/2009 09/16/2009 09/17/2009 09/21/2009 09/24/2009

21 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
22 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 8/26/2009.(LBK) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
23 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to September 11, 2009 to respond to plaintiffs' second amended complaint, filed by Defendants INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 08/27/2009)
24 ORDER granting defts' 23 Motion for Extension of Time to File response to second amended complaint to 9/11/09. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 8/28/2009. (SWM) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
25 ORDER: CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED AS AMENDED.Dispositive Motions due by 7/19/2010. If the required conference under LR 37.1 does not resolve discovery issues that may arise, the parties are advised to request a phone status conference prior to filing any motion to compel or for protective order. Additionally, the parties are advised to not only number but to add a descriptive identifier for any exhibits which are electronically filed (see Order for example and other details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 9/2/09.(SWM) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
26 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 9/2/2009. Discussion held regarding discovery, settlement and related matters. CMP approved as amended. Telephone status conference set for November 3, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. Counsel to call the Court at the number provided.(SWM) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
27 RESPONSE in Opposition re 19 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Defendants INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES. (Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
28 SCHEDULING ORDER: Bench Trial set for 2/8/2011 09:00 AM in room #349 before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/31/2011 01:00 PM in room #361 before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Finally, counsel are reminded of the required pretrial preparation deadlines set forth in the case management plan. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 9/10/2009.(SWM) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
29 *** STRICKEN PER ORDER DATED 9/17/2009 *** MOTION to Dismiss for failure to join a party under Rule 19, filed by Defendants INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES. (Beaver, Eric) Modified on 9/17/2009 (SWM). (Entered: 09/11/2009)
30 MOTION for Joinder of Necessary Party, filed by Defendants INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES. (Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
31 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 30 MOTION for Joinder of Necessary Party, filed by Defendants INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES. (Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
32 Unopposed MOTION to Strike 29 MOTION to Dismiss for failure to join a party under Rule 19, filed by Defendants INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
33 ORDER striking defts Commissoner, Indiana Dept of Correction, Stephen Hall and Mearl Hodges' 29 Motion to Dismiss; granting defts' 32 Motion to Strike Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 9/17/2009. (SWM) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
34 REPLY in Support of Motion re 19 MOTION to Certify Class, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit of Maston Willis, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of David Smithers)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
35 ENTRY Directing further proceedings; the parties shall jointly report no later than October 26, 2009 about the status of discovery that may impact the Class Certification Motion (See Entry). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 9/24/2009.(MAC)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 4 of 24

09/30/2009 10/08/2009 10/23/2009 10/23/2009 10/23/2009 10/27/2009 10/27/2009 11/03/2009
11/03/2009
12/02/2009 12/04/2009 12/07/2009
12/07/2009 12/16/2009 12/17/2009

(Entered: 09/24/2009)
36 RESPONSE in Opposition re 30 MOTION for Joinder of Necessary Party, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
37 SCHEDULING ENTRY: The telephonic status conference, TIME ONLY, set for November 3, 2009 is RESET for 10:30 A.M. Counsel shall call the Court at the number provided. Issued by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 10/8/09.(SWM) (Entered: 10/09/2009)
38 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Interrogatories)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
39 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 19 MOTION to Certify Class [SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM], filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
40 RESPONSE in Opposition re 19 MOTION to Certify Class (Supplemental Memorandum), filed by Defendants INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES. (Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
41 MARGINAL ENTRY re 38 Status Report. Report reviewed by magistrate judge. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 10/27/09.(SWM) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
42 ORDER denying Defts' 30 Motion to Join a Necessary Party (see Order for details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 10/27/09. (SWM) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
43 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Telephone Status Conference held on 11/3/2009 and parties report they are meeting this Friday to inspect the food preparation at the Wabash Valley facility. Parties are to file a jointly prepared status report within 30 days, summarizing the meeting and its outcome, as well as next steps in the litigation. (SWM) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
44 AMENDED Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Telephone Conference held on 11/3/2009. Conference held and parties report they are meeting this Friday to inspect the food preparation at the Miami Correctional Facility. Parties are to file a jointly prepared status report within 30 days, summarizing the meeting and its outcome, as well as next steps in the litigation. (SWM) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
45 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
46 MARGINAL ENTRY re 45 Status Report. Report reviewed by magistrate judge. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/4/2009.(SWM) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
47 ORDER granting Pltf's 19 Motion to Certify Class with respect to Count I of Pltf's Second Amended Complaint. The Court hereby DESIGNATES Mr. Willis as the representative plaintiff for that certified class and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), DESIGNATES Mr. Falk as lead class counsel. The Court now ORDERS the parties to meet and confer with one another and, within fourteen days, to submit a joint report in this matter setting forth a proposed plan (or, if necessary, competing plans) for providing appropriate notice to the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2). A status conference for this matter will be set by separate entry (see Order for other details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/7/2009. (SWM) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
48 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 12/28/2009 03:00 PM in Telephonic before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Counsel to call the Court at the number provided. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/7/2009.(SWM) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
49 REPORT Concerning Notice to the Class (Joint) by MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
50 MARGINAL ENTRY re 49 Joint Report Concerning Notice to the Class. Notice obligation is stayed pending further order of the court or agreement of the parties. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/17/2009.(SWM) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 5 of 24

12/18/2009 12/21/2009 12/28/2009
12/31/2009 01/19/2010 01/19/2010 01/19/2010 01/19/2010 01/20/2010 02/08/2010 02/18/2010
02/19/2010 03/11/2010
03/12/2010

51 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
52 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosures, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
53 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Telephone Status Conference held on 12/28/2009 and parties have scheduled 30(b)(6) deposition for DOC. Parties agree and the Court now orders that DOC's answer is due on December 31, 2009. A telephonic status conference is set for February 16, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Counsel to call the court at the number provided. (SWM) (Entered: 12/30/2009)
54 ANSWER to 17 Amended Complaint, filed by STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION.(Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
55 Witness List −Preliminary, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS, Exhibit List −Preliminary, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
56 MOTION for Extension of Time to January 26, 2010 to Make Settlement Offer, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
57 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to February 2, 2010 to file a motion for leave to amend pleadings or to join additional parties, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
58 ORDER granting pltf's 56 Motion for Extension of Time to make a settlement offer to 1/26/2010. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/19/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
59 ORDER granting defts' 57 Motion for Extension of Time to File a motion to amend their pleadings or to join additional parties to 2/2/2010. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/20/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 01/21/2010)
60 ENTRY FOR FEBRUARY 8,2010. The telephonic status conference set for February 16, 2010 is VACATED AND RESET for February 18, 2010, at 11:15 A.M. Counsel shall call the Court at 317−229−3670. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/8/2010.(MRI) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
62 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Telephone Status Conference held on 2/18/2010. Discussion held regarding discovery, settlement and related matters. Telephonic status conference set for March 11, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. to discuss case status and scheduling settlement conference. Counsel to call the court at the number provided. (SWM) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
61 Witness List (Preliminary), filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Exhibit List (Preliminary), filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
63 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Status Conference held on 3/11/2010. The status and development of the action were discussed, and as a result of this conference the following Entry is made pursuant to Rule 16(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties have exchanged settlement proposals, but are concerned that middle ground may be elusive. As this is an order of reference case, the magistrate judge requests that Judge Baker review the parties' proposals and confer with them privately about settlement. Defendant indicates that due to the number of approvals necessary, resolution by settlement conference is unlikely. A telephonic status conference is set for May 20, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. Counsel to call the court at the number provided. (SWM) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
64 NOTICE of agreed initial enlargement of time to respond to written discovery, filed by Defendant INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION (Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 03/12/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 6 of 24

03/17/2010
04/05/2010 04/06/2010 04/12/2010 04/13/2010 05/12/2010 05/19/2010
05/24/2010 05/25/2010 06/15/2010 06/25/2010 07/09/2010 07/19/2010

65 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 4/1/2010 10:30 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker. Parties shall participate in this conference by counsel, who shall call the Court at 317−229−3660. The purpose of this conference is to address settlement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 3/17/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
66 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker. Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/1/2010. Discussion re: settlement and related matters. Conference concluded without further order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker. (LBK) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
67 SCHEDULING ENTRY: The telephonic status conference, TIME ONLY, set for May 20, 2010 is RESET to 8:45 A.M. Counsel shall call the Court at the number provided. Issued by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/6/2010.(SWM) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
68 MOTION for Extension of Time to May 10, 2010 to respond to discovery, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
69 ORDER granting defts' 68 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to the discovery served on them on 2/8/2010 to 5/10/2010. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/13/2010. (SWM) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
70 ENTRY FOR MAY 11, 2010. The telephonic status conference set for May 20, 2010 is VACATED AND RESET for May 19, 2010, at 4:30 P.M. Counsel shall call the Court at 317−229−3670. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/11/2010.(MRI) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
71 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/19/2010. Discovery, settlement and related matters were discussed, and as a result of this conference the following Entry is made pursuant to Rule 16(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Parties are cooperating with respect to discovery and deadlines. Defendant seeks to depose plaintiff and the court approves the request and defendant will submit a proposed order. Plaintiff anticipates timely filing a motion for summary judgment by the July deadline. (SWM) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
72 NOTICE of Tender of Proposed Order granting leave to depose the incarcerated plaintiff, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
73 ORDER re: 71 Status Conference (defendants' unopposed request to depose the incarcerated plaintiff). Counsel for the defendants may depose the plaintiff Maston Willis on or after 6/18/2010 at the facility of his incarceration. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/25/2010.(LBK) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
74 Reassignment of Case to Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. Judge Larry J. McKinney no longer assigned to the case. Please include the new case number (1:09−cv−815−JMS−DML), which includes the initials of the newly assigned judge, on all future filings in this matter. (LH) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
75 NOTICE of Appearance by Petitioner FAILIS RAMSEY. (LBK) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
76 STIPULATION of Fact (First), filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
77 *** WITHDRAWN PER 87 ORDER OF 7/21/10 *** MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Rabbi Grossbaum, # 2 Exhibit Deposition of Rabbi Grossbaum, # 3 Exhibit Deposition of Rev. Stephen Hall, # 4 Exhibit Affidavit of Charles Johns, # 5 Exhibit Deposition of Maston Willis, # 6 Exhibit Deposition of John Schilling, # 7 Exhibit Interrogatories− First Set, # 8 Exhibit E−mail of 11/12/08, # 9 Exhibit Request Documents − First, # 10 Exhibit Affidavit of Raphayl Miles, # 11 Exhibit Affidavit of Anthony Potter, # 12 Exhibit Affidavit of Herman Averhart−Bey, # 13 Exhibit Affidavit of Troy Thomas, # 14 Exhibit Affidavit of Steven Agent, # 15 Exhibit

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 7 of 24

07/19/2010 07/19/2010 07/19/2010
07/19/2010 07/19/2010 07/19/2010
07/19/2010 07/19/2010
07/20/2010 07/21/2010

Affidavit of Ernest Tope, # 16 Exhibit Affidavit of Michael Raines, # 17 Exhibit Affidavit of Darryl Preston, # 18 Exhibit Affidavit of William Bowman, # 19 Exhibit Affidavit of Kenneth Wolfe, # 20 Exhibit Affidavit of David Smithers, # 21 Exhibit Interrogatories−Second [SIC])(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 7/21/2010 (TMA). (Entered: 07/19/2010)
78 *** WITHDRAWN PER 87 ORDER OF 7/21/10 *** BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 77 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 7/21/2010 (TMA). (Entered: 07/19/2010)
79 MOTION to Withdraw Erroneous Filings (Doc. Nos. 77 and 78), filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
80 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Rabbi Grossbaum, # 2 Exhibit Deposition of Rabbi Grossbaum, # 3 Exhibit Deposition of Rev. Hall, # 4 Exhibit Affidavit of Charles Johns, # 5 Exhibit Deposition of Maston Willis, # 6 Exhibit Deposition of Johns Schilling, # 7 Exhibit Interrogatories− First Set, # 8 Exhibit E−mail of 11/12/08, # 9 Exhibit Document Request −First, # 10 Exhibit Affidavit of Raphayl Miles, # 11 Exhibit Affidavit of Anthony Potter, # 12 Exhibit Affidavit of Herman Averhart−Bey, # 13 Exhibit Affidavit of Troy Thomas, # 14 Exhibit Affidavit of Steven Agent, # 15 Exhibit Affidavit of Ernest Tope, # 16 Exhibit Affidavit of Michael Raines, # 17 Exhibit Affidavit of Darryl Preston, # 18 Exhibit Affidavit of William Bowman, # 19 Exhibit Affidavit of kenneth Wolfe, # 20 Exhibit Affidavit of David Smithers, # 21 Exhibit Interrogatories− Second Set [SIC})(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
81 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 80 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
82 NOTICE of Amendment to Ceritificate of Service, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
83 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of John Schilling, # 2 Exhibit Deposition of John Schilling, # 3 Exhibit Aramark Contract, # 4 Exhibit Aramark Contract (2009 Amendment), # 5 Exhibit Aramark Invoices, # 6 Exhibit Excerpts of deposition of Rabbi Grossbaum, # 7 Exhibit Excerpt of Aramark's DOC dietary handbook, # 8 Exhibit Deposition of Dr. Hall, # 9 Exhibit Parties' First Stipulation of Fact, # 10 Exhibit Schilling March 8 2009 email, # 11 Exhibit Schilling April 8 2009 email, # 12 Exhibit Ruthhart article, # 13 Exhibit Commissioner's June 21 2010 letter, # 14 Exhibit Excerpt of deposition of Maston Willis, # 15 Exhibit Declaration of Chaplain Hodges)(Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
84 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
85 ORDER RESETTING TRIAL AND FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE − Bench Trial set for 2/8/2011 is VACATED AND RESET for 2/7/2011 at 09:00 AM in room #349 before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Final Pretrial Conference is VACATED AND RESET for 1/13/2011 at 10:00 AM in room #349 before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Counsel are reminded of the required pretrial preparation deadlines set forth in paragraph VIII of the case management plan [dkt. 25]. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 7/19/2010.(LBK) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
86 PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. (LBK) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
87 ORDER granting 79 plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw Erroneous Filings (Doc. Nos. 77 and 78). Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum (Documents Number 80 and 81) are deemed to be timely filed as of July 19, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 7/21/2010. (TMA) Modified on 7/21/2010 (TMA). c/m (Entered: 07/21/2010)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 8 of 24

08/02/2010 08/18/2010 08/19/2010
08/30/2010 08/30/2010 08/30/2010 09/02/2010 09/07/2010 09/20/2010 09/20/2010
09/21/2010
09/23/2010 10/28/2010 10/29/2010 11/01/2010 11/01/2010

88 VERIFIED APPEARANCE OF PLAINTIFF JOSEPH T. WILLIAMS−EL. (LBK) (Entered: 08/03/2010)
89 RESPONSE in Opposition re 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Smithers Supplemental, # 2 Affidavit Tope Supplemental)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
90 RESPONSE in Opposition re 80 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Declaration of John Schilling)(Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
91 NOTICE of Appearance by Plaintiff EARL RAHEEM. (LBK) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
92 NOTICE of Appearance by Plaintiff ROMAN JONES. (LBK) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
93 NOTICE of Appearance by Plaintiff T. HARRIS. (LBK) (Entered: 09/01/2010)
94 REPLY in Support of Motion re 80 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
95 REPLY in Support of Motion re 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
96 NOTICE Concerning Expert Disclosures, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
97 Joint MOTION to Stay Final Case Management Deadlines and to Continue Trial and Final Pre−Trial Conference Due to Pendency of Cross−Motions for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
98 ORDER granting 97 Motion to Stay Final Case Management Deadlines and to Continue Trial and Final Pre−Trial Conference Due to Pendency of Cross−Motions for Summary Judgment. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the remaining case management deadlines in this case are STAYED and the trial and pre−trial dates are CONTINUED, to be reset if necessary after the Court rules on the pending motions for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 9/21/2010. (LBK) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
99 NOTICE of Appearance by Plaintiff BRIAN K. GREER. (LBK) (Entered: 09/23/2010)
100 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Beaver, Eric) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
101 ORDER granting 100 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Eric James Beaver withdrawn. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 10/29/2010. (TMA) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
102 NOTICE of Appearance by Plaintiff KEITH DAVENPORT−BEY. (LBK) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
103 ORDER ON CROSS−MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKTS. 80; 83.) For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. [Dkt. 80.] The motion is granted with respect to Count I. As to Count II, the Court finds that the DOC violated Mr. Willis's First Amendment and RLUIPA rights. The Court grants his claim for nominal damages against Chaplain Hodges and denies his claim as against Dr. Hall. The Court further GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. [Dkt. 83.] As to Count I, summary judgment is denied. As to Count II, the Court grants summary judgment with respect to Mr. Willis's claim against Dr. Hall and denies summary judgment with respect to his claim against DOC and Chaplain Hodges. Mr. Willis, on behalf of himself and the class, requests injunctive relief in accordance with this Court's declaratory judgment. DOC does not dispute that insofar as the class as a whole, and Mr. Willis individually, are entitled to declaratory relief, they are likewise entitled to injunctive relief. However, at this point,

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 9 of 24

11/02/2010
11/02/2010 11/08/2010 11/15/2010
11/22/2010 11/23/2010 11/23/2010 11/29/2010 12/01/2010
12/08/2010

neither party has presented cogent argument as to whether injunction should issue, nor illustrated what the scope of any injunction should be. The Court will conduct a hearing on the scope of injunctive relief to take place on November 30, 2010 at 1:30 pm in Room 307 at US Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Each side will have 20 minutes for oral argument. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer, with the assistance of the Magistrate Judge if requested, to attempt to agree on the terms of an injunction. If the parties cannot agree, they must each file a proposed form of injunction by November 23, 2010. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 11/1/2010. Copies sent per Distribution List and Keith Davenport−Bey via U.S. mail. (LBK) Modified on 11/2/2010 (LBK). (Entered: 11/01/2010)
104 ORDER. Several notices of appearance have been filed in this matter by inmates who neither requested nor received leave from this Court to join the action. [Dkts. 75; dkt. 91; dkt. 92; dkt. 93; dkt. 102.] The Court strikes those appearances and terminates the following individuals as parties to this action: Failis Ramsey, [dkt. 75], Earl Raheem, [dkt. 91], Roman Jones, [dkt. 92], Thomas Harris, [dkt. 93], and Kieth Davenport−Bey, [dkt. 102]. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 11/2/2010. Copies sent via U.S. mail per Distribution List.(LBK) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
105 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 11/19/2010 09:30 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 11/2/2010.(MAC) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
106 Mail Returned as undeliverable 104 Order, 103 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment sent to T. HARRIS−Letter from the Indiana State Prison stating they need a full first name and an IDOC number (CBU) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
107 ENTRY AND NOTICE. The appearances of Brian Greer and of Joseph Williams−El are stricken and these individuals are stricken as co−plaintiffs because they were not original plaintiffs and because they have not requested or received leave to intervene in the action or join as plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 11/15/2010. Copy to Joseph T. Williams−El and Brian K. Greer via U.S. mail.(LBK) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
108 Submission of Proposed Permanent Injunction, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
109 Submission of Proposed Form of Injunction, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Voight, Cory) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
110 Minute Order. for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch: Status Conference held on 11/19/2010. The hearing was held and concluded without further order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch.(MAC) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
111 NOTICE of Appearance by David A. Arthur on behalf of Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
112 ENTRY re: proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 11/30/2010. The parties appeared by counsel for a hearing on the scope of injunctive relief regarding this Court's Order on Cross−Motions for Summary Judgment. [Dkt. 103.] The Court reviewed proposals, heard oral arguments from both sides, and took the ruling under advisement. The Court noted that if Defendant seeks to challenge Mr. Willis' status as Class Representative, it must do so within seven days of this entry. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/1/2010. (Court Reporter Jean Knepley.) (LBK) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
113 ENTRY FOLLOWING HEARING ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. On November 30, 2010 the Court held a hearing to resolve remaining issues (see Entry). At the hearing, the Plaintiff Class agreed to the 45 day implementation period proposed by DOC, and withdrew its request for a 30 day period. The parties disagreed on one issue: Plaintiffs proposed that the Court compel DOC to pre−screen the religious sincerity of inmates who requested kosher meals before providing them, DOC opposed this suggestion, proposing instead to provide kosher meals to all inmates requesting them in writing for religious reasons. The Court, mindful that injunctive [r]elief shall extend no further

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 10 of 24

12/08/2010
12/13/2010 12/13/2010
01/06/2011 01/06/2011 01/06/2011 01/06/2011 01/06/2011 01/06/2011 01/06/2011 01/06/2011 01/11/2011 01/14/2011 01/18/2011 01/21/2011

than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and declined to impose a screening requirement, though DOC certainly maintains that option. As to Count II, Mr. Willis proposed at the hearing that he receive $60.00 in nominal damages, reflecting the 30−day denial of Mr. Willis' two meals per day, valued at $1.00 per meal. Although DOC reiterated its disagreement with the merits of a nominal damages award, it agreed with the calculation as Mr. Willis articulated it. Simultaneously on this day, the Court enters its Final Judgment and Injunction on this matter. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/8/2010.(LBK) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
114 FINAL JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION. (See Judgment/Injunction for details). The Commissioner must comply with this permanent injunction within 45 days of todays date. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/8/2010.(LBK) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
115 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Move for Attorney's Fees and Costs, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
116 ORDER granting 115 Motion for Extension of Time to Move for Attorney's Fees and Costs. The time within which plaintiffs must petition for their attorney's fees and costs is extended to 30 days after the final appellate resolution of this case, or 30 days from the expiration of the time to appeal the Judgment in this case if defendants choose not to appeal the Judgment. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/13/2010. (LBK) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
117 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 114 Closed Judgment, 113 Entry, 103 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendants MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Voight, Cory) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
118 MOTION to Stay Enforcement of Judgment, filed by Defendants MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Voight, Cory) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
119 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 118 MOTION to Stay Enforcement of Judgment, filed by Defendants MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Voight, Cory) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
120 SEVENTH CIRCUIT APPEAL INFORMATION SHEET re 117 Notice of Appeal − Instructions for Attorneys − Parties' Short Record, Instructions, and Designation of Record information attached. (TMA) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
121 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 117 Notice of Appeal. − for Court of Appeals Use Only. (TMA) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
122 DOCKETING STATEMENT by MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION re 117 Notice of Appeal (Voight, Cory) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
123 USCA Case Number 11−1071 for 117 Notice of Appeal filed by MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Circuit Rule 3(b) Notice)(TMA) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
124 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number IP22031 re 117 Notice of Appeal filed by MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (cc: USCA re: CA #11−1071.) (TMA) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
125 RESPONSE in Opposition re 118 MOTION to Stay Enforcement of Judgment, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
126 Statement of Interest by THE UNITED STATES. (Songer, Michael) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
127 DESIGNATION of Record on Appeal by MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, MASTON WILLIS re 117 Notice of Appeal (Voight, Cory) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
128 REPLY in Support of Motion re 118 MOTION to Stay Enforcement of Judgment, filed by Defendants MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Voight, Cory) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 11 of 24

01/25/2011
02/02/2011 02/22/2011
05/09/2011 05/16/2011 05/18/2011
05/18/2011 07/20/2011 07/20/2011 07/22/2011 07/22/2011
07/22/2011

129 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 118 Motion to Stay the Injunction. Because each of the four factors considered by the Court favors denying the stay on the injunction necessitated by RLUIPA, the DOCs motion to stay the injunction is GRANTED solely as it pertains to nominal damages and is otherwise DENIED (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/25/2011. (MAC) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
130 ENTRY DIRECTING TREATMENT OF DOCUMENTS. The material received directly by the undersigned in chambers on January 25, 2011, shall be forwarded by mail to counsel for the plaintiff class. Counsel shall take whatever action which is appropriate relative to these materials. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/2/2011. Copy as indicated via U.S. mail.(LBK) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
131 ENTRY DIRECTING TREATMENT OF DOCUMENT. The letter dated February 10, 2011, and its attachment received directly by the undersigned from Mr. Blackman shall be forwarded by mail to counsel for the plaintiff class. Counsel shall take whatever action which is appropriate relative to these materials. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/22/2011. Copies as indicated via U.S. mail.(LBK) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
132 MANDATE of USCA as to 117 Notice of Appeal filed by MERLE HODGES and INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION−Upon consideration of the Motion to dismiss appeal filed by Appellants on 5/9/2011 it is ordered that this case is dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs. Oral argument scheduled for 6/7/2011 is vacated. (CBU) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
133 NOTICE Concerning Resolution of Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
134 ENTRY − The chambers of the undersigned have received a letter from Roman Lee Jones, which may be related to the instant case. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of the letter to counsel of record. If any counsel believes that the Court should consider the letter, counsel may file it. Until such time, however, the Court has not and will not read the letter. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/18/2011. Copy to counsel as indicated.(LBK) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
135 MARGINAL ENTRY − Based on the parties' agreement as to an award of attorney fees, the deadline previously imposed for Plaintiffs to file a fee petition is now vacated. Issued by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/18/2011.(LBK) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
136 MOTION to Compel, filed by Plaintiff NAJEE SABREE Q. BLACKMAN. (JD) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
137 BRIEF in Support re 136 MOTION to Compel, filed by Plaintiff NAJEE SABREE Q. BLACKMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(JD) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
138 MOTION to Compel, filed by Plaintiff NAJEE SABREE Q. BLACKMAN. (JD) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
139 BRIEF in Support re 138 MOTION to Compel, filed by Plaintiff NAJEE SABREE Q. BLACKMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Letter dated 6/14/2011 from ACLU, # 2 Exhibit B − Offender Request for Religios Accomodation, # 3 Exhibit C − Religious Services Memo, # 4 Exhibit D − Progress Notes, # 5 Exhibit E − Letter dated 2/18/2011 from Mark Dodd, # 6 Exhibit F− Offender Grievance, # 7 Exhibit G − Grievance Appeal)(JD) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
140 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Motion re 138 MOTION to Compel, filed by Plaintiff NAJEE SABREE Q. BLACKMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Letter dated 12/14/2009 from ACLU, # 2 Exhibit B − Final Judgment and Injunction, # 3 Exhibit C − Religious Services Memo, # 4 Exhibit D − Offender Grievance, # 5 Exhibit E − Letter dated 2/18/2011 from Mark Dodd, # 6 Exhibit F − Entry Directing Treatment of Document, # 7 Exhibit G − Grievance Appeal, # 8 Exhibit H − Letter dated 3/17/2011 to Judge Stinson, # 9 Exhibit I − Letter dated 4/18/2011 to Judge Stinson, # 10 Exhibit J − Letter dated 6/14/2011 from ACLU, # 11 Exhibit K − Letter dated 6/20/2011 to Mr. Butts)(JD) (Entered: 07/27/2011)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 12 of 24

07/28/2011 08/05/2011 08/29/2011 08/30/2011 12/13/2011 12/22/2011
12/22/2011 01/06/2012 01/09/2012
01/24/2012 01/25/2012 01/30/2012 01/31/2012

141 AFFIDAVIT in support re 138 MOTION to Compel compliance with order by NAJEE SABREE Q. BLACKMAN. (CBU) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
142 RESPONSE in Opposition re 138 MOTION to Compel, 136 MOTION to Compel, filed by Defendant INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Voight, Cory) (Entered: 08/05/2011)
143 ORDER denying 136 Motion to Compel, filed by Najee Sabree Q. Blackman and denying 138 Motion to Compel, filed by Najee Sabree Q. Blackman. The Clerk is directed to remove Najee Sabree Q. Blackman from the caption in this action. (SEE ENTRY). (copy to Najee Sabree Q. Blackman via U.S. Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 8/29/2011. (JKS) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
144 REPLY in Support of Motion re 136 MOTION to Compel, 138 MOTION to Compel, filed by Plaintiff NAJEE SABREE Q. BLACKMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Chapter 4 Religions and Personal Expressions, Kosher Diet Sign Off Sheet, # 2 Exhibit B− Total Vegetarian Diet Plan)(JKS) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
145 Letter from Michael Hunter Haury re: Freedom of Information Request 5 U.S.C. Section 522 and 522(a). (MAC) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
146 MOTION to Intervene by Class Members for the Purpose of Seeking Contempt Remedies Against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Intervention by Roman Jones, # 2 Exhibit Intervention by Raphayl Miles, # 3 Exhibit Intervention by Brian Woodring, # 4 Exhibit Intervention by Paul Veal, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
147 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 146 MOTION to Intervene by Class Members for the Purpose of Seeking Contempt Remedies Against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
148 MOTION for Extension of Time to January 24, 2012 to file response to 146 MOTION to Intervene by Class Members for the Purpose of Seeking Contempt Remedies Against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction, filed by Defendant INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Voight, Cory) (Entered: 01/06/2012)
149 ORDER granting 148 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 146 MOTION to Intervene by Class Members for the Purpose of Seeking Contempt Remedies Against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction − The Court, being duly advised in the premises, now ORDERS the time in which to file a response to plaintiffs' motion may be filed enlarged by fifteen (15) days, up to and including January 24, 2012. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/9/2012. (JKS) (Entered: 01/09/2012)
150 RESPONSE in Opposition re 146 MOTION to Intervene by Class Members for the Purpose of Seeking Contempt Remedies Against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction , filed by Defendant INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Voight, Cory) (Entered: 01/24/2012)
151 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 2/1/2012, at 01:30 PM, in room #277, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 1/24/2012. (LH) (Entered: 01/25/2012)
152 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to March 2, 2012 to file reply to 146 MOTION to Intervene by Class Members for the Purpose of Seeking Contempt Remedies Against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction , filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
153 ORDER granting 152 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time − The time within which they are to file their Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Allow Class Members to Intervene for the Purpose of Seeking Contempt Remedies Against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction, is extended to, and including, March 2, 2012. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/31/2012. (JKS) (Entered:

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 13 of 24

02/02/2012 02/10/2012 02/14/2012 02/14/2012 02/14/2012
02/15/2012
02/24/2012 02/28/2012 02/28/2012 02/28/2012 02/28/2012 02/29/2012 03/01/2012 03/12/2012

01/31/2012)
154 Entry resetting Status Conference set for 2/1/2012. Status Conference reset for 2/8/2012 03:00 PM in room #277, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 2/2/2012.(MAC) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
155 Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch: Pretrial Conference held on 2/8/2012. The conference was held and concluded without further order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch.(MAC) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
156 ***WITHDRAWN, see Dkt. # 205 Order*** MOTION to Hold the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction in Contempt, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 6/12/2013 (JKS). (Entered: 02/14/2012)
157 MOTION to Dismiss Intervention Request (No. 146), filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/14/2012)
158 ORDER − The Court will grant the United States seven days to file an appearance as an interested party. If no appearance is filed, the Clerk is directed to remove the United States from the caption of this action. Unless leave to intervene is requested and received, or leave to file an amicus brief is requested and received, the United States may not participate in this action or file any briefs. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to the United States Attorney of this District and to the attorney who filed the Statement of Interest on behalf of the United States. (copies to Mr. Hogsett and Mr. Songer via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/14/2012. (JKS) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
159 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 3/14/2012 at 10:30 AM in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. The court will contact counsel by separate email with the call−in information to be used to participate in the conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 2/15/2012.(MAC) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
160 Joint MOTION for Protective Order , filed by Defendant INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
161 ***WITHDRAWN PER 165 ***RESPONSE in Opposition re 156 MOTION to Hold the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction in Contempt , filed by Defendant INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Voight, Cory) Modified on 3/1/2012 (MAC). (Entered: 02/28/2012)
162 RESPONSE in Opposition re 156 MOTION to Hold the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction in Contempt , filed by Defendant INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Voight, Cory) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
163 MOTION to Withdraw Document Filed Under Docket Entry 161, filed by Defendant INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Voight, Cory) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
164 ORDER granting 160 Motion for Protective Order. Protective Order issued. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 2/28/2012. (JLM) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
165 ORDER granting 163 Motion to Withdraw 161 Response in Opposition to Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 2/29/2012. (MAC) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
166 ORDER − The United States did not respond to the Court's 158 order of February 14, 2012 and is therefore ordered removed from the case caption. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/1/2012.(JKS) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
168 ORDER denying 146 Plaintiffs' Motion to Intervene − IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Allow Class Members to Intervene for the Purpose of Seeking Contempt Remedies Against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction, Doc. No. 146 , is DENIED, without prejudice. Signed by

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 14 of 24

03/19/2012 04/25/2012
05/03/2012 05/10/2012 05/14/2012 06/05/2012 06/07/2012
07/20/2012 08/13/2012 09/26/2012
09/28/2012

Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 3/12/2012. (JKS) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
169 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch: Telephone Status Conference held on 3/14/2012. Telephone Status Conference set for 4/24/2012 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. (TMA) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
171 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/24/2012. The plaintiff is directed to make a detailed proposal for resolution of the motion for contempt order (Dkt. 156) within 14 days, to which the defendants must respond in writing within 14 days thereafter. Telephone Status Conference set for 6/5/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. (TMA) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
172 SCHEDULING ORDER − The Plaintiffs have moved to hold the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction in contempt, Dkt. 156 . A hearing on this motion is set for July 20, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 307, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/3/2012. (JKS) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
173 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Appearance of Cory C. Voight, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
174 ORDER granting 173 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance. Attorney Cory Christian Voight withdrawn. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 5/14/2012. (TMA) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
176 NOTICE of Appearance by Grant E. Helms on behalf of Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Helms, Grant) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
177 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch: Telephone Status Conference held on 6/5/2012. With the parties' agreement, the current hearing on the Plaintiff's contempt motion is hereby vacated and converted to a settlement conference on July 20, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 277, United States Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. (TMA) (Entered: 06/07/2012)
178 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch: Settlement Conference held on 7/20/2012. (See Entry for details.) Telephonic Status Conference set for 8/10/2012 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. (TMA) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
179 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/10/2012. Telephone Status Conference set for 9/24/2012 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. (TMA) (Entered: 08/13/2012)
180 ORDER Directing Filing of Documents Resolving Pending Issues − The parties have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the pending issues in this case. Therefore, all pending motions, if any, are now DENIED AS MOOT and all previously ordered dates, if any, are VACATED. Within ninety days of the date of this entry, counsel shall file the necessary motion(s) to effect the resolution of the pending issues. Telephone Status Conference set for 10/29/2012 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 9/26/2012. (TMA) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
181 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch: Telephone Status Conference held on 9/24/2012. This case is set for a telephone status conference on October 29, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. Counsel are to contact the court at 317.229.3630 to participate in the conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. (TMA) (Entered: 09/28/2012)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 15 of 24

10/17/2012 10/30/2012
11/05/2012 11/05/2012
11/19/2012 11/28/2012 11/29/2012 12/05/2012 12/05/2012 12/05/2012 12/06/2012
12/13/2012
12/14/2012 01/02/2013

182 MOTION for copy of Class Order for Members filed by DANIEL E. WILKINS. (CBU) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
183 Entry and Order from Status Conference for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch held on 10/29/2012: The parties, by counsel, appeared for a telephone status conference on October 29, 2012, with the magistrate judge. This case is set for a telephone status conference on November 30, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. Counsel are to contact the court at 317.229.3630 to participate in the conference. The motion at 182 is DENIED AS MOOT in light of the representation of class counsel at the October 29 conference that his office will provide the requested information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 10/30/2012.(DW) (Entered: 10/30/2012)
184 MOTION for adjudication of Civil Contempt and other relief against defts−PLTF−Daniel Wilkins−Pro Se. (CBU) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
185 AFFIDAVIT re 184 MOTION for adjudication of Civil Contempt and other relief against defts PLTF−Daniel Wilkins−Pro Se. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Final Judgment and injunction, # 2 Exhibit Letter addressed to pltf from Ken Falk, # 3 Exhibit Memo dated 1/19/2011, # 4 Exhibit Offender Grievance dated 1/19/2011, # 5 Exhibit Memo dated 4/6/2011, # 6 Exhibit Offender Grievance dated 4/13/2011, # 7 Exhibit Offender Grievance Response Report, # 8 Exhibit Transaction History Report)(CBU) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
186 MOTION to Strike 185 Affidavit, 184 MOTION for civil contempt, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Arthur, David) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
187 Unopposed MOTION for Continuance of November 30, 2012, telephonic status conference, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
188 ORDER granting 187 Motion for Continuance. The telephone status conference is continued to December 13, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 11/29/2012. (LH) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
190 MOTION for FAIRNESS HEARING c/s filed by Daniel Wilkins−Pro Se. (CBU) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
191 RESPONSE re 186 MOTION to Strike 185 Affidavit, c/s DANIEL WILKINS−Pro Se (CBU) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
192 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis c/s DANIEL WILKINS− Pro Se. (CBU) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
189 ORDER denying 184 Wilkins' Motion for Adjudication and denying 186 Defendants' Motion to Strike − Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mr. Wilkins 184 Motion for Adjudication as both improperly filed and moot, and therefore DENIES Defendants' Motion to Strike, [dkt. 186 ], as moot. (copy to Daniel Wilkins via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/6/2012. (JKS) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
193 MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch: Status Conference held on 12/13/2012. The defendants must provide to plaintiff's counsel by January 11, 2013, their revised procedures proposal. Plaintiff's counsel must respond to defendants' counsel and the parties file a status report by February 11, 2013. The deadline established by the court's order of September 26, 2012, is extended, to be re−set upon receipt of the February 11, 2013 status report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. (LH) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
194 ORDER denying as moot 192 Wilkins' Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/14/2012. (copy to Mr. Wilkins via US Mail) (JKS) Modified on 1/4/2013 (JKS). (Entered: 12/14/2012)
195 ORDER denying 190 Wilkins' Motion for a Fairness Hearing. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 1/2/2013. (copy to Mr. Wilkins via US Mail) (JKS) Modified on 1/4/2013 (JKS). (Entered: 01/02/2013)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 16 of 24

02/08/2013 02/11/2013
03/12/2013 03/14/2013 04/11/2013 04/15/2013 05/13/2013 05/16/2013
06/11/2013 06/12/2013
08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/30/2013

196 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) and MOTION TO FURTHER EXTEND THE TIME TO FILE MOTION(S) TO EFFECT RESOLUTION OF THE MATTER by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed procedure, # 2 Proposed letters, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 2/11/2013 (JKS). (Entered: 02/08/2013)
197 ORDER granting 196 Motion for Extension of Time. IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall file a further status report no later than 30 days from this date and the deadline previously established by this Court's order of September 26, 2012, is extended further, to be reset upon receipt of the next status report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 2/11/2013. (TMA) (Main Document 197 replaced on 2/12/2013) (TMA). (Entered: 02/12/2013)
198 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) and Motion to Further Extend the Time to File Motion(s) to Effect Resolution of the Matter by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Procedures)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 3/13/2013 (JKS). (Entered: 03/12/2013)
199 ORDER granting 198 Motion to Further Extend the Time to File Motion(s) to Effect Resolution of the Matter. (See Order for deadline.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 3/14/2013. (TMA) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
200 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) and Motion to Further Extend the Time to File Motion(s) to Effect Resolution of the Matter by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 4/12/2013 (JKS). (Entered: 04/11/2013)
201 ORDER granting 200 Motion to Further Extend the Time to File Motion(s) to Effect Resolution of the Matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 4/15/2013. (TMA) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
202 STATUS REPORT −JOINT− and Motion to Further Extend Time to File Motion(s) to Effect Resolution of the Matter by MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 5/14/2013 (JKS). (Entered: 05/13/2013)
203 ORDER: The parties, having filed their Joint Status Report and Motion to Further Extend the Time to File Motion(s) to Effect Resolution of the Matter, and the court, having read the filing, determines the motion should be GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall file a further status report no later than 30 days from this date and the deadline previously established by this court's order of September 26, 2012, is extended further, to be reset upon receipt of the next status report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 5/16/2013.(SWM) (Entered: 05/16/2013)
204 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw 156 Contempt Petition, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) Modified on 6/12/2013 (JKS). (Entered: 06/11/2013)
205 ORDER granting 204 Motion to Withdraw 156 MOTION to Hold the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction in Contempt − IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the contempt motion of Maston Willis (ECF No. 156) is WITHDRAWN and this matter is, and this case remains, closed. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 6/12/2013. (JKS) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
206 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene for the Purpose of Seeking Contempt Remedies, filed by Plaintiff T. HARRIS. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
207 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 206 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene, filed by Plaintiff T. HARRIS. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
208 MOTION by Thomas P. Harris to Intervene and to Seek Contempt Remedies Against the Commissioner of the Department of Correction, filed by Plaintiff T. HARRIS. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
209 MOTION for Court's Assistance, filed by NON−PARTY, Keith Hoglund −. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Letter from DOC and Inmate Requests for Interview, # 2 Exhibit B − various supporting documents, # 3 Exhibit C − various supporting documents, # 4 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 08/30/2013)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 17 of 24

09/10/2013
09/23/2013 09/24/2013
10/15/2013 10/15/2013 10/15/2013 10/21/2013 10/21/2013 10/21/2013 10/21/2013 10/21/2013 10/21/2013 10/21/2013 10/21/2013 10/21/2013 10/21/2013

210 ENTRY − The Court hereby ORDERS that class counsel and counsel for the Commissioner confer and report on the following by September 24, 2013: The propriety of requests for intervention by individual class members in light of Mr. Willis' continuing status as class representative; Whether class counsel will represent Mr. Harris and Mr. Hoglund; and The propriety of using a contempt mechanism for enforcement of the Court's December 8, 2010 injunction (as opposed to pursuit of a separate individual lawsuit) as a means to adjudicate an individual prisoner's claim that he was illegally denied a kosher meal. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 9/10/2013. (copy to Keith Hoglund via US Mail) (JKS) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
211 REPORT of Counsel by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
212 Order Following Report of Counsel: IT IS ORDERED that counsel shall report back to the Court no later than thirty days from this date concerning the status of Keith Hoglund. However, given that class counsel has undertakento represent Mr. Hoglund in his current dispute with IDOC concerning Mr. Hoglund's kosher meals, the Court DENIES Mr. Hoglund's Motion for Court Assistance [dkt. 209] as either premature or moot. Based on the Report of Counsel [dkt. 211], Mr. Harris is now receiving kosher meals, and has been adequately represented by class counsel. The motions to intervene [dkt. 206, 208] filed by Mr. Harris are therefore DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 9/24/2013. (DW) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
213 MOTION to Intervene filed by Willie R. Lee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Letter, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Offender Grievance Response Report, # 3 Envelope)(SWM) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
214 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene, filed by Willie R. Lee. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(SWM) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
215 MEMORANDUM in Support re 214 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene, filed by Willie R. Lee. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(SWM) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
216 MOTION by WILLIE R. LEE to Intervene and to Seek Contempt Remedies. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Letter from Dept. of Correction 5/31/2013, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Offender Grievance documents, # 3 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
217 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene for Purpose of Seeking Contempt Remedies, filed by WILLIE R. LEE. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
218 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 217 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene, filed by WILLIE R. LEE. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
219 MOTION by ORLANDO LYNCH to Intervene and to Seek Contempt Remedies. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
221 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene for the Purpose of Seeking Contempt Remedies, filed by ORLANDO LYNCH. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) Modified on 10/22/2013 (JKS). (Entered: 10/22/2013)
222 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 221 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
224 MOTION by JEREMY A. RATLIFF to Intervene and to Seek Contempt Remedies. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit − Letter from Dept of Corrections 9/3/2013, # 2 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
225 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene for the Purpose of Seeking Contempt Remedies, filed by JEREMY A. RATLIFF. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
226 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 225 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
227 MOTION by STEPHEN G. WRIGHT to Intervene and to Seek Contempt Rememdies. (Attachments: # 1 Memo from ISP Chaplain; Letter from Dept of Correction 7/18/2011; Grievance Document, # 2 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 10/22/2013)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 18 of 24

10/21/2013 10/21/2013 10/22/2013 10/22/2013 10/24/2013
11/01/2013 11/01/2013 11/01/2013 11/05/2013 11/06/2013
11/18/2013 11/18/2013 12/05/2013 12/05/2013 12/05/2013

228 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene for the Purpose of Seeking Contempt Rememdies, filed by STEPHEN G. WRIGHT. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
229 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 228 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
220 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) Concerning Keith Hoglund by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
223 STATUS REPORT Concerning Willie R. Lee by MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
230 ORDER: The Court ORDERS class counsel and counsel for the Commissioner to confer and report by November 7, 2013 whether they believe Mr. Lee, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Ratliff, and Mr. Wright are, in fact, members of the class, whether Mr. Willis is an adequate class representative to represent their interests, and whether pursuit of contempt is the appropriate means by which the putative intervenors should seek relief (as opposed to filing separate action). Class counsel has requested that the Court order him to file a status report within 30 days regarding Mr. Lee's situation. [Dkt. 223.] Class counsel is welcome to file a status report, however the Court is concerned with the general propriety of individual inmates filing motions to intervene on a piecemeal yet seemingly constant basis, and how this practice − which can and will be cumbersome for the Court if it continues, and which defeats the purpose of allowing this case to proceed as a class action − should be handled. Class counsel and counsel for the DOC shall provide relevant authority in support of their joint position, or individual position if they cannot agree (see Order for additional information). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 10/24/2013.(SWM) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
231 MOTION to Intervene and seek contempt remedies against the Commissioner of the Department of Correction. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(DW) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
232 MOTION to allow Class Members to Intervene for the purpose of seeking contempt remedies against the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections c/s. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(DW) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
233 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support c/s re 232 MOTION. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(DW) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
234 REPORT (JOINT) of Counsel by STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
235 ORDER − Based on the Court's review of the motions to intervene and for contempt, and on the parties' Joint Report of Counsel, the Court ORDERS as follows: The motions to intervene and to seek contempt remedies that are currently pending, [dkts. 213; 214; 216; 217; 219; 221; 224; 225; 227; 228; 231; 232], are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; This matter remains a class action with an adequate class representative and competent class counsel, through whom pro se inmates must seek relief before any petitions to intervene will be addressed on the merits. Future motions to intervene and for contempt remedies filed by pro se inmates shall be docketed by the Clerk (S.O.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 11/6/2013.(MAC) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
236 Verified MOTION by Orza Salone to Intervene and to Seek Contempt remedies. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
237 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene for the Purpose of Seeking Contempt remedies. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
238 Verified MOTION by Cory Middleton to Intervene and to Seek Contempt remedies. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 12/06/2013)
239 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene for the Purpose of Seeking Contempt remedies. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 12/06/2013)
240 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 239 MOTION to Allow Class Members to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 12/06/2013)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 19 of 24

12/09/2013
12/18/2013 12/19/2013 01/23/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014
04/08/2014 04/08/2014 04/08/2014 04/08/2014 04/15/2014
05/15/2014 05/20/2014

241 ORDER − This matter remains a class action with an adequate class representative and competent class counsel, through whom Mr. Salone and Mr. Middleton must seek relief before any petitions to intervene will be addressed on the merits. Through the motions, Mr. Salone and Mr. Middleton have not demonstrated that their interests are not being adequately represented either by the existing named plaintiff or by class counsel, or that class counsel has consented to the filing of the motions. Accordingly, the motions to intervene and to seek contempt remedies that are currently pending, [dkts. 236 ; 237 ; 238 ; 239 ], are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/9/2013. (JKS) (Entered: 12/10/2013)
242 STATUS REPORT (SECOND JOINT) TO COURT CONCERNING KEITH HIOGLUND by MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/18/2013)
243 MARGINAL ENTRY re 242 Second Joint Status Report to Court Concerning Keith Hoglund: As proposed, counsel shall report further upon receipt of a final decision. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 12/19/2013.(SWM) Modified on 5/16/2014 (SWM). (Entered: 12/19/2013)
244 MOTION to Show Cause and Hold Defendant(s) in Contempt. (Attachments: # 1 Supporting Documents, # 2 Envelope)(JKS) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
245 ORDER − Upon review of the docket, the Court notes that it appears some previous Orders were inadvertently not mailed to pro se non−parties. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to mail copies to those parties as indicated herein. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/21/2014. (copies mailed to non−parties as directed via US Mail) (JKS) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
246 ORDER re 244 Motion − This matter remains a class action with an adequate class representative and competent class counsel, through whom Mr. Boyd must seek relief before any motions to hold Defendants in contempt will be addressed on the merits. Through his motion, Mr. Boyd has not demonstrated that his interests are not being adequately represented either by the existing named plaintiff or by class counsel, or that class counsel has consented to the filing of the motion. Accordingly, the Motion to Show Cause and Hold Defendant(s) In Contempt, [Filing No. 244 ], is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 2/21/2014. (copy to Shavon Tyvell Boyd via US Mail) (JKS) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
247 NOTICE of Filing Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by THOMAS P. HARRIS (Class Member) (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (SWM) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
248 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by THOMAS P. HARRIS (Class Member). (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order, # 3 Envelope)(SWM) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
249 MEMORANDUM of LAW in Support re 248 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, filed by Thomas P. HARRIS (Class Member). (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(SWM) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
250 AFFIDAVIT of Thomas P. Harris in Support of Motion re 248 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Thomas P. HARRIS (Class Member) (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(SWM) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
251 ORDER denying 248 Motion for Preliminary Injunction − This matter remains a class action with an adequate class representative and competent class counsel, through whom Mr. Harris must seek relief before any motion for a preliminary injunction will be addressed on the merits. Mr. Harris has not argued in the motion that his interests are not being adequately represented either by the existing named plaintiff or by class counsel, or that class counsel has consented to the filing of the motion; and Accordingly, the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, [Filing No. 248 ], is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/15/2014. (copy to Thomas Harris via US Mail) (JKS) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
252 REPORT Concerning Kosher Diet Application of Keith Hoglund by MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
253 MARGINAL NOTATION re 252 Willis' Report − Report acknowledged. By June 4, 2014, class counsel is to further report whether he intends to seek relief for Mr. Hoglund in this action, or whether it is class counsel's position that Mr. Hoglund

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 20 of 24

06/04/2014 06/05/2014 06/11/2014 06/13/2014
08/06/2014 08/07/2014 08/08/2014 08/12/2014
12/02/2014 12/02/2014 12/02/2014 01/05/2015

should file a separate action. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/20/2014. (JKS) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
254 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to June 13, 2014 to File Further Report by Class Counsel, filed by Plaintiff MASTON WILLIS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
255 ORDER granting 254 Motion for Extension of Time to 6/13/2014 to file a report concerning Keith Hoglund. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 6/5/2014. (CBU) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
256 REPORT (FURTHER) Concerning Keith Hoglund by MASTON WILLIS. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
257 ORDER: On June 11, 2014, class counsel in this matter filed a Further Report Concerning Keith Hoglund, which sets forth − at the Court's request − the status of Mr. Hoglund's request for kosher meals and whether class counsel intends to seek relief for Mr. Hoglund in this action, or whether it is class counsel's position that Mr. Hoglund should file a separate action. [Filing No. 256.] Based on class counsel's Report, the Court ORDERS that, to the extent Mr. Hoglund wishes to pursue claims against the DOC relating to the decision not to provide him with kosher meals, he must do so through the filing of a separate action (see Order for additional information). Copy to Plaintiff and Class Representative via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 6/13/2014.(SWM) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
258 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Appearance of Grant E. Helms, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
259 ORDER granting 258 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Appearance. Attorney Grant E. Helms withdrawn. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 8/7/2014. (SWM) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
260 MOTION to Intervene as Class Member and Seek Contempt Remedies Against Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Corrections, filed by Joseph Williams−Bey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Various Documents, # 2 Envelope)(SWM) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
261 ORDER denying 260 Motion to Intervene − This matter remains a class action with an adequate class representative and competent class counsel, through whom Mr. Williams−Bey must seek relief before any petition to intervene will be addressed on the merits. Through the motion, Mr. Williams−Bey has not demonstrated that his interests are not being adequately represented either by the existing named plaintiff or by class counsel, or that class counsel has consented to the filing of the motion; and Accordingly, the motion to intervene and to seek contempt remedies that is currently pending, [Filing No. 260], is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 8/12/2014. (copy to Joseph Williams−Bey via US Mail) (JKS) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
262 MOTION to Intervene as A Named Plaintiff to Pursue Contempt Remedies against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction (Verified), filed by Plaintiff ALEX WITMER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter granting kosher diet, # 2 Exhibit Letter removing kosher diet, # 3 Verified Petition for Contempt)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
263 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth J. Falk on behalf of Plaintiff ALEX WITMER. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
264 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 262 MOTION to Intervene as A Named Plaintiff to Pursue Contempt Remedies against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction (Verified) , filed by Plaintiff ALEX WITMER. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
265 MOTION to Intervene as A Named Plaintiff to Pursue Contempt Remedies against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction (Verified), filed by Plaintiff ZOFO BENJAMIN. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Contempt Petition)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 21 of 24

01/05/2015 01/05/2015 01/06/2015 01/22/2015
01/22/2015 04/29/2015 05/14/2015 05/14/2015 05/14/2015 05/14/2015
05/14/2015
05/14/2015

266 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth J. Falk on behalf of Plaintiff ZOFO BENJAMIN. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
267 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 265 MOTION to Intervene as A Named Plaintiff to Pursue Contempt Remedies against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction (Verified) , filed by Plaintiff ZOFO BENJAMIN. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
268 Order Setting Status Conference − Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/21/2015 at 11:30 AM in Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. The purpose of the conference is to address the pending motions to intervene. Plaintiff and counsel for the defendants are to contact the court at 317.229.3630 to participate in the conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 1/6/2015.(RSF) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
269 MINUTE ENTRY and ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch: Telephone Status Conference held on 1/21/2015. The motions of Alex Witmer 262 and Zofo Benjamin 265 , are GRANTED. Witmer and Benjamin are now substituted as class representatives for Maston Willis, and the Clerk is directed to terminate Mr. Willis as a party. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. (PG) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Status Conference set for 4/29/2015 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch.(PG) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
270 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/29/2015. The conference was held and concluded without further order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. (PG) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
271 STIPULATION OF FACTS, filed by Plaintiffs ZOFO BENJAMIN, ALEX WITMER. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
272 Amended MOTION for Contempt (Verified), filed by Plaintiffs ZOFO BENJAMIN, ALEX WITMER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Witmer termination, # 2 Exhibit Benjamin Application, # 3 Exhibit Benjamin Request for More Info., # 4 Exhibit Benjamin Application with info., # 5 Exhibit Benjamin Denial)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
273 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 272 Amended MOTION for Contempt (Verified) , filed by Plaintiffs ZOFO BENJAMIN, ALEX WITMER. (Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
274 Submission of Evidence in Support of Amended Verified Petition for Contempt, filed by Plaintiffs ZOFO BENJAMIN, ALEX WITMER. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1− Deposition David Liebel, # 2 Att. Kosher App. 1−75, # 3 Att. Kosher App. 76−141, # 4 Att. Kosher App. 142−200, # 5 Att. Kosher App. 201−250, # 6 Att. Kosher App. 251−325, # 7 Att. Kosher App. 326−380, # 8 Att. Kosher App. 381−440, # 9 Att. Kosher App.441−510, # 10 Att. Kosher App. 511−575, # 11 Att. Kosher App. 576−609, # 12 Att. Kosher App. 609−682, # 13 Att. Kosher App. 683−750, # 14 Att. Kosher App. 751−825, # 15 Att. Kosher App. 826−900, # 16 Att. Kosher App. 901−980, # 17 Att. Kosher App. 981−1050)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
275 EXHIBIT Submission of Evidence in Support of Amended Verified Petition for Contempt Part 2 (Atts pp.. 1051−2050) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Att. 2 Kosher App. 1051−1125, # 2 Att. 2 Kosher App. 1126−1210, # 3 Att.2 Kosher App. 1211−1280, # 4 Att. 2 Kosher App.1281−1350, # 5 Att 2. Kosher App.1351−1400, # 6 Att 2. Kosher App. 1401−1470, # 7 Att.2 Kosher App. 1471−1540, # 8 Att.2 Kosher App 1541−1610, # 9 Att.2 Kosher App 1611−1680, # 10 Att.2 Kosher App 1681−1755, # 11 Att.2 Kosher App 1751−1820, # 12 Att.2 Kosher App 1821−1900, # 13 Att.2 Kosher App 1901−1980, # 14 Att.2 Kosher App 1981−2050)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
276 Submission of Evidence in Support of Amended Verified Petition for Contempt −Part 3− (Attachment 2 pp. 2051−3050), filed by Plaintiffs ZOFO BENJAMIN, ALEX WITMER. (Attachments: # 1 Att.2 Kosher App 2051−2110, # 2 Att.2 Kosher App 2111−2180, # 3 Att.2 Kosher App 2180−2250, # 4 Att.2 Kosher App 2251−2325, # 5 Att.2 Kosher App 2326−2412, # 6 Att.2 Kosher App 2413−2475, # 7 Att.2 Kosher App 2476−2540, # 8 Att.2 Kosher App 2541−2615, # 9 Att.2 Kosher App 2616−2690,

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 22 of 24

05/14/2015
05/14/2015
05/14/2015
05/26/2015 05/27/2015 06/22/2015 06/22/2015 06/23/2015 07/15/2015

# 10 Att.2 Kosher App 2691−2755, # 11 Att.2 Kosher App 2756−2825, # 12 Att.2 Kosher App 2826−2900, # 13 Att.2 Kosher App 2901−2950, # 14 Att.2 Kosher App 2951−2975, # 15 Att.2 Kosher App 2976−3050)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
277 Submission Of Evidence in Support of Amended Verified Petition for Contempt p Part 5 (Attachment 2 pp. 3051−4090), filed by Plaintiffs ZOFO BENJAMIN, ALEX WITMER. (Attachments: # 1 Att.2 Kosher App 3051−3125, # 2 Att.2 Kosher App 3126−3175, # 3 Att.2 Kosher App 3176−3250, # 4 Att.2 Kosher App 3251−3325, # 5 Att.2 Kosher App 3326−3400, # 6 Att.2 Kosher App 3401−3470, # 7 Att.2 Kosher App 3471−3530, # 8 Att.2 Kosher App 3531−3600, # 9 Att.2 Kosher App 3601−3670, # 10 Att.2 Kosher App 3671−3740, # 11 Att.2 Kosher App 3741−3810, # 12 Att.2 Kosher App 3811−3880, # 13 Att.2 Kosher App 3881−3950, # 14 Att.2 Kosher App 3951−3991, # 15 Att.2 Kosher App 3991−4020, # 16 Att.2 Kosher App 4021−4090)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
278 Submission of Evidence in Support of Amended Verified Petition for Contempt − Part 5 (Attachment 2 pp. 4091−5070), filed by Plaintiffs ZOFO BENJAMIN, ALEX WITMER. (Attachments: # 1 Att.2 Kosher App 4091−4160, # 2 Att.2 Kosher App 4161−4230, # 3 Att.2 Kosher App 4231−4300, # 4 Att.2 Kosher App 4301−4370, # 5 Att.2 Kosher App 4371−4440, # 6 Att.2 Kosher App 4441−4510, # 7 Att.2 Kosher App 4511−4580, # 8 Att.2 Kosher App 4581−4650, # 9 Att.2 Kosher App 4651−4720, # 10 Att.2 Kosher App 4721−4790, # 11 Att.2 Kosher App 4791−4860, # 12 Att.2 Kosher App 4861−4930, # 13 Att.2 Kosher App 4931−5000, # 14 Att.2 Kosher App 5001−5070)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
279 Submission of Evidence in Support of Amended Verified Petition for Contempt Part 6 (Attachment 2, pp. 5070 −5938, Attachment 3), filed by Plaintiffs ZOFO BENJAMIN, ALEX WITMER. (Attachments: # 1 Att.2 Kosher App 5071−5140, # 2 Att.2 Kosher App 5141−5210, # 3 Att.2 Kosher App 5211−5280, # 4 Att.2 Kosher App 5281−5310, # 5 Att.2 Kosher App 5311−5340, # 6 Att.2 Kosher App 5341−5400, # 7 Att.2 Kosher App 5401−5445, # 8 Att.2 Kosher App 5445−5510, # 9 Att.2 Kosher App 5511−5570, # 10 Att.2 Kosher App 5571−5630, # 11 Att.2 Kosher App 5631−5690, # 12 Att.2 Kosher App 5691−5750, # 13 Att.2 Kosher App 5751−5810, # 14 Att.2 Kosher App 5811−5870, # 15 Att.2 Kosher App 5871−5938, # 16 Att 3− Summary Chart)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
280 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to June 23, 2015 re 272 Amended MOTION for Contempt (Verified) and to extend time for plaintiffs' reply, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
281 ORDER granting 280 Motion for Extension of Time. The time for defendants' response to the amended petition is hereby enlarged to June 23, 2015, and the time for plaintiffs' reply in support is hereby enlarged to July 7, 2015. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 5/27/2015. (DW) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
282 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to July 7, 2015 re 272 Amended MOTION for Contempt (Verified) (unopposed motion), filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
283 MOTION for Court's Assistance with Kosher Diet, filed by Plaintiff JOSEPH T. WILLIAMS−EL. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(DW) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
284 ORDER granting 282 Motion for Extension of Time. The time for defendants' response to the amended petition is hereby enlarged to July 7, 2015, and the time for plaintiffs' reply in support is hereby enlarged to July 21, 2015. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 6/23/2015. (DW) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
285 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to July 17, 2015 Belated and Unopposed, filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 07/15/2015)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 23 of 24

07/16/2015 07/17/2015 07/30/2015 08/17/2015
12/07/2015 01/12/2016
03/02/2016 03/08/2016
04/06/2016 04/07/2016

286 ORDER granting Defendants' 285 Motion for Extension of Time. The time for defendants' response to the 272 amended contempt petition is hereby enlarged to July 17, 2015, and the time for plaintiffs' reply in support, if any, is hereby enlarged to July 31, 2015. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 7/16/2015. (BGT) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
287 RESPONSE in Opposition re 272 Amended MOTION for Contempt (Verified) , filed by Defendants STEPHEN HALL, MERLE HODGES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Approved offender list, # 2 Exhibit Religious Services Procedure, # 3 Exhibit Offender Information System Religious Preference History, # 4 Exhibit Hot Lil Chub label)(Arthur, David) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
288 REPLY in Support of Motion re 272 Amended MOTION for Contempt (Verified) , filed by Plaintiffs ZOFO BENJAMIN, ALEX WITMER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
289 ORDER. This matter remains a class action with adequate class representatives and competent class counsel, through whom Mr. Williams−El must seek relief before any motion for assistance will be addressed on the merits. Through the motion, Mr. Williams−El has not demonstrated that his interests are not being adequately represented either by the existing named plaintiffs or by class counsel, or that class counsel has consented to the filing of the motion; and Accordingly, Mr. Williams−El's motion that is currently pending, [Filing No.283], is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 8/17/2015. Copy sent to Mr. Williams−El via U.S. Mail. (BGT) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
290 ORDER Setting Settlement Conference and Related Deadlines: Settlement Conference set for 1/8/2016 01:30 PM in room #277, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. On or before three (3) business days before the conference, the parties shall submit (not file) a confidential settlement statement (see Order for additional information). Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 12/7/2015.(SWM) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
291 ENTRY and ORDER from Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 1/8/2016. The conference was held and concluded with the parties' agreement in principle that would resolve the pending contempt motion. Plaintiffs' counsel will provide a draft settlement agreement to defense counsel by January 14, 2016; defendants will provide any comments by January 19, 2016. Counsel should copy the magistrate judge (judgelynchchambers@insd.uscourts.gov) on these communications. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. (KGK) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
292 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 3/7/2016 10:00 AM (Eastern) in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. The parties are to contact the court at 317.229.3630 to participate in the conference. Where multiple counsel representing a party are participating in the conference, those counsel should call in to the court on a single line. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 3/2/2016.(SWM) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
293 ENTRY from Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 3/7/2016 and ORDER Directing Filing of Settlement Documents. The court has been advised that the parties have agreed to a settlement of the pending matters in this case. Therefore, all pending motions are now DENIED AS MOOT, and all previously ordered dates relating to discovery, filings, schedules, conferences, and trial, if any, are VACATED. Within thirty days of the date of this order, counsel shall file the settlement documents, along with a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and approval of the form of class notice. (See Order.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch. (KGK) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
294 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to April 28, 2016 to File Settlement Documents, filed by Plaintiffs ZOFO BENJAMIN, ALEX WITMER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
295 ORDER granting 294 Motion for Extension of Time to 4/28/2016 to file their settlement documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 4/7/2016. (CBU) (Entered: 04/07/2016)

Case: 1:09-cv-815 As of: 07/06/2017 12:44 PM EDT 24 of 24

04/27/2016 04/28/2016 05/19/2016 05/20/2016 06/08/2016
06/10/2016 07/21/2016 07/27/2016
04/10/2017 04/13/2017 04/14/2017 04/25/2017

296 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to May 19, 2016 to File Settlement Documents (Further Request), filed by Plaintiffs ZOFO BENJAMIN, ALEX WITMER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
297 ORDER granting Parties' 296 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File settlement documents to 5/19/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 4/28/2016. (SWM) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
298 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to June 9, 2016 to File Settlement Documents (Further Request), filed by Plaintiffs ZOFO BENJAMIN, ALEX WITMER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
299 ORDER granting Parties' 298 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File settlement documents to 6/9/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 5/20/2016. (SWM) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
300 STIPULATION of Parties to Enter into Private Settlement Agreement after Plaintiffs' Counsel Gives Notice to the Class and After Fairness Hearing / Motion to Approve Form and Manner of Notice, filed by Plaintiffs ZOFO BENJAMIN, ALEX WITMER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed class notice, # 2 Text of Proposed Order concerning class notice)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
301 ORDER approving re 300 Stipulation. Fairness Hearing set for 7/27/2016 at 1:30 PM in room #307, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 6/10/2016.(CBU) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
302 REPORT of Class Counsel Following Notice to the Class by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Comments of class members)(Falk, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
303 ORDER − This matter comes before the Court after the filing of the Stipulation to Enter Into Private Settlement Agreement After Plaintiffs' Counsel Gives Notice to the Class and After Fairness Hearing. (Dkt. 300.) On July 27, 2016, this Court held a fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to determine whether the proposed settlement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of this matter. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Private Settlement Agreement will remain in effect for three years from this date. At that time, absent written agreement as noted in paragraph 28 of the Private Settlement Agreement, the Agreement will automatically be dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending contempt matter [dkt 272] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (SEE ORDER FOR MORE DETAILS.) (Court Reporter Jean Knepley.)(MRI) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
304 Letter re: Current Situation from Raphael Driver. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (MAC) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
305 ENTRY − The Court has received a letter 304 , but the case is closed. The letter has been docketed and therefore Plaintiff's Counsel Falk should be aware of the issues it raises. Mr. Falk may take whatever action he considers appropriate. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus−Stinson on 4/13/2017.(JRB) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
306 Letter regarding Kosher Diet Sacks from Raphael D. Driver. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (SWM) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
307 Letter from Donald J. Klinzman. (JRB) (Main Document 307 replaced on 4/25/2017) (JRB). (Entered: 04/25/2017)

Case #: 1:09−cv−00815−JMS−DML

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 07/01/09 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

.09 JUL - I PM I: 0I

MASTON WILLIS,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

) COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTION;

)

STEPHEN HALL, in his official and individual )

~~~

)

MERLE HODGES, in his official and individual )

capacity,

)

)

Defendants.

)

No.
1:09 CV·0815LJM ..JMS

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Nominal Damages Introduction 1. Maston Willis is an Orthodox Jewish prisoner who, because of his religious beliefs, has received a kosher diet for many years while he has been incarcerated within the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC"). However, the breakfasts being served to him and the other Jewish prisoners were not kosher. Therefore, he refused to eat the breakfasts served. As a result, and because of a policy created without notice by defendant Hall, and implemented by defendant Hodges, that provides that if a prisoner does not use his kosher diet privileges more than 75% of the time they will be revoked, he had his kosher diet, and his ability to receive any kosher food, removed for a period of thirty (30) days. However, even though the thirty (30) day period has expired defendants ·have not returned his kosher diet to him. This action is brought to challenge defendants' policy that caused the removal of Mr. Willis' kosher diet and requests injunctive relief

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 07/01/09 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2
against the policy and further asks that his kosher diet be restored. Nominal damages are requested against defendants Hall and Hodges. Jurisdiction, venue, cause of action 2. This Court has jurisdiction ofthis matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1331. 3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 4. Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 5. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the laws of the United States. Parties 6. Maston Willis is an adult prisoner currently confined to the Miami Correctional Facility in Bunker Hill, Indiana. 7. The Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction is the duly appointed person in charge of the Indiana Department of Correction and is named in the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(d). 8. Dr. Stephen Hall is the Director of Religious Services for the Indiana Department of Correction and is sued in both his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief and in his individual capacity for nominal damages. 9. Chaplain Merle Hodges is an employee of the Indiana Department of Correction and is the chaplain at the Miami Correction Facility. He is sued in both his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief and in his individual capacity for nominal damages. Legal Background I0. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA")
2

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 07/01/09 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 3
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 applicability, unless the government demonstrates that the imposition of the burden on that person(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest.
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). 11. The term "institution" is defined as any facility or institution that "is owned, operated, or managed by, or provides services on behalf of any State or political subdivision of a State" and includes, inter alia, a "jail, prison, or other correctional facility." See 42 U.S.C. § 1997(1). 12. The term "religious exercise" is defined to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7){A). 13. RLUIPA applies in any case in which "the substantial burden [on the religious exercise of a person] is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance." See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(b)(1). Factual Allegations 14. The Indiana Department of Correction receives federal financial assistance and therefore is subject to RLUIPA. 15. Maston Willis is an observant Orthodox Jew. 16. As an Orthodox Jew he is commanded to obey the laws of kashrut and to keep kosher in his diet.
3

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 07/01/09 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4
17. Orthodox Jews, and Mr. Willis, believe that the laws of kashrut are commanded
by God and are explicitly set out in the text of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible)
in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
18. Among other things, kosher laws proscribe that:
a. Certain foods may not be eaten at all. For example, only land animals which have a cloven foot and chews their cud may be eaten. (Leviticus 11 :3-8). Thus pork may not be eaten, because pigs do not chew a cud. (Leviticus 11 :7). Fish may be eaten, but not sea food that has neither fins nor scales. (Leviticus 11 :9-12). Certain birds, including bids of prey, may not be eaten, although chicken and turkey may be eaten. (Leviticus 11:1319).
b. In order to be kosher, animals must be killed in accordance with Jewish law. (Deuteronomy 12: 20-24).
c. Meat and dairy products may not be eaten together. This law derives from the Torah's prescription that "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk." (Deuteronomy 14:21).
d. Utensils and cooking services that have been used to prepare or eat meat may not be used to prepare or eat milk dishes, and vice-versa. But, the status of a dish or utensil can be transferred from food and vice-versa, only in the presence of heat.
e. The separation between foods demanded by the laws of kashrut apply also to the dishwashers and sinks in which the plates, pots, pans and utensils are cleaned.
f. Although vegetables and fruit are kosher, they may not come into contact with non-kosher food, utensils or dishes
19 Orthodox Jews believe that the Torah is the word of God and they are therefore
compelled to follow the laws ofkashrut.
20. Keeping kosher is therefore a central and essential tenet of Orthodox Judaism.
21. The DOC recognizes that a kosher diet is essential for Orthodox Jews.
22. Prior litigation in this Court, Preston and Johns v. Donahue (No. 1:05-cv-260),
resulted in a Private Settlement Agreement providing that kosher diets should be
4

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 07/01/09 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5
provided to the two plaintiffs in the litigation. Subsequent to the execution of the Private Settlement Agreement kosher diets were provided to Jewish prisoners who requested the diet and were approved for the diet by each institution's Chaplain. 23. The DOC contracts its food services to a private entity, Aramark Corporation. 24. The kosher meals were provided through pre-packaged kosher meals, prepared by Ararnark, being delivered to the approved Jewish prisoners when they went through the meal line. 25. Each prisoner approved for a kosher diet is given a kosher diet card that denotes his eligibility to receive the kosher diet. 26. As an Orthodox Jewish prisoner who was approved for a kosher diet, Mr. Willis was placed on the kosher diet list at Miami Correctional Facility and received a kosher diet card. 27. As a result he has received pre-packaged kosher lunches and dinners for a number of years. 28. Although pre-packaged kosher lunches and dinners have been provided, Mr. Willis and the other Orthodox Jews at Miami Correctional Facility have not been provided with pre-packaged kosher breakfasts. 29. Instead, the prisoners on the kosher diet list receive only the breakfasts that all prisoners are served. No special accommodations are made for the breakfast meal although the prisoners are required to show their kosher diet card before they receive the non-kosher diets. 30. A number of these breakfasts contain meat and milk products which means that the meals are not kosher.
5

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 07/01/09 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6
31. Moreover, the meals feature hot foods, such as pancakes, which are prepared with pans, utensils, and cook surfaces which are not kosher. Therefore, the meals are not kosher. 32. Additionally, the silverware used for the breakfasts is the same silverware that is used for other meals which may include non-kosher foods or combinations of food (e.g. meat and milk) that violate the rules ofkashrut. The silverware is not kosher. 33. The trays on which the breakfast food is placed are the same trays on which other foods are placed for other meals. The trays, and therefore the food on them, are not kosher. By contrast, the kosher meals served at the prison are on disposable trays which are not re-used. 34. Given that the breakfast meal is not kosher Mr. Willis and a number of the other Jewi'sh prisoners did not eat breakfast. Instead, they stayed in their living areas, with permission of prison personnel, and did not go to the dining hall. 35. Given that the breakfast food is not kosher, Mr. Willis determined that he could not eat the breakfasts as a matter of his religious faith and principles. He continued to eat the pre-packaged kosher lunches and dinners. 36. He did not go through the breakfast diet line and he did not use his kosher diet card inasmuch as he did not eat breakfast. 37. Dr. Hall has created a new policy that if a prisoner does not use a diet card at least 75% of the time he will be removed from the diet list for a period of thirty (30) days, after which he may be restored to the diet by the Chaplain if it is a religious diet. 38. Mr. Willis and the other prisoners were not given notice of this policy. 39. Because of this policy, Mr. Willis was removed from the kosher diet list because
6

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 07/01/09 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7
he did not use his diet card for breakfasts. 40. Chaplain Hodges confiscated his diet card. 41. Because Mr. Willis did not present his kosher diet card for breakfast, because he did not go to breakfast, defendants Hall and Willis treated him as if he was not obeying the laws ofkashrut. 42. This removal and confiscation occurred despite the fact that the breakfast meal was not kosher. 43. He timely filed and exhausted his gnevances to appeal this removal. His grievance documents are attached to this complaint. 44. His grievances were denied. 45. During his suspension period he was not allowed to receive any kosher diet and was forced to eat the regular food at the institution. 46. This is grossly contrary to his religious beliefs and the commands that are imposed upon him as an Orthodox Jew. 47. The other Orthodox Jewish prisoners who were refusing to eat the non-kosher diets also had their kosher diet cards suspended and confiscated by defendant Hodges. 48. At the end of the thirty (30) day period he reapplied for his kosher diet card from defendant Hodges. 49. Defendant Hodges informed him that Defendant Hall had imposed a new policy that resulted in Mr. Willis being allowed only a vegetarian diet, not a kosher diet. 50. A vegetarian diet is not kosher because the meals are prepared with the pots, pans, utensils, etc, in the Miami Correctional Facility which are not kosher. 51. Prisoners who had not, or have not, had their kosher diet cards taken continue to
7

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 07/01/09 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 8
receive the pre-packaged kosher meals. 52. If Mr. Willis had not been terminated from his kosher diet because of Dr. Hall's policy, implemented by Chaplain Hodges, he would still have his kosher diet card and would still be receiving the pre-packaged kosher lunches and dinners. 53. As it is now, he is not receiving any kosher diet at all. 54. As applied to Mr. Willis, a person who refused breakfasts because they were not kosher, defendants' policy terminating the kosher diet has imposed a substantial burden on the exercise of his religion without justification. 55. Dr. Hall and Chaplain Hodges are personally liable to plaintiff Willis for the nominal damages caused by the unlawful termination of his kosher diet. 56. If the kosher diet is restored to Mr. Willis, he will continue to refuse to eat breakfast as long as it not kosher. 57. At all times defendants have acted under color of state law. 58. The actions and inactions defendants are causing plaintiff irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Legal claim 56. The policy, created by and/or implemented by the defendants, under which Mr. Willis' kosher diet was terminated after he failed to use his kosher diet card to obtain non-kosher meals, imposes, without justification, a substantial burden on Mr. Willis' religion and religious exercise, and is therefore unlawful as violating RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a).
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Court: a. Accept jurisdiction of this case and set it for hearing.
8

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 1 Filed 07/01/09 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 9

b. Declare that defendants have violated plaintiff's rights under RLUIPA as specified above.

c. Enter a preliminary injunction, later to be made permanent, which enjoins defendants' policy terminating kosher diets for non-compliance when the noncompliance is occasioned by the failure to serve meals which are kosher and enjoining defendant to place Mr. Willis back in the same position he would have been in but for the unlawful termination.

d. Award plaintiff his nominal damages against defendants Dr. Hall and Chaplain Hodges in their individual capacities.

e. Award plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42
u.s.c. § 1988.

f.

Award all other proper relief.

ACLU of Indiana 103 1 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 ext. 229 fax: 317/635-4105 kfalk@aclu-in.org
Attorney for Plaintiff

9

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 17 Filed 08/18/09 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 79

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MASTON WILLIS, on his own behalf and

)

on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

) No. 1:09-cv-815 LJM-JMS

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF CORRECTION;

)

STEPHEN HALL, in his official and individual )

capacity,

)

MEARL HODGES, in his official and individual )

capacity,

)

) COMPLAINT-CLASS ACTION

Defendants.

)

Second Amended ComplaintClass Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Individual Claim
for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Nominal Damages Introduction 1. The Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”), through his Director of Religious Services, has determined that kosher diets are no longer to be provided to any prisoners, including Jewish prisoners and prisoners of other religious faiths whose religion requires them to keep kosher. Instead, the prisoners are being provided vegetarian diets which are not kosher. Maston Willis is an Orthodox Jewish prisoner who is required to keep kosher as an essential tenet of his religion. The DOC’s actions violate the rights of Mr. Willis and the putative class under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). Injunctive and

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 17 Filed 08/18/09 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 80
corresponding declaratory relief is requested. This claim is raised in Count 1 of this complaint. 2. Even prior to the termination of kosher diets, the breakfasts served to Mr. Willis were not kosher. Therefore, he refused to eat the breakfasts served. As a result, and because of a policy created without notice by defendant Hall, and implemented by defendant Hodges, that provides that if a prisoner does not use his kosher diet privileges more than 75% of the time they will be revoked, he had his kosher diet, and his ability to receive any kosher food, removed for a period of thirty (30) days. This removal was unlawful and the plaintiff asks, in his individual capacity, for declaratory and injunctive relief against the DOC and nominal against defendants Hall and Hodges for their violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. This claim is raised in Count 2 of this complaint. Jurisdiction, venue, cause of action 3. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C ' 1331. 4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1391. 5. Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. '' 2201 and 2202. 6. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Parties 7. Maston Willis is an adult prisoner currently confined to the Miami Correctional Facility in Bunker Hill, Indiana.
2

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 17 Filed 08/18/09 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 81
8. The Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction is the duly appointed person in charge of the Indiana Department of Correction and is named in the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(d). 9. Dr. Stephen Hall is the Director of Religious Services for the Indiana Department of Correction and is sued in both his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief and in his individual capacity for nominal damages. 10. Chaplain Mearl Hodges is an employee of the Indiana Department of Correction and is the chaplain at the Miami Correction Facility. He is sued in both his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief and in his individual capacity for nominal damages. Legal Background 11. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”) 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 applicability, unless the government demonstrates that the imposition of the burden on that person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
interest. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). 12. The term “institution” is defined as any facility or institution that “is owned, operated, or managed by, or provides services on behalf of any State or political subdivision of a State” and includes, inter alia, a “jail, prison, or other correctional facility.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1997(1).
3

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 17 Filed 08/18/09 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 82
13. The term “religious exercise” is defined to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” See 42 U.S.C. §
2000cc-5(7)(A).
14. RLUIPA applies in any case in which “the substantial burden [on the religious
exercise of a person] is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance.” See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(b)(1).
Count 1 – The challenge to the denial of kosher diets for plaintiff and the putative class against defendant DOC
Class action allegations 15. Maston Willis brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of
those similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
16. The class is defined as:
all prisoners confined within the Indiana Department of Correction, including the New Castle Correctional Facility, who have identified, or who will identify, themselves to the Indiana Department of Correction as requiring a kosher diet in order to properly exercise their religious beliefs and who have requested such a diet, or would request it if such a diet was available.
17. As defined the class meets all the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Specifically:
a. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. At this point the current size of the class is not known, but it is believed to be large.
b. There are questions of law or fact common to the class: whether the DOC’s refusal to serve kosher diets violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
c. The claims of the representative party are typical of those of the class.
d. The representative party will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
4

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 17 Filed 08/18/09 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 83
the class. 18. The further requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met in this cause in that the defendant, at all times, has acted or has refused to act in a manner generally applicable to the class, thereby making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole. Factual allegations 19. The Indiana Department of Correction receives federal financial assistance and therefore is subject to RLUIPA. 20. Maston Willis is an observant Orthodox Jew. 21. As an Orthodox Jew he is commanded to obey the laws of kashrut and to keep kosher in his diet. 22. Orthodox Jews, and Mr. Willis, believe that the laws of kashrut are commanded by God and are explicitly set out in the text of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy. 23. Among other things, kosher laws proscribe that:
a. Certain foods may not be eaten at all. For example, only land animals which have a cloven foot and chew their cud may be eaten. (Leviticus 11:3-8). Thus pork may not be eaten, because pigs do not chew their cud. (Leviticus 11:7). Fish may be eaten, but not sea food that has neither fins nor scales. (Leviticus 11:9-12). Certain birds, including bids of prey, may not be eaten, although chicken and turkey may be eaten. (Leviticus 11:1319).
b. In order to be kosher, animals must be killed in accordance with Jewish law. (Deuteronomy 12: 20-24).
c. Meat and dairy products may not be eaten together. This law derives from the Torah=s prescription that AYou shall not boil a kid in its mother=s milk.@ (Deuteronomy 14:21).
d. Utensils and cooking services that have been used to prepare or eat meat
5

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 17 Filed 08/18/09 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 84
may not be used to prepare or eat milk dishes, and vice-versa. But, the status of a dish or utensil can be transferred from food and vice-versa, only in the presence of heat. e. The separation between foods demanded by the laws of kashrut apply also to the dishwashers and sinks in which the plates, pots, pans and utensils are cleaned. f. Although vegetables and fruit are kosher, they may not come into contact with non-kosher food, utensils or dishes 24. Orthodox Jews believe that the Torah is the word of God and they are therefore compelled to follow the laws of kashrut. 25. Keeping kosher is therefore a central and essential tenet of Orthodox Judaism. 26. The DOC recognizes that a kosher diet is essential for Orthodox Jews. 27. Prior litigation in this Court, Preston and Johns v. Donahue (No. 1:05-cv-260), resulted in a Private Settlement Agreement providing that kosher diets should be provided to the two plaintiffs in the litigation. Subsequent to the execution of the Private Settlement Agreement kosher diets were provided to Jewish prisoners who requested the diet and were approved for the diet by each institution’s Chaplain. 28. Other religions adhered to by DOC prisoners also require that their members receive a kosher diet and the DOC provided kosher diets to these prisoners as well. 29. The DOC contracts its food services to a private entity, Aramark Corporation. 30. The kosher meals were provided through pre-packaged kosher meals, prepared by Aramark, being delivered to the approved prisoners when they went through the meal line. 31. Mr. Willis was approved for a kosher diet. 32. The Director of Religious Services for the DOC has determined that kosher diets should be discontinued within the DOC and that prisoners previously authorized to
6

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 17 Filed 08/18/09 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 85
receive kosher diets because of their religious beliefs can now receive only vegetarian diets. 33. All kosher diets have been terminated within the DOC. 34. Mr. Willis is no longer receiving a kosher diet and he has been explicitly informed that all he can receive is a vegetarian diet. 35. The vegetarian diet served within the DOC is not kosher. 36. Vegetarian food is prepared on the same cooking surfaces and in the same pots and pans as are used for preparing meat or in which meat and milk have been mixed. 37. For example, breakfasts feature hot foods, such as pancakes, which are prepared with pans, utensil and cook surfaces which are not kosher. Therefore, the meals are not kosher although no meat is served with the meals. 38. The same is true of the other vegetarian meals at the institution. Even though no meat is served, the meals are not kosher because the pans, utensils and cook surfaces are not kosher. 39. Additionally, the silverware used for the meals is not kosher and may have been used in earlier meals including non-kosher foods or combinations of food (e.g. meat and milk) that violate the rules of kashrut. Given that the silverware is not kosher, the meals eaten with the silverware are not kosher. 40. The trays on which the food is placed are the same trays on which other, nonkosher, foods or food combinations, are placed for other meals. The trays, and therefore the food served on them, are not kosher. 41. By contrast, the kosher meals formerly served to Mr. Willis and the class members were served in disposable trays which were not re-used.
7

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 17 Filed 08/18/09 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 86
42. Mr. Willis has fully exhausted his grievances concerning diet issue and has been informed at the last grievance level by Dr. Stephen Hall, Director of Religious Services for the DOC, that “Kosher diets are no longer available. Offender may apply for and receive the new protein alternative menu personal preference diet.” The grievance summary form from the DOC is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 1. 43. The “new protein alternative menu personal preference diet” is the non-kosher vegetarian diet. 44. There are limited kosher foods available through commissary and Mr. Willis does not have the financial ability to feed himself through the foods available from commissary. Moreover, these foods are not necessarily healthy if eaten to the exclusion of all others. 45. As applied to Mr. Willis, a person who is commanded by his religion to maintain a kosher diet, defendant’s policy of refusing kosher diets and offering prisoners only a non-kosher vegetarian alternative imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of his religion in that it renders his religious exercise effectively impracticable. He is being forced to go without food or to modify his behavior, eat non-kosher foods, and violate his beliefs. 46. The DOC can not demonstrate that the substantial burden imposed on Mr. Willis’ religious exercise is justifiable under RLUIPA. 47. At all times defendant has acted under color of state law. 48. The actions and inactions of the defendant are causing plaintiff irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Legal claim
8

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 17 Filed 08/18/09 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 87
49. Defendant’s termination of kosher diets to Mr. Willis and the putative class imposes, without justification, a substantial burden on their religion and religious exercise and is therefore unlawful as violating RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a).
Count 2 – The challenge to the “75% policy” against defendants DOC, Hall and Hodges
Factual Allegations 50. The allegations contained in paragraphs 19-44 are restated and incorporated by reference. 51. Although pre-packaged kosher lunches and dinners were formerly provided to Mr. Willis. Mr. Willis and the other Orthodox Jews at Miami Correctional Facility were not provided with pre-packaged kosher breakfasts. 52. Instead, the prisoners on the kosher diet list received only the breakfasts that all prisoners were served. No special accommodations were made for the breakfast meal although the prisoners were required to show their kosher diet card before they receive the non-kosher diets. 53. A number of these breakfasts contained meat and milk products which meant that the meals were not kosher. 54. Moreover, the meals featured hot foods, such as pancakes, which were prepared with pans, utensils, and cook surfaces which were not kosher. Therefore, the meals were not kosher. 55. Additionally, the silverware used for the breakfasts was the same silverware that was used for other meals which may have included non-kosher foods or combinations of food (e.g. meat and milk) that violate the rules of kashrut. The silverware was not kosher.
9

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 17 Filed 08/18/09 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 88
56. The trays on which the breakfast food was placed are the same trays on which other foods were placed for other meals. The trays, and therefore the food on them, were not kosher. By contrast, the kosher meals served at the prison were on disposable trays which were not re-used. 57. Given that the breakfast meal was not kosher Mr. Willis and a number of the other Jewish prisoners did not eat breakfast. Instead, they stayed in their living areas, with permission of prison personnel, and did not go to the dining hall. 58. Given that the breakfast food was not kosher, Mr. Willis determined that he could not eat the breakfasts as a matter of his religious faith and principles. He continued to eat the pre-packaged kosher lunches and dinners. 59. He did not go through the breakfast diet line and he did not use his kosher diet card inasmuch as he did not eat breakfast. 60. Dr. Hall has created a new policy that if a prisoner does not use a diet card at least 75% of the time he will be removed from the diet list for a period of thirty (30) days, after which he may be restored to the diet by the Chaplain if it is a religious diet. 61. Mr. Willis and the other prisoners were not given notice of this policy. 62. Because of this policy, Mr. Willis was removed from the kosher diet list because he did not use his diet card for breakfasts. 63. Chaplain Hodges confiscated his diet card. 64. Because Mr. Willis did not present his kosher diet card for breakfast, because he did not go to breakfast, defendants Hall and Willis treated him as if he was not obeying the laws of kashrut. 65. This removal and confiscation occurred despite the fact that the breakfast meal
10

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 17 Filed 08/18/09 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 89
was not kosher. 66. He timely filed and exhausted his grievances to appeal this removal. His grievance documents are attached to this complaint as Exhibit 2. 67. His grievances were denied. 68. During his suspension period he was not allowed to receive any kosher diet and was forced to eat the regular food at the institution. 69. This is grossly contrary to his religious beliefs and the commands that are imposed upon him as an Orthodox Jew. 70. The other Orthodox Jewish prisoners who were refusing to eat the non-kosher diets also had their kosher diet cards suspended and confiscated by defendant Hodges. 71. At the end of the thirty (30) day period he reapplied for his kosher diet card from defendant Hodges. 72. At that point the DOC had created its new policy denying kosher diets as specified above and Mr. Willis was therefore offered only a vegetarian diet. 73. However, at the time that Mr. Willis reapplied for his kosher diet card prisoners who had not had their kosher diet cards taken still continued to receive the pre-packaged kosher meals.. 74. As applied to Mr. Willis, a person who refused breakfasts because they were not kosher, defendants’ policy terminating the kosher diet has imposed a substantial burden on the exercise of his religion without justification. 75. There is no valid penological reason to deny Mr. Willis a kosher diet because he refused to eat non-kosher food and this denial has no logical connection to a legitimate penological interest.
11

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 17 Filed 08/18/09 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 90
76. Dr. Hall and Chaplain Hodges are personally liable to plaintiff Willis for the nominal damages caused by the unlawful termination of his kosher diet and for the violation of his rights under the First Amendment. 77. If the kosher diet is restored to Mr. Willis, he will continue to refuse to eat breakfast as long as it not kosher. 78. At all times defendants have acted under color of state law. 79. The actions and inactions defendants are causing plaintiff irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Legal claim 80. The policy, created by and/or implemented by the defendants, under which Mr. Willis’ kosher diet was terminated after he failed to use his kosher diet card to obtain non-kosher meals, imposes, without justification, a substantial burden on Mr. Willis’ religion and religious exercise, and is therefore unlawful as violating RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). 81. The policy, created by and/or implemented by the defendants, under which Mr. Willis’ kosher diet was terminated after he failed to use his kosher diet card to obtain non-kosher meals, imposes, without justification, a substantial restriction, on Mr. Willis’ right to the free exercise of his religion in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Court enter the following relief in this cause:
a. Accept jurisdiction of this case and set it for hearing. b. As to Count 1:
12

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 17 Filed 08/18/09 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 91
1. Certify this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with the class as defined above.
2. Enter a declaratory judgment that termination of kosher diets for plaintiff and the putative class violates RLUIPA.
3. Enter a preliminary injunction, later to be made permanent, enjoining defendant from terminating the religious diets of plaintiff and the putative class and order that kosher diets be restored and continued into the future for qualified prisoners.
c. As to Count 2:
1. Declare that defendants have violated plaintiff’s rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment as specified above.
2. Once an injunction is entered restoring kosher diets in Count 1, an injunction should be entered which enjoins defendants’ policy terminating kosher diets for non-compliance when the non-compliance is occasioned by the failure to serve meals which are kosher.
3. Award plaintiff his nominal damages against defendants Dr. Hall and Chaplain Hodges in their individual capacities for violation of his First Amendment rights.
d. Award plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
e. Award all other proper relief.
/s/ Kenneth J. Falk Kenneth J. Falk No. 6777-49 ACLU of Indiana 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 ext. 229 fax: 317/635-4105 kfalk@aclu-in.org
Attorney for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
13

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 17 Filed 08/18/09 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 92
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on this 10th day of August, 2009, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of this Court. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system and the parties may access this filing through the Court's system. Eric J. Beaver Deputy Attorney General eric.beaver@atg.in.gov Cory C. Voight Deputy Attorney General cory.voight@atg.in.gov
/s/ Kenneth J. Falk Kenneth J. Falk
14

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 303 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 8382

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ALEX WITMER, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

No. 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA

)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,

)

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER FINDING PRIVATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO BE FAIR, REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE PURSUANT TO RULE 23(e) OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

This matter comes before the Court after the filing of the Stipulation to Enter Into Private

Settlement Agreement After Plaintiffs’ Counsel Gives Notice to the Class and After Fairness

Hearing. (Dkt. 300.) On July 27, 2016, this Court held a fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to determine whether the proposed settlement is a fair,

reasonable, and adequate resolution of this matter. The parties appeared by counsel at the hearing.

The court reporter was Jean Knepley.

Having considered the proposed Private Settlement Agreement and the report of class

counsel (Dkt. 302), as well as the arguments of counsel at the fairness hearing and the record in

this matter,

IT IS HEREBY FOUND AND ORDERED that:

1. On December 8, 2010, the Court entered its Final Judgment and Injunction that requires

the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) to provide a kosher meal

option to prisoners who, for sincerely held religious reasons, request it in writing. (Dkt. 114).

[1]

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 303 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 8383
2. This case is a class action, with the class defined as: All prisoners confined within the Indiana Department of Correction, including the New Castle Correctional Facility, who have identified, or who will identify, themselves to the Indiana Department of Correction as requiring a kosher diet in order to properly exercise their religious beliefs and who have requested such a diet, or would request it if such a diet was available.
(Dkt. 47.) 3. On January 22, 2015, Alex Witmer and Zofo Benjamin were allowed to intervene in this action and were substituted as class representatives for the original class representative. (Dkt. 269.) 4. On May 14, 2015, the intervening plaintiffs filed their Amended Verified Petition for Contempt, arguing that the DOC is in contempt for failing to comply with this Court’s Judgment. (Dkt. 272.) 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over all the parties, including the members of the certified class. 6. The parties have now entered into a proposed Private Settlement Agreement to fully resolve the pending contempt matter. The proposed Private Settlement Agreement does not modify in any way this Court’s Judgment in this case. However, in light of the fact that the proposed Private Settlement Agreement will result in changes to how the DOC assesses religious diet applications and compliance with restrictions on those approved to receive a kosher diet, the parties agreed that it is appropriate for notice of the proposed settlement to be given to the class and for the class to have an opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement. 7. The class has been given proper and adequate notice of the proposed resolution of this contempt matter through the proposed Private Settlement Agreement. This notice was given as required by this Court’s Order of June 10, 2016. (Dkt. 301.) 8. The notice invited class members to notify class counsel as to any objections to, or
[2]

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 303 Filed 07/27/16 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 8384
comments on, the proposed Private Settlement Agreement. The notice provides valid, due, and sufficient notification of these proceedings and the proposed settlement and includes information regarding the procedures for making comments on the proposed Private Settlement Agreement. 9. The notice to the class fully satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirements of due process. 10. The Court has reviewed the report of the comments made. 11. Following the standards established by Synfuel Technologies, Inv. v. DHL Express, Inc., 463 F.3d 646, 653 (7th Cir. 2006), the Court finds that the proposed Private Settlement Agreement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of the pending contempt matter for the following reasons.
a. The purpose of the pending contempt motion was to force the DOC to comply with this Court’s Judgment concerning the provision of kosher diets. The proposed Private Settlement Agreement puts into place substantive requirements designed to remedy alleged problems that had arisen concerning the approval of kosher diets and monitoring of compliance with the kosher diet restrictions by those approved to receive kosher diets. The Court believes that the proposed Private Settlement Agreement largely accomplishes the litigation goals of the plaintiffs in filing for contempt as it will circumscribe the discretion of the DOC to deny or revoke approvals for religious diets. Given the current status of the case, the Court finds that the comparison of the strength of this case with the settlement presented favors recognizing that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. b. The complexity, length, and expense of continued litigation weigh in favor of finding that the proposed Private Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Even if the DOC was found to be in contempt the likely remedy imposed by this Court
[3]

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 303 Filed 07/27/16 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 8385
would be to order the DOC to come up with a plan for correction. It appears to the Court that the proposed Private Settlement Agreement is such a plan, albeit without a contempt finding. Therefore, in the Court’s estimation, nothing would be gained by continuing the litigation, and further litigation would require further discovery at this point as well as an evidentiary hearing. c. As indicated, the Court has reviewed the reports filed by plaintiffs’ counsel concerning the comments of prisoners who have responded to the notice of the proposed settlement and has reviewed the comments that have been filed. The Court has no opinion concerning the factual or legal merit of the comments. However, the Court notes that few prisoners actually object to the proposed settlement itself. Instead, most of the comments that are relevant concern past difficulty with obtaining kosher diets. Plaintiffs’ counsel anticipates that some of these past denials will now be approved pursuant to the policy established by the proposed Private Settlement Agreement. The Court is confident that plaintiffs’ counsel will continue to monitor this and will continue to bring to the DOC’s counsel’s attention the cases of prisoners who are – in plaintiffs’ counsel’s estimation – improperly denied kosher diets or who have previous approvals improperly revoked. d. There is no evidence of any collusion between the parties entering into the proposed Private Settlement Agreement. The Court is satisfied that the Private Settlement Agreement is the result of arms-length negotiations. The Court acknowledges that the parties have, by separate agreement, reached an agreement to compensation to the named plaintiffs for what they claim are out-of-pocket expenditures to purchase food from commissary to attempt to eat a kosher diet. e. The class is represented by counsel who are experienced in class action litigation
[4]

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 303 Filed 07/27/16 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 8386
of this type. f. The stage of the proceedings and amount of discovery weigh in favor of finding that the proposed Private Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The proposed settlement was arrived at only after lengthy discovery, briefing and lengthy negotiations. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the proposed Private Settlement Agreement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of this matter. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Private Settlement Agreement will remain in effect for three years from this date. At that time, absent written agreement as noted in paragraph 28 of the Private Settlement Agreement, the Agreement will automatically be dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending contempt matter [dkt 272] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED on this 27th day of July, 2016.
_______________________________ Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana
To: All ECF-registered counsel of record
[5]

 
 Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 272 Filed 05/14/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MASTON WILLIS, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMISSIONER, INDIANA

)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

No. 1:09-cv-815 JMS-TAB

Amended Verified Petition for Contempt

Come now Alex Witmer and Zofo Benjamin, being duly sworn upon their oaths, and file

their amended contempt petition pursuant to this Court’s Order of January 22, 2015 (Dkt. 269)

and say that:

1. Pursuant to the January 22, 2015 Order they have been permitted to intervene as class

representatives in this case.

2. On December 8, 2010, this Court entered its Final Judgment and Injunction in this case

stating, among other things, that:

The Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction (“Commissioner”) must supply a kosher meal option for all meals served within any facility within the Department of Correction,. The kosher meals must be certified as kosher by appropriate religious authorities selected by the Indiana Department of Correction, which may be accomplished by purchasing pre-packaged meals certified as kosher. If the meal option is not utilized, the kosher meals must be recertified as kosher at the frequency specified by religious authorities.

The Commissioner must provide certified kosher meals to all inmates who, for sincerely held religious reasons, request them in writing.

(Dkt. 114).

Page | 1

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 272 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2009
3. Alex Witmer is an adherent of the House of Yahweh, a religion that requires its followers to eat a kosher diet and has a sincere belief that a kosher diet is a religious necessity. 4 He is an adult person currently confined within the DOC at the Pendleton Correctional Facility. 5. The DOC acknowledged his religious need for a kosher diet by providing him a kosher diet beginning in October of 2011. 6. However, in February of 2014 he received the attached notice from the Deputy Director of Religious and Volunteer Services for the DOC informing him that he was being terminated from his kosher diet because he had purchased the following items from commissary: Keefe Kitchen Grape Jelly, Sharp Bar Cheese, and Butterscotch Buttons on July 29, 2013. (Exhibit1). 7. The DOC provided no warning to Mr. Witmer before deciding to terminate his kosher diet. 8. Although the above commissary items were not marked as kosher on the commissary order sheets, Mr. Witmer believes they are kosher. Mr. Witmer did submit documentation as requested in the February 19, 2014, letter but the decision to terminate his kosher diet was not changed and his diet was terminated. 9. Mr. Witmer is aware that, at least in the past, items have not been marked on the commissary sheets as kosher, even though they are. 10. Mr. Witmer attempted to appeal the denial. His grievance was denied at the initial level and he sent his appeal to the final level by certified mail but he has heard nothing further. 11. Mr. Witmer has been denied a kosher diet since the notice he received in February of 2014.
Page | 2

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 272 Filed 05/14/15 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 2010
12. Because the regular institutional meals are not kosher, and because of his religious beliefs and the continued denial of his kosher diet, Mr. Witmer has been attempting to eat only kosher food off commissary as his sole food source since his kosher diet was removed. 13. This has required Mr. Witmer to spend money that he would not have had to spend if his kosher diet had not been revoked. 14. Mr. Witmer believes that beginning in March of 2014 he has expended, on average, approximately $120 a month in commissary charges that he would not have spent if he was still receiving a kosher diet. 15. Mr. Witmer will be again requesting a kosher diet. 16. Zofo Benjamin is an adult person currently confined within DOC at the New Castle Correctional Facility. 17. He was born a Jew and for more than the last year has attempted to comply with the commandments that he believes are imposed on Jews by the Torah. 18. He is listed as Jewish on the DOC’s Offender Information System where prisoner’s religious affiliations are noted. 19. One of the requirements that he believes are imposed on adherents of Judaism, including on him, is to comply with the requirements of kosher. 20. He is therefore required by his religion to eat a kosher diet and has a sincere belief that he must keep kosher. 21. In September of 2013 he formally applied for a kosher diet. In his application he explained that he was Jewish and explained why he was required to eat a kosher diet. (Exhibit 2)
Page | 3

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 272 Filed 05/14/15 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 2011
22. Instead of ruling on this application, which clearly specified his need, as a Jew, to receive a kosher diet, he was informed that he needed to provide more information as to why he needed a kosher diet, and he was required to identify:
• What foods are prohibited or required by your faith. • Food preparation standards required by your faith. • How following your requested diet relates to your religious practice • How a standard or vegan tray does not meet your religious needs. (Exhibit 3). 23. He grieved this refusal to provide him a kosher diet. The grievance was ultimately denied in April of 2014. 24. He provided the further information required by the Kosher Review Committee (Exhibit 4), and in April of 2014 he was denied a kosher diet by the Kosher Review Committee. The notice said, in part, “[y]our request for a special diet has been denied, based on the information provided in your request. The foods you identified as being prohibited by your faith are not served in our standard or vegan tray.” (Exhibit 5). 25. He did not receive this denial until September 30, 2014. 26. He again requested a kosher diet in September or October of 2014. He received no response to this request and he will be reapplying for a kosher diet as he received no response. 27. Because the regular institutional meals are not kosher, and because of his religious beliefs and the continued denial of his kosher diet, Mr. Benjamin has been attempting to eat only kosher food off commissary since his kosher diet was removed. The only food he eats from the food trays provided is bread, if it is separately wrapped, drinks when they are in sealed individual containers, fresh fruit, and peanut butter packages.
Page | 4

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 272 Filed 05/14/15 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 2012
28. Mr. Benjamin believes that since September of 2013 he has expended, on average,
approximately $75 a month in commissary charges that he would not have spent if he was
receiving a kosher diet.
29. The denials of kosher diets to Mr. Witmer and Mr. Benjamin were erroneous and
represent contempt of this Court’s Judgment in that the DOC has violated this Court’s
unambiguous command, has failed to substantially comply with the Judgment and has failed to
make reasonable and diligent efforts to comply.
30. The DOC has erroneously denied kosher diets to many other class members,
demonstrating a failure to substantially comply with the judgment and a failure to make a
reasonable and diligent effort to comply, by imposing rigorous standards and requirements to
obtain a kosher diet that greatly exceed the “delicate task” of assessing sincerity. Thomas v.
Review Board of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981).
31. Among other things the DOC has improperly denied kosher diets:
a. after demanding that the prisoner, who states that he or she needs a kosher diet because of his or her religion, articulate in detail: the foods that are prohibited or required by his or her faith, how his or her faith requires food to be prepared in a kosher way; how the requested diet relates to his or her religious practice; how the standard or vegan tray does not meet his or her religious needs.
b. because of the prisoners’ lack of sophisticated knowledge of kosher requirements or other requirements of their faith.
c. because the DOC makes a judgment that the prisoners do not “need” a kosher diet to satisfy the obligations of their faiths, despite the prisoners’ articulation that they do need a kosher diet and despite the fact that the prisoner may belong to a religion (e.g., Judaism, House of Yahweh) that recognizes that its adherents should keep kosher.
d. because the DOC draws negative conclusions from the foods the prisoner identifies as required by his or her faith and ignores the declaration that the prisoner needs a kosher diet.
e. because of the commissary purchases of the prisoners even though the purchases do not demonstrate a lack of religious sincerity.
Page | 5

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 272 Filed 05/14/15 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 2013
32. In further support of this motion the plaintiffs separately submit their Memorandum of
Law that is incorporated by reference.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court:
a. Find that the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction is in contempt of the Judgment of this Court.
b. Order that, within 30 days, the DOC create a new system for determining sincerity with regard to the receipt of kosher diets that:
1. Provides that if a prisoner is an adherent of a religion, as determined by the prisoner’s Offender Information System category or by his or her declaration, that has a recognized requirement that the its members keep kosher that the prisoner must be allowed a kosher diet absent compelling evidence of a lack of sincerity.
2. Evaluates sincerity without focusing on the prisoner’s knowledge of religious doctrine.
3. Evaluates sincerity without focusing on the prisoner’s articulating the precise foods allowed and not allowed by his or her faith.
4. Draws no conclusions from a prisoner’s commissary purchases during the time that he or she was not being provided kosher food by the DOC.
5. Provides that if it is determined that the prisoner is sincere in his or her request for a kosher diet that the prisoner be provided such a diet without any determination by the DOC as to whether or not the prisoner “needs” the diet.
6. Prohibits revocation of a kosher diet because of the consumption of nonkosher foods unless the prisoner is given an opportunity to stop consuming such foods.
c. Notify all prisoners of the revision of the kosher policy.
d. Review the applications of all prisoners, still in the DOC at the current time, who were denied a kosher diet at any time since kosher diets were reinstated following the decision in this case to determine if, based on the application, a kosher diet can now be provided and, if so, provide such a diet.
e. Allow, for the next six months, prisoners to reapply for a kosher diet even if final action concerning the earlier application or kosher diet was within the last six months.
Page | 6

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 272 Filed 05/14/15 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 2014
f. Order that Zofo Benjamin and Alex Witmer be given kosher diets and be compensated for the monies they have had to expend for additional commissary purchases to attempt to maintain a kosher diet. g. Impose all other sanctions to remedy the Commissioner’s contempt. h. Award plaintiffs their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. i. Award all other proper relief.
s/ Kenneth J. Falk_ Kenneth J. Falk No. 6777-49 ACLU of Indiana 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 317/635-4059 fax: 317/635-4105 kfalk@aclu-in.org Attorney for Plaintiffs
Certificate of Service I hereby verify that on this 14th day of May, 2015, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of this Court. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system and the parties may access this filing through the Court's system. David A. Arthur Deputy Attorney General David.Arthur@atg.in.gov
s/ Kenneth J. Falk Kenneth J. Falk Attorney at Law
Page | 7

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 272 Filed 05/14/15 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 2015

Case 1:09-cv-00815-JMS-DML Document 272 Filed 05/14/15 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 2016