2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 1 of 35 Pg ID 1
ORfGir~Al

UIITID STATES DISTIICT COUIT IASTIRI DISTRICT OF NICHIG11
SOUTBEII DIYISIOM

ERIC DOWDY-EL, AVERIS X. WILSON JAMES HOLLY, HUJAHID LATIF, on behalf of theaselves and all others si•ilarly situated
Plaintiffs,
vs

Case: 2:06-cv-11765
Assigned To: Cohn, Avern
Referral Judge: Komives. Paul J Assign. Date: 4/12/2006@ 3:03PM. Description: CMP DOWDY, ET AL V. CARUSO, ET AL (TAM)
ORIGINAL FOR THE COURT

PATRICA L. CARUSO, in her official capacity aa Director of The Michigan DepartMent of Corrections and DAVE BURNETT, in his official capacity aa Correctional Facilities Ad•inistration Special Activities Coordinator
Defendants,
-----------------------------------'
Plaintiffs' Address: G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility 3510 N. El• Street Jackson, Michigan 49201-8877
_(I_N_P_R_O_S_E_) ___________________/

Defendants' Address Michigan Depart•eot of Corrections
Grandview Pla%a Bldg.
_PL,_aOn_,s_inB_go_x, _M3_0i_0c0_h3i_ga_n__48_9_0_9 __________/

CIVIL liGHTS COMPLAIIT IUIBITS
MOTIOI FOR CLASS CIRTIFICATIOI MOTIOI FOR APPOIITMIIT OF COUISIL
VIIIFICATIOI
By: Plaht.ifh
(II PIO Sl)

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 2 of 35 Pg ID 2

DIITID STATES DISTRICT COUIT 14STIRII DISTRICT OF MICRIG&I
SOUTIEII DlVISIOJ

ERIC DOWDY-EL, AVERIS X. WILSON, JAKES HOLLY, MUJAHID LATIF, on behalf of theaselvea and all others siailarlr situated
Plaiatiffs,
'I'S

FILE NO: HON,

PATRICA L. CARUSO, in her official capacity as Director of The Michigan Depart•ent of Corrections sad
DAVE BURNETT, in his official capacity
as Correctioaal Facilities Adainistration Special Actifities Coordinator,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _D_e_f_e n_d_a_a t_s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ !

VIIIFIID COMPLAIIT PLAINTIFFS, who are believers and practitioners of the Iala•ic and Christian Religions, incarcerated in the Michigan Depart111eat of Corrections (HDOC) ,currently at the G. Rebert CottGa Correctio11al Facility, 3510 N. El11 Street, Jacksen, Michigaa 49201-8877, present this 42 USC §1983 Civil lialau C•••laiat against Patrica L. Caruso, Director of The Hichigan Depart•ent of Corrections, and Dave Burnett, Correctional Facilities Ad•iaistratioa Special Activities Ceordinator (CFA), located at the Grand•iew Plaza Bldg., P.O. Box 30003, Lansing, Michigan 48909; fo~; violation of Sec;tiea 3 of Tile Reliai••• Laa4 Uae ••• Iutitatieaeli:~~:ed Per•••• Act 42 USC
§2000c:c:.
1

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 3 of 35 Pg ID 3
CAUSE OP ACTIOI
Pursuant to Tke lell&iaaa Laad Use Aad Iastitatieaaliaed
Per•••• Act 42 USC !!i 2000ee-2 (a) a per•on •ay asl!lert a
violation of this chapter as a claiJR or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a govern•ent, Standi11g to assert a clai• or defe11se under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under Article III of the United States Constitution, Defendaots' refusal to change the policy governing religious beliefs and practices of prisoner!!! brings about this cause of actioll in this Honorable Court,
JUIISDICTIOI All YBIUI
This court has subject •atter jurisdiction over this cause of action pursuant to 28 USC 1';1331 (a) (b) in that this action arises under the Constitution of the United States; and pursuut to 28 USC !i1343 (a) (3) plaintiff's seek redress of their civil rights violations !Hider 42 USC §1983,
This court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 USC 2201 sad 2202, and rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
FACTUAL ALLIGATIOIS 1, By creating, approving and enforcing Section CC.
2

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 4 of 35 Pg ID 4
of Policy Directive 05,03,150 entitled Religious Beliefs And Practices qf Prisoners (Exltibit A), tlterein restricting plaintiffs/prisoners from being released fro• work and school assignments to attend religious services/meetings; defendants are depriving plaiatiffs/prisoners of the right to attead their Holy Day, Juma Prayer, Concregational Prayer, or Sabbath Services/Neetinas. The defenda~tts' restrietian seJ:ve no compelling government interest, and, if it Hd, said restricti1u is 110t the least restricted means by which to achieve that interest.
2, Defendants failure to provide Halal Heals for priiUioetl!l of the Islaaic Religion, as they provide losher Meals for prisoners of the Jewish Religion, and Special Religious Diet Meals fGr prisGners of the Buddhist Religion depJ:ives the Islamic plaintiffs/prisoners from practicing a very iaportant aspect of their relig.ion, Said reatrietion serves no eoapelli!ag governaent interest, nor would it be the least restrictiYe aeans br which to achieve that interest if there was ol'le. And said restrictien violates the Eq11al Protectien Clause of the U.S, Constitutien.
3, Defendants enforce•ent of Section GG, of Policy
Directive 05,03,150, entitled Religious Beliefs And Practices of Prisoners (Exhibit B), deprives plaintiffs/prisoners of the right to address each otlter by na•es or titles prescribed by their religion, and serves no co•pelling sovernaent
3

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 5 of 35 Pg ID 5
intereat, and, if it did, it woold not be the least restrictive aeons by which to schieve thst interest,
4, The defendants refusal to allow plaintiffs/prisoners to wear their religious aedallioos, pins and badges in the open, serves no co•pelling govern•ent interest, nor wodd it be the least restrictive seans by which to achieve that interest if one existed.
5. The defendants refusal to allow pri~oners to receive or purchase perfumed oils, denies the plaintiffs/prisoners of the Islaaic Religion the right to practice a very essetttisl practice of the religion, and serves no compelling governaent interest, ud, if i.t did, it would not be the least restrictive meaDs by which to achieve that iRterest if one existed.
6, The defendants enforc::e1aent of Section XX. of Policy Directive 05 .03 .150, entitled Religious Beliefs And Practices of Prisoners (Exhibit C) denies Religious Special l'leals (banquets) to all other religious groups besides those of the Jewish Religioa/Faith vho are permitted to have a Passover Seder, serves no coapelling government interest, nor would it be the least restrictive means by which to achieve that interest if one existed.
7, The defendants refusal to sllow aembers of The
4

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 6 of 35 Pg ID 6
Moorish Science Teaple of A•erica, Inc,, a legally chartered religious organi~ation to parchase Nationality Card8 with the money it receives fro• The Pfisoner Benefit Fand and the refusal to allow the members of The Moorish Science Temple of A•erica, Inc,, to receive donations of Nationality Cards, deprives those plaintiffs/prisoners who are 'lUMbers of The Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc., a Islaaic Organization from observing and practicing a very essential part of their religion and serves no compelling interest, and if it did, it wonld not be the least restrictive 111eans by which to achieve that interest if one existed.
8. The defendants refusal to allow plaintiffs/prisoners to wear religious head gear, daily, in the open, serves no compelling goYernment interest, and if it did, said restriction would not be the least restrictive •eans by which to achieve that interest.
By mail and a grievance these issues have been addressed to the officials that develop, approve and oversee the religious policy and programs of The Michigan Department of Corrections, defendants Patrica L, Caruso, and Dave Burnett. Letter to defendant Da•e Burnett ill marked Exhibit D and D part 2, his response is marked Exhibit D part 3, Grie't'auce to Michigaa Departaeat of Corrections Office of Prisoner Affairs against defendant Dave Burnett is aarked Exhibit E and E part 2, Letter to defendant Patrica L. Caruso
5

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 7 of 35 Pg ID 7

is aarked Exhibit F sent Yia Certified Hail Article Nuaber 7004 1350 0003 3649 0371 aad signed for by Jeremy Hall, Mail
& Delivery Services, Agent For State of Michigan on Feb,
14, 2006, response to that letter is aarked Exhibit G,

IILJ!F SOlYGJIIT VJIIIIIPOII, plaintiffs seek Declaratory
Iajaactive lelief as sach: Issue a declaratory judgaent stating that: 1. The Defendant(s) actions in placing the said
restrictions on the religioiUI beliefs and practices CJf the plaintiffs/prisoners are a Yiolation of the First SQ.d Fourteenth Aaendaents to the United States Constitution and The Religious Land Use And Institutioaali~ed Persons Act 42 USC §2000cc,

Issue an injunction directing Defendant(s) as such:

t. Plaintiffs/prisoners !lUSt be allowed to be released

froa WCJrk and school 81Uignmeats to at tend their Hoh' Day,

Juaa Prayer, Congregational Prayer,and Sabbath Day

Services/Meetiags,

2,

Plaintiff~/priso&ers who are of the Islaaic

Religion/Faith •ust be pro•ided with Halal Heals that eonfor•

to the dietary requireaents CJf The Islaaic Religion/Faith.

3. Plaintiffs/prisoners MUSt be allowed to address

each other by naaes or titles prescribed by their religioa,

without fear of punishment, harass•ent or imti•idation,

6

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 8 of 35 Pg ID 8
4. Plaiatiffs/prisoners must be allowed to wear their religious aedallions in the open, outside their clothing.
5, Plahtiffa/prisoners of the Islaaic Religion/Faith, must be allowed to receive and purchase perfumed oils.
6, Plaintiffs/prisoners aust be allowed to have a Religious Special Meal (banquets) to celebrate a essential holiday, event, etc. in the same manner that the Jewish Prisoners are allowed to have the Passover Seder.
7, Those plaintiffs/prisoners who are 11eabers ef The Moorish Science Teaple of America, Inc., a tslaaic OrgaRi zation, aust be allowed to purchase supplies of Nstienality Cards vith the money they receive fro• the Priaoaer Benefit Fund and receive donations of lfationalit:r Cards, froa officials of The Moorish Science Aaerica, Inc,
8. Plaifttiffs/prisol\era aust be allowed to wear their religious head gear daily in the open.
Defendants bs•e a dlltY to permit plaintiffs/prisosers to practice their religion/faith in accordance with the beliefs aad practices of their religion that are not a threat to safety and security. Defend•nts acting under the Color of State Law have breached that duty to plaintiffs/prisoners, thereby creating the violation of Tbo leligtaaa Laad Use
A•• Iaatitutiaaslize• Peraoas let 42 USC ~ 2000cc-3,
JUlY DIIUJII
7

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 9 of 35 Pg ID 9

Pursuant to Rule 36(a) (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure plaintiffs are requesting a trial by Jury in the above entitled action,

Defendants nor any agent for the defendants, should be allowed to take any retaliatory actions against plaintiffs vho represent the class, for filing this action in this Honorable Court,

WHIRIFORB, plaintiffs under the penalty of per jury, hereby deposes and state that all the atate111enta contained in this co11plaint are true to the best of their infor•atioa, knowledge and belief,

Respectfully Submitted,
I~~~
Eri,,c Dowdy-EL No, 139170
/kttwJ &JJ~..,-\
Averia X. Wilson No. 416601
-~ JJ, i-1-~
•es Holly No. 216282
-t:i u ;Lb_\;:d; 'tL~if~lf~N..:~- ~91s1

Date: L\~ 3- Q([)

Y- Date:

3-0~

Date: l..f-~-o£

8

,I)MENT TYPE 2:06-cv-11765-EAFFCEC-TDIVEROAGTE Doc # 1 FiledNU0MB4E/R12/06 Pg 10 of 35 Pg ID 10

OLICY DIRECTIVE

05124/04

05.03.150

o• PAG. 5

10

sacred are tre~ted with. respect and appropriate care.
AA. In Level IV, V and VI, group religious services and activities shall have in-room staff supervision at all times. In Level II and Ill, every effort shall be made to have in-room staff supervision when a religious service is being led by " prisoner assistant pursuant to Paragraph GG. In all other cases, the Warden or TRV Manager, as appropriate, shall determine· the need for in-room staff supervision for group services and activities. However, staff must be readily available in the area when in-room staff supervision is not required. Staff providing in-room supervision shall remain In the room where the service or. activity is baing conducted during the entire service or activity. To ensure that prisoners are engaging only in conduct appropriate to the practice of the religion, staff providing in-room supervision shall listen to and watch those attending the service or <Jctivity. This supervision shall be as
unobtrusive as possible, consistent with custody and security controls.
88. When attending group religious services or activities, prisoners shall engage only in conduct appropriate to the practice of the religion. Prisoners shall not guard or control, or position themselves so as to appear to be guarding or controlling, the entrance to or exit from the religious service or activity. Militaristic type behavior (e.g., saluting each other; marching) shall. not be permitted. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the prisoner being required to leave the area or result in termination of the service or activity.

CC. Prisoners shalt not be released from work or school assignments to attend group religious services or. activities, consistent with restrictions on attending other personal interest activities. Religious services and activities should be scheduled when the majority of prisoners have leisure time (e.g., evening and weekend hours). If resources permit, additional services. and activities may be scheduled to accommodate those prisoners who are normally on a work or school assignment when other. prisoners have leisure time. Chaplains shall be available at the facility when the majority of services and activities are scheduled.

DD. The Warden, FOA Regional Administrator or designee may reschedule any group religious

service or. activity at his/her facility, or restrict the size of the group attending religious services

or activities, for custody and security reasons.

LAW LIBRARY AdditionaiCFARequirements

0() I I UN

EE. Group religious services and activities shall be offered only for religious groups recognized by
the Department. Prisoners shall be permitted to attend only the group religious services and
activities offered for the religion slhe has designated in writing as his/her religious affiliation,
except that attendance at such activities by a prisoner In Level VI shall. be subject to the
approval of the Warden. Group religious services and activities. for prisoners in segregation shall be offered only as. set forth in PD 04.05.120 "Segregation Standards".

FF. The Warden may suspend religious group services and activities. if holding the service or activity would constitute a threat to the order and security of the institution. If a Warden
suspends group religious services or activities, it shall be reported through the appropriate chain of command to the CFA Special Activities Coordinator. Group religious services and activities may not be suspended for more than one week without authorization from the appropriate RPA and notification to the CFA Special Activities Coordinator.
GG. The institutional chaplain may approve a prisoner to temporarily assist in leading a group
religious service only if the. chaplain is. not theologic!llly qualified or ecclesiastically permitted to lead the service and there are no qualified outside volunteers nearby who are available to lead the service. In such cases, in"room staff supervision shall be provided as set forth in Paragraph AA. Prisoners acting as temporary assistants 'to the chaplain shall not be recognized by courtesy titles. (e.g., Minister, Priest. Reverend, Imam, Padre, Father, Sister, Brother, Grand Sheik) in the institution; they also shall not represent themselves to members

llXI{fBrT 4
\ E"PIHIT'r Jl

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 11 of 35 Pg ID 11

of the public, staff or other prisoners with such titles.

HH. Institutional chaplains shall maintain records of attendance at group religious services but shall not include those records in a prisoner's Central Office, Record Office or Counselor file.

RELIGIOUS MATERIAkS

II.

Prisoners are allowed to receive religious reading material through the mail and, in CFA. from

the institutional chaplain, subject to PD 04.07.112 "Prisoner Personal Property'', PD 05.03 118

"Prisoner Mail" and PD 06.04.105 "Special Alternative Incarceration Program". This includes

reading materials about a religious group not granted recognition by the Department.

Institutional chaplains shall ensure that religious reading material from a variety of religious

groups is available for prisoner use.

JJ.

In addition to religious reading material, prisoners are allowed to possess personal religious

property which are necessary to the practice of the prisoner's religion unless the item presents

a threat to the custody and security of the facility, as determined by the CFA Deputy Director

and subject to PD 04.07.112. "Prisoner Personal Property'' and PD 06.04.105 "Special

Alternative Incarceration Program". Attachments A and B identifies personal religious property

authorized by the CFA Deputy Director for prisoners who are members of a religious group

recognized by the Department. Only religious property i(jentified on the attachments shall be

COTTON LAW L!BRARY. permitted. The attachments also identify restrictions on the possession and use of such
property.

KK. Prisoners in a CFA institution or a TRV may possess personal religious property th<lt has not

already been autMrized by the CFA Deputy Director only with approval of the CFA Deputy

Director. Such requests from prisoners must be submitted a request in writing to the Warden,

TRV Manager or designee, as appropriate, and include a description of the religious item

along with an explanation of Its significance to the prisoner's designated religion. The

Warden. TRV Manager or designee shall forward the request and any supporting documents

to the CFA Special Activities Coordinator through the appropriate chain of command. The

CFA Special Activities Coordinator shall present the material to the CAC for review as needed

prior to submission to the CFf'. Deputy Director.

Th~ '~~ke '

' .

Ll. ..· CFA beputyDirectorshall

'
the final decision as to whether the religious itl)m will be

approved based on whether It is necessary to the practice ·of the prisoner's religion and

whether possession of the item would pose a threat to the custody and security of the facility.

The decision whether the item Is necessary to the practice of tj1e prisoner's designated religion

shall be based on any recommendation received from the. CAC. The Warden, TRV Manager

or designee, as appropriate, shall be advised of the final decision; The Warden, TRV Manager

or designee shall notify the prisoner.

MM. If a prisoner in a CFA institution or a TRV changes his/her designated religion, any religious items, other than reading material In his/her possession, that are not necessary to the practice of the prisoner's newly designated religion shall be considered contraband. Contraband In a CFA institution shall be disposed of as set forth In PD 04.07.112 "Prisoner Personal Property".

NN. Wardens shall authorize vendors from which prisoners ·may purchase religious reading material and other approved religious materials for each religious group recognized by the Department. Wardens of institutions housing prisoners who are not members of a recognized religious group but who are approved to possess personal religious property, in addition to
reading material, by the CFA Deputy Director also shall authorize vendors for those property items. In CFA•. .prisoners may purchase approved personal religious property other than reading material only through the institution from authorized vendors in accordance with PD 04.07.112 "Prisoner Personal Property''; religious reading materiel may be purchased as set forth in PD 05.03,118 "Prisoner Mall". Religious property, including reading material, in a

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 12 of 35 Pg ID 12
.150

•

CFA institution is subject to the retail value. limit set forth in PD 04.07.112 "Prisoner Personal Property·. ·

00. Prisoners in a corrections center may possess additional materials of religious significance
that do not pose a custody and security concern within the facility, as approved by the
appropriate Manager. Questions regarding the religious significance. of an item shall be
referred to the. CFA Special Activities Coordinator.

RELIGIOUS.MENUS/MEALS

COTTON LAW LIBRARY

PP. The regular diet menu shall be. posted a minimum of one week in advance in all facilities at
which meals are. provided to prisoners to permit observance of any religious dietary restrictions. Prisoners shall be permil!ed to abstain from any foods that violate their religious tenets. Non-meet entrees shall. be available as set forth in PD 04.07.100 "Offender Meals".

QQ. Adequate menu substitutions shall be available to prisoners in all facilities at which meals are provided to meet necessary religious dietary restrictions .. Any questions as to. whether a menu substitution Is required shall be referred to the CFA Special Activities Coordinator for
resolution.

RR. The CFA or. FOA Deputy Director or designee may authorize the development of a separate menu to meet the necessary religious. dietary restrictions of a prisoner. Such menus shall
meet the minimum nutritional standards set forth in PD 04.07.100 "Offender Meals". The
appropriate Deputy Director or designee. shall have final approval of such menus and shall determine at which facilities the meals will be offered. Kosher meals shall be provided in CFA
Institutions as set forth in OP 05.03.150-A "Kosher Meal Program".

ss. The Manager of the Food Service. $<;Jc!ion, CFA, shall maintain a list of approved religious menus and the facilities at which the meals are offered. The. list shall be distributed to all RPAs and Wardens and to the CFA Special Activities. Coordinator; for FOA menus and facilities, the list shall be distributed to the FOA Deputy Director or designee.

TT. A prisoner may eat from a religious menu only with approval of the CFA Special Activities
Coordinator. Approval shall be. granted only if it is necessary. to. the practice of the. prisoner's
designated religion, To request approval, the prisoner must submit e written request to the
Warden, TRV Manager, or. designee. as appropriate, who shall obtain infonnatlon regarding
the prisoner's request and religious beliefs prior to referring t11e request to the CFA Special Activities. Coordinator. The. CFA Special Activities Coordinator shell notify the Warden, TRV Manager or designee, as. appropriate, of the decision; the Warden or TRV Manager shall ensure. that the. prisoner is notified. A prisoner whose request is denied shall. not be allowed to
submit another request to eat from that religious menu for. at least one year.
UU. A prisoner approved to eat from a religious menu sl1all be provided appropriate meals within a
reasonable. time after the approval. In CFA, the prisoner shall be transferred to an institution offering the meals, if necessary. Once the meals are provided. the prisoner shall not be allowed to eat from the regular menu. The prisoner shall continue to be provided meals from
the. religious. menu except as set forth in Paragraphs VV and WW.

VV. A prisoner approved to eat from a religious. menu must notify the Warden in writing if s/he no
longer wants. to eat from that menu. The approval shall be rescinded upon receipt of the
request.

WW.

A prisoner approved to eat from a religious. menu shall have that approval rescinded if s/he
eats, or has in his/her. possession, any food itern that violates a tenet of his/her designated religion. The approval shall be rescinded only after a 11earing is conducted pursuant to Administrative Rule 791.3310 to establish the basis for that removal. A prisoner may reapply

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04N0U/51M.0e2E3H/.01650 Pg 13 of 35 Pg ID 13

to eat from a religious menu no sooner than 60 calendar days after approval Is rescinded the first time and no sooner than one year after approval is rescinded a second time. A prisoner may reapply to eat from a religious menu only with approval of the CFA Deputy Director If approval has been rescinded more than twice.

XX. Pursuant to court order, <1n annual Passover Seder shall be conducted at \he Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (JMF) and/or the Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT) under the direction of the CFA Special Activities Coordinator. The Seder shall be conducted in accordance with the court order and this policy. Only prisoners who designated Judaism as their religious affiliation shall be permitted to attend the Seder. The Warden shall determine necessary custody supervision, consistent with requirements set forth in this policy.

YY. Prisoners st1all be permitted to observe religious fasts that are necessary to the practice of
their religion, as approved by the CFA Special Activities Coordinator. A prisoner or group of
prisoners who wants to observe a religious fast that has not already been approved by the CFA Special Activities Coordinator must submit awritten request to do so to the Warden, FOA Regional Administrator or designee, !IS appropriate, which shall include information regarding the religion's beliefs and practices. The Warden. FOA Regional Administrator or designee shall refer the request and supporting documents to the CFA Special Activities Coordinator through the appropriate chain of command for approval. The CFA Special Activities Coordinator shall present the material to the CAC for additional review, if needed. Approval shall be granted only if the fast is necessary to the practice of a bona fide religion and observance of the fast would not pose a threat to the order and security of the facility. The CFA Special Activities Coordinator shall ensure RPAs, Wardens and TRV Managers are
notified of approved religious fasts. as necessary.

ZZ. Special religious rneals and food items shall be provided to prisoners only as set forth in this

section. This does not apply to food items that may be sold in the prisoner store pursuant to PD 04.02.130 "Prisoner Store• or provided to prisoners as religious sacraments.

c o noN L s R/\ Y CLERGY AND RELIGIOUS VOLUNTEERS

LA~~~ t

r~

AAA

All prisoners shall have access to members of the clergy as set forth in this policy, including clergy for a religious group which has not been granted recognition by the Department. For purposes of this policy. "clergy" is defined as a lesder of a religious organization or entity such as a church, mosque or synagogue, or a person who has been granted clergy. status by a recognized religion. It does not include anyone who is self-ordained or designated as clergy by a prisoner.

••

BBB.

Clergy shall be permitted to respond to the religious and spiritual needs of a prisoner who requests assistance, consistent with Department policies and procedures. Clergy may keep pastoral confidences intact except when withheld information would endanger the custody and security of the facility or the community, including the health and safety of members of the public, staff or prisoners.

CCC.

CF'A prisoners shall be allowed visits from clergy and outreach volunteers as set forth in PD 05.03.140 "Prisoner Visiting". SAl prisoners shall be allowed clergy visits pursuant to
PD 06.04.105 "Special Alternative Incarceration Program". TRV prisoners shall be allowed
clergy visits as scheduled by the TRY Manager. Clergy may bring into the visiting room or
area a copy of their religious writings (e.g, Bible, Quran, Koran, Rabbi's Manual, Prayer. Book, Service Book) for their use during the visit. The religious writings shall be subject to search,

ODD.

The Warden or TRY Manager, as appropriate, may permit a qualified religious volunteer to conduct group religious services and activities for religious groups recognized by the Department. Religious volunteers are required to have ecclesiastical endorsement from their religious authority and be approved to provide volunteer services pursuant to PD 03.02.105
EXlHBIT C

' ',
·~,

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 14 of 35 Pg ID 14
P.ri.c '1. Dowdy Rl ~o: 1"\'l l 7() G. Robert Cotton Correct:i<,nu1 Facility
11~10 ~. Elm Street Jackson, '1i.c h i.ga n 1,1)20 b.'~877
October 21, 200~

'1r. D:we Burnett, Cr'A Special Activit.ies Coordinator Michigan Department of Corrections Grandview Pluza Rldg. 0 • 0, Box "\1)()()1 Lansing, Michigan 4~noo

'1r. liurner t.,

T cnme t·o you nn lJehalr or the mernlJ~r~ of 'rhe 'l,<;,1',0To' ~ an~ nth~r ~·imilqr situ~re~ prisoners seeklnll a uwkrstan•iing on why the '1'l(1f: h~s pl~ce·i m••nv restrictinn~ on th<"
relil)inus pr~ctic:es nf nM only the rn~mher·; of '"h<> '1.~.1'. IJr ~ .. t,n .J1.1 rC'li~ions
(jroups.
Sir, recently we le:Hned that we will not ~e allnwt"l tn receive ~on:1tions of 'IM.iorH1lity Cnrrls fro:n The !Jome Office or Officials of The M,<;,1', OF' .\., rhf'rehy not allowing a new memher who joins The "l,<;,T, of A., t·.o recei.ve his or 'ler carrl at r.he t.irne they JOin the temple; whi.ch has heen the e,:;t:ahlisherl practice in 'l'he "l.S.T. of A., since it: wr~s founded in l'llJ A.D., by Prophet Nnhle Docew Ali.
Sir, MH you know from your years of service as a Chaplain Mt various facilities r1f The MIJOC, that we have always been Alloweri to issue A ~;H. ion~lity Carct r.n r-1 new rnernber 'at the ti.me they j<Ji.n the templ.e and that this pr:.H:ti.ce i.n no way i.s a threat to the safety or sc>curi.ty of any institution. Now for the '1DOC t.n require a new member to purchase hi.s or her card from tl1e 'lome Offi.ce, i;; a cleaver way t.o plnce a burden on UH' ptact ice of <Jur religion.
l"'r. llurnett, we ask that: you and the Chaplain's ~~vis<>ry flnard review this rest.ri~'ti.<)fl, that we have been t.olrl that you h:<ve state~ is srtpportcd or hrnu(\h~ on hy liD ()),'11.1~(), Religious fleliofs and Practices of Pri,.oners. Ann rh:H: you nlso revisit. awl li.ft the <Jt.her restrictions that have been plqce~ on m~mhers of rel.iqinus ~roups sue~ as:

1. Not bein~ a11owerl to h•• rele~se'i frnrn work or school ~.n 'lt"ten'i reli~inus moetinqs/services.

? ,ot hein~ nllowe'i to wear religious hearlqonr onenly ~n'i rl~ily.

nr \, ,()[". being allOW€'~ ;~ pork free kit.ChPn in the <nanner

i:l Vosher <:it.cl1er1 t·hl" 'fTYJr.

provides .for m~mhcrs of the Jcwi.sh ~airh.

'•· 'lot: being allowed t<l have Religirltts Special 'le.~ls.

~. ~ot being allowe~ t.o openly wear relisious pinsfsymhols in the open,

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 15 of 35 Pg ID 15 ~. ~ot being allowerl to pur~h~s~ reliRinus oils An~ reme~ies.
'·lr. Tlurnen., what hfls heen 1 i stt·~ are <~<"nui ne <.r>ncerns UlAt nee'l to ~e re-vi site1 >Hl•l corr••ct~d. "'leRse allow th•~ r~liginus !lroups t·n follow tnl.'ir "ronh~t·~ Tnst.ruc.Hnns.
cc: firo. R. McDowell Bey, r;.G.
Fi.l.e

--- ------------------------------~
2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 16 of 35 Pg ID 16

..JC:><>JIF=;::;; .\rl. c.;::::./.Nt·iCX.!vl
(;·-;\/1::.::::.1'10~

S'J'..:.. Tt:: OF lv11CFJ!Cr.A~N
TfVI ::~fl

Of\<S

F.~ i RIC; lA L. C,\RU3:J
Dl~.:::cT·.JP.

Novcmher 3, 2005

Eric Dowdy-Fl # 139170 JCF- 3500 N. Flm Road Jackson, Ml 49201

Dear Mr. Dowdy-£!:

You asked about several issues r·egarding the practices of the Moor·ish Science Temple of Amcr·ica. I will try to address them individually_

You arc cotrect in understanding that prisoners ar~ not allowed lo be released from work and school to

attend religious activities_ 'fhc Department has no interest in changing this policy. In the community, folk

generally arc not released !'rom work and school responsibilities to attend rdigious activities_ We maintain

that same standard. Facilities arc encouraged to schedule religious activities during times when most

pr·isoners are avai \able to attend.

·

You are also correct in understanding thai prisoners are nol allowed to wear either th~ir headgear or their

religious pins and badges openly and daily. Again, the [Jepmtmenl.has no interest in c;hanging this policy. You arc allowed to wear your r~ligious head gear at services and on the way to and from services. You ar·e

not required to wear your crown at alltiniCS- Your pins and badges arc allowed for your benefit. Wearing

them under the clothing serves the purpose uf keeping your religion close to you_

·

Again, special religioLts meals and oils arc not ret]uircd for the practice of your religion. The Department
has no interest in changing its policies rcgar·ding these issues_ The Nationality C:~rd is considered personal property. Prisoners may purchase and possess a card as allowed by poliCy.

You raise the issue of a pork-tree kitchen. lt is noted that pork is rarely served. F1111hermorc, prisotiers can
select the non-meat entree at any meal that pork is served_ l understand that being able to select an alternalive meal is not the same as having a pork-free kitchen. However, the Department is not prepared lo sd up pork-free kitchens.
You seem to be a\"t'atc that these Depmimt:nl pnicti.;c:dli-~cl policies ~ire not £peel fk to members of the Moorish Science Temple of America. All prisoners are coveted by the satlle Policy Directives and
Operating\-•·---c_\l):lures_ All prisoners arc treated the same in regards to these issues_ I cncout'age you t.o continue co~ljlet·~te with staff reg11rding them.

Sincerdy/ / , .

.

.. ··

'

rfave J. Blji~tt, Special Activities Coordinator

Corrc~ti\'i1al (cilities Administration

c: f_ Debr1 Scutt, Op~rations Manager ' Om~ Vasbinder, JCF Warden '"-..E~ul Young, JCF Chaplain file
~~h& J)
~R'f 3
::' () ':\·.:>..>.";:.X:.".;, T,.c.r-.::~i,=.~·- :-,:.:c:::_:.:;:::.:-. :!::!~::'~
-~=-1'7-:7~·1.! -~:,)r;:;

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 17 of 35 Pg ID 17

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
PRISONER/PAROLEE GRIEVANCE FORM

4835-4247 10/94 CSJ-247A

~D:a:te~R::ec~e:i:ve:d::at:S:t:e:p~I~=======~~G~,n~·e~v~a:n:cc::!(:!c:.n:t~ifi~,c~r~: -~'-.-. _.._.-_...~-.-~..:~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~::""::::~

> n~ IJH~.r ~114 ¢!}11¢1~• in.de$~titlillgyiJtiFgrievaJl~e·.Is~!.te~-•-•·lf)'ilu liiiv¢ ilit)'qliestionsc<'mcenlihgthe grievance .

pr()¢cdijt¢, ti\f~tlifPD(l3.(j;!j3o arid.()~ 03.Q2,i 30 avaihlb!(lri lli.~ pris<i!] 1.,~\\1 Libriuy. ·..

.. . ..

What auempt did you make to resolve !his issue prior to writing this grievance? On what date? lc 1 • ') ':' •

Ifnonetexplainwhy. !~·~

1·:~tt +-r ·f,_tt~A:i ·~,.·t.~~·:\"'r ·')";~ -,···~·)"':,

1 . ~:!r-,.:~·~:.:-.~··:~-~ ·1e t;t-.1 \.t~'fi

1 rl\!\''.,··~('/~ ~11 '~1;iSi!, l·'~ 'r. '''~':' ,·.,~~·n.~t~t ·:..'·~ u:'!·•, t·<~l •\ct·i•tAtl":•: '.rFir 1 1,":~~")f'•

State problem clearly. Use separate grievance form for each issue. Additional pages, using plain paper, may be used.

Four copies of each page and supporting documents must be subm ittcd with this form. The grievance must be submitted

to the Grievance Coordinator in accordance with the lime limits of OP 03.02.130.

"' 1 ' · ~ I<>Y.,u·" i •· 1.<> I" ·

~-.,,~.• r ·1;.::'.ti:"1~H "'"r., ,.,.t 1•·'"' "'·•.:r~~,·~·,t~ 1 , ••.,, ('·,~.~~,·t·~! \1·th·~l f·.·11 ~:· ,~.i),..erlt··:·'lt-'~r r't" ·11··1 r·~f~~~Fd t•"

,~ .... f·iv~'"'':l:' t 1't~ ,.~ ....l. t;,)ln.\,l·~~ ~·1 '1/J.sl.·,ry ':·~o1r·-t r-,.\,.. ~h~~ r···~vi~~.,...,.:,.~ , .. ,.~ ~·,~~···,.,..~tl ,.,~· t~\~ r•"''lt,..trt•~·H'I"l

. . .,. 11··iJ,~·~ •'' t~l•' :Hf.:i•<···~,.:~·-·'H t . ) ~~lf·t ··.r·j:~v·.,~~r~, •41lit"'i ····1·-~~·~ 1\r'l',.r~·: ·t~v·.·l··~ (m .-~~
····tl'lct" frN···;'; -~' ~·.1·1~" ·:·~rt{·.;·•:lt ~-·~' '.lr·'l,..'i -··,:-:+'~:~,.:··r~~·. ~·~~ ., .... l !"'~~'t~.,::, , ..,,~,.,, . ")'"" ~"·~ .-·~,I"

i"',,,,,,,':-~n~f~ ~.~<!'....... !;~

:·~J·~t: nl<·~.·:.w~~~~'i. l··){t,">t' -~1t•:o.•! ''r~·:,.

'1'"··•1t-, '.i!~•lr'"·l ~~-·1 ~ ··'•(1•'•\~·~rd· 1 i ·I , ..,f ,.. ... r.~:fvr·~ 'f:"'ti' ~~ ·"t':''l·""':t-;~

.r. '"·~r~~~,t.t c!·A-:o:)f~f '-:'i~;~f·~•; •t··-~·.·:· ··.,.,.,~qrt '·l"'1t ''.l'l"·l :H' ·J·~~~·~it" •· t:·,··~~.,,..• 't·'!· fll!lli<·r··~ r·""';~~H·•i'"':·.',
t:··;·:~:·H·~ t··~~m,?- 1,'"'~ ·'!"hiff ·~;rt.Pv.(.1r t.n~·. ·t1·'.1V·fll."l t"·t~ r·"~~~·<l.rte~ jq:~·; !i·~~ ..... ~ '!'l t:~ .. ~ ·Ht'/H~~·~~~"'r•~ tr-J- t~ll::~

·r)oJ'~·l•lC 1~ .. ~,.~~ ~• ~ir""rt 'li")1 .. ~ l,):• ··~r ~t~ G'~Ji-rh·l,.t,.. L~td n:;t'l' ,.~ .~ fn1flt.f•"ttthltt~·tt.t•r1' ~•rr:~o~l~

At'!t 4? 1.~$C ~ ?O.~e,-.\. ···~.··•·;~·~ t' qf'!t~\.•·.t~t..:.., ·U"i'·rt,· ·~,, ,".·,..,;·h·.'~~ ........ ,......·~r·~·~:~:~lilt. 1rn,:··r·~···;.;~ .-~,t 1

if HH~'{ ·.~i·i~ t':,~~'f ·o~~~•~4l:·: ih>l' 'j.~ f ~~ l~v~·ot r~'·\",f't'i~~f j·1'{; "':(·"'iiE" ~·~ '•1''\r~.···t tn JH:'1··~~;:.:q. J•!•·l.'l1

('•)::\,.• ,.lll·~:.r ~,,y_,,,,.~,,t lat,,·,.~t, >rilich l"' t!i" h•wful f'l\'lluirf'<lo!!l'lt of tht• ~~~Ct·l 'lri!l.t::1 In
'iar r~f ~1'111'\, 1'1111 Unttll"1 '"'Ltt'l'~> ·~~~~)I'"'" Cmtrt i11 ··;"tt"r v ~il~ i1umn IJ, <;, llo. rn.•van,
V'H/0'.1 f(jltJ<! tu hll l'<~ci.-lly v,.JI,j 'la1iu ·nw ''l•t.ablls~••~~t'"' .::,,u"'''·

0 0 RESPONSE (Grievant Interviewed?

Yes

No

Grievah¥~ S'na'httO ~
I
If No, give explanation. If resolved, explain resolution.)

Respondent's Si&'Tlature

Date

Reviewer's Signature

Date

Respondent's Name (Prinl)

Working Title

Reviewer's Name (Print)

Working Title

Date Recurncd to

If resolved at Step I, Grievant sign here.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ori~;:vant;

Resolution must be described ahovc. Grievant's Signature

Date

DISTRIBUTION: Whhc, Green, Canary, Pink--Process to Step One; Goldemod--Gricvant

'EXH1 Bir E

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 18 of 35 Pg ID 18

'

'

'

..'

' '

",.,

Tha restrictioas that should. bt lifted 111re1

1, The Mooraib Seitnee Temple of A1Utriea, lne. Nationality Cards should he dl01o1ed to be ilauad to a RIIW IIMtlllber at the time he joins the Temple, VMc.h has been the Jlraetica since the M,S,T, of A., has been recognized by the Depert.ent of Corrections,

Donations of the N•Uonelitr Cards from Off'iciab of The M,S.T,of A., should be allowttd and we should be allowed to purchase a supplJ of Nationality Cards with the PBF Allot..nta
we receive, so that we can continue to practice our religion according the Customs 8
of our Religion as taught to us , by our ijolr and Divine Prophet, Noble Drew Ali,

2, We should be allowed to be released froa work or school to attead Raliatoue Ktetiags,

3, We should be allowed to wear religious pins/Syebob, etc., in the open not hedna to ceacial thltll as if tbey an .IIOIItlthia& sh-ful.

4, Pollwer• of the hligion of Ialaain/lllu should be allowed a pork frH li:itchea a~td Hslal Food, in the sa.e ..naer that the Jewish Prieoner are afforded Kosher Food, prepared in Port free areaa.

5, We should be allowed to have a Religious Special Meal to eelebrate Our Roly and Divine Prophets' Birthday,

6, We should not re1tricted frOIIl referring to oursehes by naiHI or titles which 1"-
• ,.n of our reUgiOil.

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 19 of 35 Pg ID 19
Eric~. now~y Rl Vo: 11D170 ~. Ro~ert ~nrt<>n Correctional FAcility
l~lfl '1. Elm <:tn•et ,lllt.kson, 'lich i gan l,'l?l)! -~q77

Febrt>ary 10, 200A

Ms. Pal.ricia L. Caruso, Director
Micl1igan Depflrtment of Corrections
r.randview Pl~za Rldg,
P.0. Box :moo3
Lansing, Mi. ltR909

Dear Ms. Caruso,

r cmnr• to you on l)e'''llf of myself ~nd all oth!'r simil~rly sitllAte•l prist)ners: s••ekinr,

your assistance in corre~ting and re•••vin~ some nf the r~stricti<ll11 that have l}eftn plac~~

(h>yr\

opnris.onnser.'0!:1

ann relif~ious
.1~o.

~roups,

reltH in~

to

t.hP.i r

l1eliefs

.~n~

pr~ctices

'lS

1efinw!

On 11ctolJer ~"'1, ?.WI~, r sent a letter to ~r. fJ;Jve ,l, Flurn<~tt, Speciql ~~t"ivities
Coordinator, CF~. askin>~ him ~~~ convene l.he C:h~plain's ·l~visorv ~oArn ror the purpose nr reviewinq, ;-:,nr) removing some of t:he r0$trict·ions th~=tt have '-leen plac:ft-'1 011 prisoner~ and re1 igious group's practices of thc>ir reli(\i<llts '"-'1ic>fs. '~e"-1 rictions su~h ~s:
l. Pri.soners not beirn: nllowe~ t.o leave worl< or o;c.hool assignmenr.s to .qtten~ rei i~inus meeL i ngs4

2. Prisoners who are followers of the IstHmic Religion not affnrderl qalal Fond in the
same manner as tl:te .Jewish and Buddhist: prisoners are given meals that conform to their religi<>us beliefs.

3. Prisoners not be allowed to wear their religious medallions in the open. 4. The restriction nf "nly allowing " rP.li2ious special meal to the Jewish Prisoners.

5. The restriction of not being allowed to call ourselves by the names or titles which are a part of our reli.ginus heli~fs and prActices.
6. 'rhe rP.strictlon of not allnwin~ the members nf The ~oorish ~cience Temple of America, fnc.., to receive rlotHltions of NAti<HJ'llity Cards from nutside Officials of The 'i.~.T. of A., and the restrictinn of not allowinq us tn purchase a supply nf sain c<Jrrls with
the funds we receive frnm the PRP, 1here~v restrlcrinq ~~~ from heinq allowe~ rn follow
a pmctice of our religion, t.n issue tl1f' il'liol c'ld to a new meml>!'r e~t the l-i'11e, thcH" said 11ew member joins The ~.S.T, of A.
7. 'l'he restriction 11ot n:llnwin.g priRonPrs to receivP or purch~1se perfume~ oil~.

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 20 of 35 Pg ID 20
In his response letter rlated ~ovomher 1, ?00~, which r did not receive a copy of until
Nov, 17, 20n~, ~r. Burnett stated that the Dep9rtment has no ~csire to change its polices regar~ing the1e matters.
On 'lnv. ?4, ?.nn~ T sent a grieva11ce against '1r. Rurnf!tt in ror\lir'i"' to this matter to
t.he '1ichigan Department of C()rrect'.iCJnS, Prison ~ff~Jirs ()ffice, as of this dMe, r h.we
not rt)C<)ive·i <Hty re~prmsc> or aci(nowlerlP,ment of thl'! r\ri•)vl.lncr>. "'he s8i~ griewmce wAs sent vic! If,<:, ''fail.
r now come to you, ~sking you to revil"w and lift th<" lifr>rem<c'ntioned restrictions. '!'he
s:Jid restrictions are a violat.ion of The Religious Land 'lse anit Inst.ituti.onalille~ Persons Act, 42 USC(': 2000cc-1, these res~.ric:t.ions serve no compellinr; ~overnmenr. inrerest. Arlrl if they :1irl , r.iley woul'.l r1ot he the leAst rl">'lt ric.t ive "'"''"'"' l,y whicft to achievo:> th~t <~nrnpl"ll ing govi'rnment. interest, which 'IE; th"' l.~wful reqrlirem.,nt of this act; which in May of 2rJ(J'J, The United States Supreme Cour:t in Cutter V Wilkerson li.S. No. 03-91"177, 5/31/05 ruled to be Facially Valid Under The Establishment Cause.
Director Caruso, on behalf of myself ;~rlll :d 1 other simi lady si tuat<c'd prisontJrs, T asked t:hat you removtl these restrictions.

cc: File

£XH16Tr r
T?mT a

-·--· ····--- -·----·--·. 2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 21 of 35 Pg ID 21

JEN~"IFER M. GR.•"NHOLM
GOVER.NOR

S L-\Tl:, Or MJCH!GA" D~PARTMENT OF COR.RECTIONS

PATRICIA L CARUSO DiRECTOR

March 17, 2006
Eric M. Dowdy-El # 139170 JCF- 3500 N. Elm Road Jackson, Ml49201
Dear Mr. Dowdy-EI:
Patricia Caruso, Director asked that I respond to your correspondence regarding prisoner religious practices. You list several desires. I will again respond to each.
I, It is appropriate that prisoners arc not allowed to leave school or work assignments to attend religious activities. This mle mirrors practices in the community.
2. It is the decision of the Department that we do not provide HalaI meals. Perhaps the most important issue ofHalal is the prohibition of pork. Prisoners can choose to avoid pork hy self selecting from the menu offerings Prisoners can choose the non meat entree tor any meal that a meal entree is offered,
3. The Department will continue to require religious medallions to be concealed.
4. Special religious meals are not allowed, beyond what is required lix Jewish prisoners at two facilities pursuant to a court order.
5. The Depm1ment will continue to enforce the rule that prisoners will not be allowed to use courtesy titles.
6. Nationality Cards arc allowed by Policy. llowever, they arc personal property and must be received according to the rules regarding receipt of personal property.
7. It has been determined that perfumed oils are not necessary to the practice of the faith. Because of safety and security concems regarding oils, they will not be allowed.
As I indicated in the rlier correspondence which you reference, the D~partment b not in a position to change any ofth decisions. You suggest that rules such as these violate Federal Law. We believe
courage you to cm;tinuc to practice your faith and to cooperate with staff regarding

Dave J . urnett, Special Activities Coordinator Carre in al Facilities Administration

c:

tricia Caruso, Director

ebra Scutt, Operations Manager

Doug Vasbinder, JCF Warden

Paul Young, JCF Chaplain

File

l!li:RIBIT G

P 0. Bnx 3000.),

Mit.::higan 48909

51 7. 21-~ 1·7:.;o(i

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 22 of 35 Pg ID 22
Ul'lt'J'l!:l) 'lT\'l.'-..,'l l)t'l'l.'f{tC't' C"'U'l"'
~\'lT~-qN l)t<;T-qtc~ ~~ M!Cqt~\1'1
'l'ltlTlt~ll.N l)tVt'lt'lN
~RIC OOWI)Y-~L, \~ltl'l X. WILSON J\M~'l ltO~~Y, MUJ\lttl) L\Tt~ on behatt of themselves and all others simitaryt situated
Plaintiffs, ""He No,
vs. lion.
P\TRIC\ L, C\RU'lO, in her official capacity as Director of the Michigan nepartment of Corrections and 0\V~ BUll.N~TT, in his official capacity as Correctional ~acilities \dministration Special l\.ctivities Coordinator
l)et'endants.
MOTION ~OR CLl\.'lS C~ll.Tt~tC\TtON Title: 4?. U'lC\ ?.~~~lecl
~ederal ltule of civil ~rocedure ?.1fal\lbl!'-~
NOW COM~'l the Plaintiffs' before this Honorable Court pursuant to Rules ?.l(al and ?.llb11?.1, of the ~ederal ~ules o~ civil Procedure, requestinq that the above entitled case be granted class certification for the reasons stated in the attached Memorandua of Points in support of Motion for Class certification.
~ederal RUle Of CiVil Procedure ?.1: CLl\.'lS l\.CTTONS: "23(al Preresuisites to a Class 1\ction. nne or more members ot a class may sue or be sued as representatives parties on behalf of all Only tf": "(11 ttte Class is so numerous that ioinl'ler of all members is impracticable, 121 there are questions of taw or fact com111on to the class, ( 11 the clai111s or defenses of tb.e representative
_,_

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 23 of 35 Pg ID 23
parties are typical of the claims or detenses of the class, and, ( 4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the Class,"
"2H'bl Class Actions Maintainable: l'bl (?.\ clearly defines the party apposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable te the class, thereby ma1dnq appropriate fioal injunctive relief or corresponding- declatory relief with
respect to the class as a whole."
M~MO~~NOUM 0 ' POINTS IN SUPPO~T 0 ' MOTION l"O~ Ct.~S"l CUTI'FIC...T!ON
1 • tssues Numbers 1 , 3, 4, 6, and " of the above entitled Complaint affects the listed t'laintHfs and. all other prisoners incarcerated in and throughout the facilities of the Michigan Oepartaent of Corrections (MOOC\, '!'hese •euabers of the Class also includes any new and all future members of the Class entering into the MOOC who would be effected by the Oefendantss actions, to list every meMber of the tl-tis Class would be i11practicable,
2. Issues Nuabers '2, and o; of the above entitled Complaint affects all of the Plaintiffs and prisoners incarcerated in and throughout the MOOC that believe in and practice the tslaMic ~eligion/tl'aith, These members of the class also includes any new and all tuture members of the Class entering into tl-te MtlOC who would be effected by the Defendants' actions, to list every lllember of the Class would be impracticable.
3. Issue N\llllber " of the above entitled complaint affects those Plaintiffs/prisoners who are members of The Moorish Sei'ence Temple of l\merica, tne., incarcerated in the MI)OC, These members of the Class also includes any new and at1 future members ot' the Class entering into the MDOC who would be effected by the Defendants' actions, to list every member of. the ctass would be impracticable,

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 24 of 35 Pg ID 24

4. The questions of law and facts are raised in .co~R~aon to

all of the memben1 of the Class I all of the prisoners in and

throughout the MOOC who are i'nvotved in religious programs!, provi'ded the issues raised fn the original complaint, and/or

!l.mendments of compliant under the u. ~. 4'2 USC!\. 201)(') (cc l '!"he 'teligious T,and Use P.rotection !l.ct la~UI~!I.l.

Constitution, and and Institutional

'5. The claims of the moving party, the listed Plaintiffs,

are typical claias of prisoners in and throughout the MDOC. The

at.UIPI\ is applicable to instituions, and protects religious

organizations and individual rights.

6. The representative party of the Class fairly and

adequately protects the interest of the Class accessiag the

protection of the rights provided by tl\e 1'n.utt>!l., constitutionally

applicable to all members of the Class. The listst fllaintiffs

being well versed in the teachings of their perspective religions,

and their religious organizations, many being involved in the

practices of their relig:Lon for over 15, ?.'l and 1'l years, will

fairly and adequately protect the interest of. tlte prisoners

involved in religious programs in and throughout the MT)OC.

7. 'Sy the Defendants areating, approving and enforcing the

restrictions listed in the above entitled Collplaint, have shown

beyomd a shadow of doubt they will act on grounds that affect

the entire prison population of the MOOC involved in religious

prograas, etc., therefore making appropriate final i'njuncti've

relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the

Class as a whole.

Wherefore, the Representinq parties as Plaintiffs also states

-3-

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 25 of 35 Pg ID 25

they are all undivided on all and any of the issues presented as Plaintiffs. That the aforementioned claims of violations in the Complaint specifically and cumulatively causes to them "actual iniury" due to the l)efendants actions towarris them, 11'urther, that the issues are constitutionally merital:lle, ani! due to its subiect matte:rs the issues not being separate situations, but are being raised because of the inadequacies of the statewide policies enacted and administered by the llefendants, enumerating an actual in1ury to the entirety of the Class.
~ll!t.tl!l'll'

Wfll':R'El!'Oitl!!, Plaintiffs pray that this 'Honorable Court grants

Class certification in the above entitle case for the reasons given in the Colllpalint, (1-~) which are hereto adopted and incorporated by reference,

l"OitTHEitMOR"E, the Plaintiffs prays that in the grantinq af

Class Certification, this Honorable caurt pursuant to 'Rule

B(cl(2)(11.l direct an appropriate notice that could be presented to all the meabers of tlte Class~ and., pursuant to ftule ?.3(gl appoint class counsel for the Plaintiffs,

Respectfully submitted,
P~f~~
~ri: ;;w~~~ (No. 13~170)
1ds x. Wilson. (No. 416"i01l
~ )... -+{~r
t•es ao11Y~~16~2l
~~tit""{~ 1M1 51\

!)1\T~: 4- 3- Q VJ

'i,{; , !)1\TI!:O :

t1p

01\TI!I): 'Y ~ 0- Olp

-4-

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 26 of 35 Pg ID 26
l!J Av{'(eJ1!r!'1(4s1/1X~I. 1Jlvs:JoIn~l No. 416601
!.~.:. ~~~
~51 : . . . .
4

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 27 of 35 Pg ID 27

UIITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IASTBII DISTRICT OF HICBIGAI
SOUTBBRI DIYISIOI

ERIC DOWDY-EL, AVERIS X, WILSON JAMES HOLLY, HUJAHID LATIF, on behalf of themselves and all others si•ilarly situated
Plaifltiffs ,

FILE NO: HON,

VS

PATRICA L. CARUSO, in her official capacity as Director of The Michigan Departllent of Corrections and DAVE BURNETT, in his official capacity as Correctioaal Facilities Ad•iflistration Special Activities Coordinator,
_____________D_e_fe_n_da_n_ts____________/

PLAIITIFFS NOTION FOR APPOIITKEIT OF COUISEL VITR BRIEF II SUPPORT
NOW COHES, Plaintiffs in and before this Honorable Court to request Appointed Counsel on behalf of plaintiffs/prisoners who are i11prisoned in the State of Micbigan Department of Corrections,

The appoiatment of counsel ts govern under USCA 28;1915 (d) as Pro" Bono or as the court does appoint in accord to the discretion of this Honorable Court, It is that the said plaintiffs ill this Motion seek Appointed Counsel due to the nature and the co•plexity of the 11atter before the Court,
1

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 28 of 35 Pg ID 28
IIIIP II SIPPOIT OP NOTIOI FOI APPOIITMIIT OF COUISIL
1, Plaintiffs/Prisoners are comiag before this Co~rt in the best interest of j~stice, it its necessary for Appointed Counsel due to the claim that is before this Honorable Court,
2. Plaintiffs/Prisoners state that nevertheless, this
Court aay require under complexity and extreme limits imposed upon priaoaers, there are certain restrictions that prisoners are alloved and privilege to, do too being imprisoned.
3. Reason for Appointed Counsel is aecessary due to the claim against the State of Michigan Department of Corrections Officials, and the prisoners confined are not expert ill the field of lav as eiperts, in Lititgating, Oral Arguaeat, before this Honorable Court.
4. After filing of this Complaint, civil in nature
42 USCA !$1983 is being sened in this Honorable Coourt. It is necessary for A.ppointed Counsel where COIIIlSel appearance befGre this Court and the State Officials/Defendants will presumably be before the Judiciary in Oral Argu11ent, Motion Filing, and Discovery Files if at this Courts request to do so.
2

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 29 of 35 Pg ID 29
5, The Appoh.taent of Counsel i.s vtthin the discretion of this 8onorable Court to appoint couasel to represent plaintiffs in this Civil Mature Pleading and in the beat interest of justice, so that the Court can deea what is just and fairness in the aatter asserted in this CiYil Action for Relief being requested,
IIASOI POl GIAITifG APPOIITID
COUISIL POl PLAIITIPPS
Plaintiffs here have a meritorious cogni~able Civil Claia against the State of Michigan Department of Corrections Officials ill their official capacities and are financially unable to afford Legal J!ees and Cost of hiring or retaining A Legal Ezpert Bar Association Meaber dne to the "Inability To Pay" under USCA 28: 191S(d),
Plaintiffs under the penalty of perjury, hereby deposes and state that all the stateaents contained in this Mothn and Brief are true to the beat of their information, knowledge and belief,
Respectfully Subaitted, IH PRO SE
~~-~
Eric Dovdy-EL MO: 139170

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 30 of 35 Pg ID 30

ST~T~ OF MICHIG\Nl
Iss: COUNTY OF J'CXSONl

Vl!:Rl'PIC!I.TION

'l'he underai9ned bein9 first duly sworn deposes and says that

he has read the for9oin9 Complaint for RL011>\ and Civil Rights

violations (including all exhibits and motions submitted thereinl,

states that it is accurate and true to the best of his ~nowtedge,

information and belief.

~ 'hrornty ~'m~i:t0t.-~cd-,'C0\!n ~ric nowdy-~t (~o. 11917~1 ~laintitf tn ~ro se 151~ N. ~lm Road Jackson, Ml 4g101

subscribed andruw;rn to before

•• on this 3

ay ef :t.pri t '2M&.

MY Co-ission 1!:xp{res:_ _ _ __

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 31 of 35 Pg ID 31
ST'T~ 0~ MtCRIG,Nl lss:
COUNTY 0"' .nctt"lOI'fl
The undersigned being first duty sworn deposes and says that he has read the forgoing co~aptatnt t'or "RT.IJI'PI\. and c:l.vi 1. Rights violations (including att exhi~its and motions su~mitted therein!, states that it is accurate and true to the best of. his knowledge, infor•ation and belief.
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this ~!:J day of lpril. <!006.
MY Coaaission '!':xp:l.res:,_____
JACOU~U~m COOKF. NetrARVPUBLIC, BTATEOF Ml
COUNTY Oc JACKSON MY COMMI$SI(lN !'X1·~RES Aug3, :>1)11
ACTING IN COUNTY OF ,j P,c.\<Z,'':~ON

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 32 of 35 Pg ID 32

OF ST~T~

MtCHtGI\~)

Iss:

COUNTY 01" ,JJ\CltSON)

V~U'IC~t,TION

The undersigned being first duly sworn deposes and says that

he has read the forgoing Coaplaint for Rt.Utl'l\ and Civil Rights

violations (including all exhibits and motions submitted therein!,

states that it is accurate and true to the best of his lo:nowledqe,

infor~aation aad belief.

gyo~ty.sl)ub;~tt:d,
/Yi'vu 1£/ v<llli .
1\.veris X Wilson (No. ~laintiff tn Pro Se 1~10 N. ~lm Roa~ .Jaclo:son, MI 4~?.01

41~601l

subscribed ~~~. sworn to before
me on this ~~--day of 1\.pril '.006.
I'IY Commission ~xpires: ____ .. , _

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 33 of 35 Pg ID 33

Of STA~~

MtC~tGAN\

\ss:

C"UN1'Y ()11' ,JACKSOft\

The undersigned being first duly sworn deposes and says that he has read the forgoing Coaplaint for lltT,un,, and Ch•U Rights violations (including all exhi'bits and motions subaitted therein\, states that it is accurate and true to the best of his knowledge, inforaation and belief.

Subscribed ·~~·~worn to before •• on thi~ day of l\.pril 1~06.
~t&&ULL\S ~Q~·
' NOT\lltY 'Ui£iC
MY co-lesion J!:xpires:, _____

I
. '•·I .r :,,: 'f"

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 34 of 35 Pg ID 34 Name of 1•1

Inmate Number;.

D AI..G!R MAXIMUM CORRECTJONAl

FACILITY

INOIJ$TRlAl. PAJ\K
P.o. eox•oo

OAIVI!

MUNISING, MI498G2

ALGER COUNIY

c BARAGA MAXIMUM C:OM.ECllONAl.
FACJLITY
301 WADAGA ROAD
8AilAGA, Ml 4990.$
8AMOACOUNT'I"

~;:~ BELLAMY CREEK CORRI!!CTION.A.L
FACILITY 1127 W. BLUEWATE~ UIGHWAV IONIA I Ml4&1« IONIA COUNTY

o BOYEA ROAO CORRECTIONAL FACiliTY 10274 iiiOYER ROAD CARSON CfTY, Ml 4&811 MONTCALr.t COUNTY

P CARSON CITY COR.Rt;CTlONAL FACII..I'tY 10522 BDYI!A: FtOAI)
CARSON CITY, Ml 4t811 MONTCALM COUN'I'Y

o CHARLES EGELER REC!PTIO"'' AND GUIDANCE CEMTSR 38ti5 CQOPf!R. STREET
J.I\CKSON, Ml41201-7547 JACKSON COUNTY
tJ CHIPPEWA CORR~CTIONAL FACILITY' 4219-W. M410 KINCHEt.OE. Ml 4i784
CHIPPEWA COI,INTY

D COOPER SiREET CORRECTIONAL FACIUTY 3100 COOPER STFlEI!T JACKSON, Ul.aB~~1 JACKSON COUNTY
o Di::I:RP'JELD CORRECTIONAL FA¢1Lif'r'
176fi HARWOOO ~OAD IONIA. Ml.u!W IONIA COUNTY

1::1 EARNEST C. BflOOKS CORRE¢r10NAL FACILITY 2!100 S, SHERIDAN OIWE MUSKI!GON HEIG1i1'S, Ml49444 MU$11:EGON COUNTY
1;1 FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL. INS'nTUTION • MilAN
P.o.eox 1000
MILAN, M148180·1090 WASiiTENAW COUNTY
OFFICE USE ONLY

o FLOR!.NCI! CMN! CORRECTIONAL. FACILITY 3i FOUFtTH STREET COLOWATER,. MI49CI31 BRANCH COUNTY
ROB£RT COnON CORRECTIONAL ACILI1:Y
00 N. ELM ftO.AD JACKSON, .111148201 JACKSON COUNTY
c GUS HARRISON CORRECllQI'W.. FAJ;ILITY Z7:l7 E. BEECHER STREET
ADRIAN, Ml492!tt LENAWEE COUNTY

Dele
If Case: 2:06-cv·11765

Assigned To: Cohn, Avern

Referral Judge: Komives Paul J

Assign. Date: 4/121200!5@ 3:03P.M.

Description: CMP DOWDY, ET AL V.

CARUSO, ET Al (TAM)

DMII

8~'1 N, 11:.1FU.1am:r."' n.Ul"RRI'

GT. LOUIS, Ml48180

IIIJSOO FIVS. M1CE ROAli

GRATIOT COUNTY

PLYMOUTH, M14817D

WAYNE! COUNTY

[!I MOUND CORRECnONAL. FACILITY 171101 MOUND ROAD DE.TROil"', Nil 48212.
WAYNE COUN"(Y

o RYAN CORRECTIONAL FAC:ILITY 17000 RYAN ROAD Dlli:ntort, Ml4121.2
WAV'NE COUNTY

D HANDLON MtcHIOAN tRAINING UNIT 172:8 BLUEWATER HIGHWAY IONIA. Mt 411141 IONIA COUNTY
~;;~ HIAWATHACQR.RJ!!CTIONAL FACIU1Y .46:13 W. INDUSTRIAL PARK DRIVE KINCHI::I.,Oe, Jttl4t78f.t001 CHIPPEWA COUN1:Y
o HURON VALLEY CENTe~ 3511 BEMIS ROAD YPSII..ANTl, Ml4t1&7 WAIHTENAW COUNTY

o "''USKI!GON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
-MU·SK·~OSOHNE,RMIDlA4N14C4R2 I\IE MUSKEGoN COUNTY
, t:1 H:lltWBiRRY CORRECTIONAL FACIUTY
~1NSWBERRVAVENUE
NEWBERRY, M14HII LUCICOUNTY

o OAKS CORRECTIONAL FACIUTY

1500 CABERFA! HJGfofWAY

'

EASTl-ld<~ M14K:.z:t.OOH .... MAHIIT!il CoUNl:Y

o SAGINAW CORRI!CTIONAL FACil.ITY H25PIERCE ROAD FRE~lAND, Ml dtll23 SAGINAW COUNTY
g SOUTHERN MICHIGAN CORRECTK'JNAL FACUTY 4002 COOPER 3m!IIT JACKSON, Ml41201 JACKSON COUNTY
g ST. LOUIS CORRECTIONAL FACIUTY &flU N. Cft03WI'J.I.L "'OAO ST. LOUIS, MI.QI!IIto GRATIOT COUNTY

>a tiURON VALL!¥ CORRECTtONAt.. FAC1LJT'( .3201 bEMIS ROAD YPSILANTl, Ml481e7 WASHTIKNAW COUNi'r'
r::~IONlA MAXIMUM CORREcnoNAL FACILITY 1571 W. BLU15WATEFl HtGHWAV
IONIA,MI~
IONIA COUNTV

o OJIBWAY CORR&TIONAL FACILITY NII70S OJJIIWAY ~OAt> MAR£N~CO, 111481M7..w71 GoGEBtC COUNTY
r.J PARNAL.L CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 178CI Ia. PAANALL JACKSON, Ml4t.201 JACKSON COUN1:Y

c STANDISH MAXIMUM CORRECTIONAL ftACillTY' 4.713 W- ,_-11 STANDISH, MlmH AAENAC COUitTY
c SmAITS CORRI!CmNAL FACILITY' 4U7W.M-<IO KINCHELOE,. MI<IR181'i.0001 CliiPPEW~ COUNTY

o KINROSS CORRECTIONAl. FACILITY
1177() $. WATERTOW£R DRIVE KaNCHELOE, llllllt7U8 CHIPPEWA COUNTY
c L.AK!LAND CORRECTIONAL FACIUTY
141 FIR&T 91REET COLbWATER, Ml4903fJ BRANCH COUNTY

D PAAR HtGHWAY CORRECTIONAL FACI~ITY 2fl7 E. r:IEECHER STREET ADRlA.N, Ml 49221 LENAWEE COUNTY
o PiNE RIVER CORRECTIONAL FAC)UTV
J.iO N, HUBBARD ST. LOUIS, Nl 43ei!IIO GRATlOTCOUNT't

o THUMB CORJI!~Cl!ONAL FACILITY 3221 JO"N CONI.£f DRIVE
LAI'!!~MILAPEER COUNTY
c WAYNI! COUNTf JAIL
670 ~UNTON STREET bln"ROiT, Ml.(82lll WAYNE COUNTY

a MACOMB CORRECTIONAL FACIUTY U6.25 26 MILE ROAO
NEW HAVE.N, Ml ~04e MACOMI!I COUNTY

c. PUGSLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 7401 ~TWALTON ROAD KINGSLI!Y, Ml 411040
GRAND tRAVERSE COUNTY

c WEST SHOA:i:UIIIIt CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY
2300 S. $H!RIDAN DIRVI! MUSKEGON HEIGHTS, Ml <1Moi.4 MUSKEGON COUNTY

PLAINTIFF AUORESS: {IF NOT ABOVE) PLAINTIFF'!3 COUNTY or RESIDENCii:

DASJI;Ii OF JURISDICT10N ·~ US GOVERNMENT OEFENDANT
FEDERAl. QUESTION n 4 DIVERSITY
HAlURE OF SUIT a 510 MOTION TO VACA't'e
o 530 HABEAS CORPUS n 535 HAllEASIDEATH PENAL'rY
i iaMANDAMUS o CIVIL RIGHTS 5 PRISON CONDITIONS

ORIGIN
fu1\,.-r OFI:IGINAL PROCEEDING REMOVED FROM STATE COURT t:1 5 TRANSFERRI:O FROM ANOTHER DISTRJCT COURT

FEESTATIJS
oiFP IN FORMA PAUPERIS oWAIWAIVED
a PO PAlO

JURY DEMAND
CHECK YES ONL'V IF DEMANOED IN COMPlAINT
·~S

CAS! OPENING
r)C~OOPECNRAESDICTV~EMSIGN iO
(MOTION TO VACATE~ 2255)

(MIED Rli!V, 6/16JOS) PRISONER COVER SHEET· Page 1 Of2

.•. :·· '; ' . ':;" ~. .

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 04/12/06 Pg 35 of 35 Pg ID 35 ,','1;

l 1. Is this a case that has been previously discontinued or dismissed?

o Yes

If yes, give the following information: Court: ______________________________________________________________

CaseNumber: ----------------------~-----------------------------------
Judge: ----------------------------------------------------------

2. Other than stated above, are there any pending or previously discontinued or dismissed companion cases in this or any other court, including state court? (Companion cases are matters In which it appears substantially similar evidence will be offered or the same or related parlies are present and the cases arise out of the same transaction or occurrence)

o Yes

If yes, give the following information: Court: _____________________________'·_·" _____________________________

CaseNumber: -----------------------------------------------------------
Judge: ----------------------------------------------------------Notes:

(MlED ReV. 5116/105) PRISONER COVER SHf:I!:.T • Pagt 2 of 2

 
 2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 1 of 15 Pg ID 53

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC DOWDY-EL, AVERIS X. WILSON and ROGER HUNT, on behalfofthemselves and all other similarly situated,

Case No. 2:06-CV-11765 Hon. Avern L. Cohn

Plaintiffs,
V.

Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives

PATRICIA L. CARUSO, in her official capacity as Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, and DAVE BRUNETT, in his official capacity as Correctional Facilities Administration Special Activities Coordinator,

Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Eric Dowdy-El, Averis X. Wilson and Roger Hunt ("Representative Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and others similar situated, state as foliows for their First Amended Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand:
Nature of the Action 1. This action 1s based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and concerns violations of the Representative Plaintiffs' rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., the Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause of the Michigan Constitution, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the Free Exercise Clause ofthe Michigan Constitution.

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 2 of 15 Pg ID 54
2. On behalf of Plaintiffs Dowdy-El and/or Wilson, who are Muslim, as well as all similarly situated inmates housed with the Michigan Department of Corrections, Plaintiffs seek the following system-wide relief:
a. Accommodation to attend a weekly, mandatory religious service on Friday (which service is already provided by all or most MDOC institutions) by the institution not scheduling relevant inmates for a conflicting school, work or other detail or activity.
b. Reversal and correction of any punitive actions taken by MDOC institutions against inmates who refused to attend work, school or other assignments but which required the inmate to miss the Friday Islamic religious service.
c. Accommodation for desirous Muslim inmates to be provided a religiously mandated diet (halal).
d. Accommodation for desirous Muslim inmates to participate in two annual feasts which are recognized as the high holy days in Islam.
3. On behalf of PlaintitT Hunt, who is a Seventh-day Adventist, as well as all similarly situated inmates housed with the Michigan Department of Corrections, Plaintiffs seek the following system-wide relief:
a. Accommodation of the Saturday holy day ("Sabbath") by the institution not scheduling relevant inmates for a conflicting school, work or other detail or activity.
b. Reversal and correction of any punitive actions taken by MDOC institutions against inmates who refused to attend work, school or other assignments due to a conflict with the Saturday Sabbath.
2

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 3 of 15 Pg ID 55

4.

The Representative Plaintiffs and putative class members hereby seek injunctive

and declaratory relief remedying and enjoining these illegal actions.

Parties and Jurisdiction

5. Representative Plaintiff Eric Dowdy-El is presently incarcerated in the Newberry

Conectional Facility, located in Newberry, Michigan. At the time the original complaint was

filed, Dowdy-El was incarcerated in Cotton Conectional Facility, located in Jackson, Michigan.

6. Representative Plaintiff Averis X. Wilson is presently incarcerated in the

Lakeland Conectional Facility, located in Coldwater, Michigan. At the time the original

complaint was filed, Wilson was incarcerated in Cotton Conectional Facility, located in Jackson,

Michigan.

7. Representative Plaintiff Roger Hunt is presently incarcerated in the Mid-Michigan

Conectional Facility, located in St. Louis, Michigan.

8. Dowdy-El, Wilson, and Holly are collectively refened to herein as

"Representative Muslim Plaintiffs".

9. Defendant Patricia L. Caruso IS the Director of the Michigan Department of

Conections.

10. Defendant Dave Burnett is the Conectional Facilities Administration Special

Activities Coordinator for the State of Michigan.

11. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28

U.S.C. § 1343.

12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 4 of 15 Pg ID 56
Defendants' Illegal Refusal to Accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' Religious Requirements by Rejecting their Request to be Released from Work or School to
Worship at the Times Mandated by their Religion 13. Michigan's correctional facilities are subject to certain policy directives, including, without limitation, Policy Directive 05.03.150, entitled "Religious Beliefs and Practices of Prisoners." Despite this policy, which require the accommodation of Representative Plaintiffs' core beliefs and practices, Defendants have failed to do so. 14. Muslims observe Jum'ah or "Holy Day", a weekly congregational service of prayer and worship that begins around noon on Fridays and lasts approximately one hour. This service is an integral and mandatory part ofMuslim life. Most if not all MDOC facilities provide Friday Islamic services for Muslim inmates. 15. Seventh-day Adventists observe the Sabbath, beginning on Friday at sundown and ending on Saturday at sundown, which is an integral and mandatory part of the Seventh-day Adventist faith. 16. Defendants have unreasonably failed to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' weekly worship requirements by rejecting their request to be released from work or school to worship at the times mandated by their religion or to be scheduled for work or school details which do not conflict with the dictates of their religion . 17. Defendants' failure to accommodate these core beliefs and practices imposes a substantial burden for Representative Plaintiffs, interferes with their ability to practice the basic tenants of their religion, and is in violation of both fundamental constitutional principles and basic human rights law. 18. Defendants excuse inmates from work and school for a wide variety of reasons, including doctor appointments, attorney visits, administrative appointments and therapy.
4

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 5 of 15 Pg ID 57
Nonetheless, they refuse to release Representative Plaintiffs and other similarly situated inmates for worship services mandated by their religion.
19. Moreover, MDOC facilities only require a limited number of work, school or similar details to be filled by inmates. Defendants could schedule inmates for details which do not conflict with services, but they refuse to do so.
20. If an inmate refuses to attend a scheduled detail due to a conflict with a religious service, that inmate is administratively punished (including being placed on "00" status), which can and does lead to a decrease in rights for the inmate and becomes part of the inmates' administrative file. Such actions damage inmates by reducing their rights and affecting their standing within the prison system.
Defendants' Illegal Refusal to Accommodate Representative Muslim Plaintiffs' Dietary Restrictions and Observance of the Eid Feasts
21. Representative Muslim Plaintiffs are Muslims who follow the doctrines, teachings, and practices of Islam. Muslims adhere to certain dietary restrictions and are permitted to consume only halal food. A halal diet requires, among other things, that meat be slaughtered in a ritual manner and that adherents refrain from consuming pork as well as any foods prepared in a kitchen in which pork is cooked or otherwise prepared.
22. Muslims observe two annual feasts, Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha (the "Eid Feasts"). Eid ul-Fitr occurs at the end of Ramadan, a month of fasting. Eid ul-Adha is celebrated approximately 70 days after the end of Ramadan to commemorate God's forgiveness of Abraham for vowing to sacrifice his son. These two feasts are the most holy days in Islam.
23. The Policies include a number of specific requirements regarding religious dietary needs, inter alia:
5

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 6 of 15 Pg ID 58

a. Prisoners are entitled to observe religious dietary restrictions only

as provided in the Policies. (Policies, ~ YY).

b. Any facility "at which meals are provided to meet necessary

religious dietary restrictions" shall provide "[a]dequate menu substitutions." (!d.,

~PP).

c. Directors of correctional facilities "may authorize the development

of a separate menu to meet the necessary religious dietary restrictions of a

prisoner." (Id., ~ QQ).

d. Correctional Facilities Administration (CFA) prisons must provide

kosher meals. (Id.)

e. Prisoners may eat from one of the "religious menus" provide by

the prison "only with approval of the CFA Special Activities Coordinator," and

such approval shall be granted "only if it is necessary to the practice of the

prisoner's designated religion." (!d.,~ SS).

f.

The Michigan penal system must accommodate the annual

Passover Seder observed in Judaism. (Id., ~ WW).

24. Despite Representative Muslim Plaintiffs' requests for accommodation of dietary

restrictions dictated by Islam, and despite the fact that Defendants accommodate Jewish inmates' dietary restrictions by providing kosher meals to observant Jews and permit Jews to have a seder

at Passover, Defendants have refused to accommodate Representative Muslim Plaintiffs' and

other Muslim inmates dietary requirements. Specifically, Defendants have refused to provide

halal food or to accommodate Muslim inmates desiring to honor the Eid Feasts.

6

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 7 of 15 Pg ID 59

25. Defendants' failure to accommodate these core Muslim beliefs and practices

imposes a substantial burden for Representative Muslim Plaintiffs, interferes with their ability to

practice the basic tenants of their religion, and is in violation of federal law, state and federal

constitutional principles and basic human rights law.

Class Allegations

26. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully stated

herein. 27.

The class represented by Representative Plaintiffs is so numerous that joinder of

all members is impracticable.

28. There are questions oflaw or fact common to the class.

29. The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or

defenses of this class;

30. The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

class. 31. This action alleges that Defendants acted or refused to act on grounds that apply
generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is

appropriate respecting the class as a whole.

COUNT 1: RLUIPA

32. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully stated

herein.

33. Representative Plaintiffs and Defendants are governed by and subject to the

requirements of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"),

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.

7

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 8 of 15 Pg ID 60
34. RLUPIA provides that the government may not "impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution, as defined in section 1997 of this title, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person (1) is in the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest." § 2000cc-a. This rule applies to, inter alia, "a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance." I d.
35. Each correctional facility in which any Representative Plaintiff is incarcerated is an "institution" as defined 42 U.S.C. § 1997.
36. On information and belief, the Michigan Department of Corrections receives federal financial assistance.
37. By failing to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' dietary and worship needs as described above, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Representative Plaintiffs.
38. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs is not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
39. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs IS not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling interest.
40. Representative Plaintiffs have satisfied all legal and procedural requirements for bringing an action under RLUIPA.
WHEREFORE Representative Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: (A) certify a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all current and future Michigan inmates:
8

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 9 of 15 Pg ID 61
(i) practicing Islam who have been, or will be denied the opportunity (a) to receive a halal diet, (b) to observe the Eid Feasts and/or (c) to observe Jum'ah or the Friday "Holy Day" service without a conflicting work, school or similar detail and without penalty of any sort; and (ii) practicing Seventh-day Adventism who have been, or will be, denied the ability to participate in the Sabbath without a conflicting work, school or similar detail and without penalty of any sort; and (iii) practicing Islam or Seventh-day Adventism who, in the past or pursuant to Defendants' policies and practices, has been or would be placed on "00" status or have any adverse administrative action taken against him or her due to failure to report to a scheduled detail or similar assignment due to conflict with either the Muslim Friday service or the Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath, respectively. (b) grant a declaratory judgment in Plaintiffs' favor declaring that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' religious freedom rights protected by RLUIPA, (c) grant injunctive relief requiring Defendants to permit and provide for halal meals; to accommodate the Eid Feasts; to accommodate Muslim dietary requirements; to allow Muslim inmates to observe and participate in the Friday service and to allow Seventh-day Adventist inmates to be free of work or school details on the Sabbath free of a conflicting work, school or similar detail; and to clear the administrative records of any inmate to the extent such records reflect negatively upon the inmate for having refused to attend a scheduled work or other detail due to a conflict with a religious service; and (d) grant attorney fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs, and (e) grant such additional relief as this Couti deems just and equitable.
9

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 10 of 15 Pg ID 62
COUNT II: EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 41. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully stated
herein. 42. The due process requirements imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution guarantees that states must provide for the equal protection oflaw. 43. By failing to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' dietary and worship needs
as described above, while accommodating the dietary needs of similarly situated Jewish inmates, Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
44. By failing to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' dietary and worship needs as described above, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Representative Plaintiffs.
45. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs is not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
46. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs 1s not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling interest.
47. Representative Plaintiffs have satisfied all legal and procedural requirements for bringing an action under the Equal Protection Clause.
WHEREFORE Representative Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court (a) grant judgment in its favor under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, (b) certify a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all Michigan inmates as described above; (c) grant injunctive relief as described above; (d) grant attorney fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs, and (e) grant such additional relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
10

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 11 of 15 Pg ID 63

COUNT III: VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, § 2

48. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully stated

herein. 49.

Article 1, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution provides: "No person shall be denied

the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or

political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color

or national origin." 50. By failing to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' dietary and worship needs
as described above, while accommodating the dietary needs of similarly situated Jewish inmates, Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Michigan

Constitution. 51. By failing to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' dietary and worship needs
as described above, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Representative Plaintiffs. 52. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs in not in furtherance of a compelling

governmental interest.

53. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs IS not the least restrictive means of

furthering any compelling interest.

54. Representative Plaintiffs have satisfied all legal and procedural requirements for

bringing an action under the Michigan Constitution.

WHEREFORE Representative Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court (a) grant

judgment in its favor under the Michigan Constitution, (b) certify a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all Michigan inmates as described above; (c) grant injunctive relief as

11

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 12 of 15 Pg ID 64
described above; (d) grant attorney fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs, and (e) grant such additional relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
COUNT IV: FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT 55. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully stated herein. 56. The Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution provides that Congress "shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." U.S. Const., amend. 1. This guarantee applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. 57. Defendants' policies and practices and use thereof are neither neutral nor generally applicable. 58. By failing to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' dietary and worship needs as described above, while accommodating the dietary needs of similarly situated Jewish inmates, Defendants have violated Plaintiff's free exercise rights under the First Amendment. 59. Representative Plaintiffs have satisfied all legal and procedural requirements for bringing an action under the First Amendment. WHEREFORE Representative Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court (a) grant judgment in its favor under the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution, (b) certify a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all Michigan inmates as described above; (c) grant injunctive relief as described above; (d) grant attorney fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs, and (e) grant such additional relief as this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT V: VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, § 4 60. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully stated herein.
12

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 13 of 15 Pg ID 65
61. Article 1, § 4 of the Michigan Constitution provides in relevant part: "Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.... The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account ofhis religious belief."
62. By failing to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' dietary and worship needs as described above, Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the Michigan Constitution.
63. The Policies and the Defendants' use thereof burden the exercise of Representative Plaintiffs' sincere and religiously motivated beliefs.
64. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs in not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
65. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs IS not a narrowly tailored means of furthering any compelling interest.
66. Representative Plaintiffs have satisfied all legal and procedural requirements for bringing an action under the Michigan Constitution.
WHEREFORE Representative Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court (a) grant judgment in its favor under the Free Exercise Clause of the Michigan Constitution, (b) certify a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all Michigan inmates as described above; (c) grant injunctive relief as described above; (d) grant attorney fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs, and (e) grant such additional relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted, DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC By: Is/ Daniel D. Quick Daniel D. Quick (P48l 09)
13

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 14 of 15 Pg ID 66
Trent B. Collier (P66448) Doron Yitzchaki (P72044) Cooperating Attorneys, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 38525 Woodward Ave., Suite 2000 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-2970 (313) 223-3500 dquick@dickinsonwright.com tcollier@dickinsonwright.com dyitzchaki@dickinsonwright.com
Is/ Michael J Steinberg Michael J. Steinberg (P43085) Kary L. Moss (49759) American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 4820 1 (313) 578-6814
msteinberg@aclumich.org
Attorneys for all Plaintiffs
Is/ Todd McFarland Todd McFarland Seventh Day Adventist Church 12501 Old Columbia Pike Silver Spring, MD 20904 (301) 680-6321 mcfarlandt@gc.adventist.org
Co-Counsel for Roger Hunt
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on February 2, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all registered ECF Counsel.
Respectfully submitted,
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
By: Is/ Daniel D. Quick
14

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 02/02/09 Pg 15 of 15 Pg ID 67

ANNARBOR 99997-904 JOJ850v4

Daniel D. Quick (P48109) Trent B. Collier (P66448) Doron Yitzchaki (P72044) Cooperating Attorneys, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 38525 Woodward Ave., Suite 2000 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-2970 (313) 223-3500 dquick(cl)dickinsonwright.com
tcollier~dickinsonwright.com
dyitzchaki@dickinsonwright.com
Is/ Michael J Steinberg Michael J. Steinberg (P43085) Kary L. Moss (49759) American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578-6814
msteinberg@aclumich.org
Attorneys for all Plaintiffs
Is/ Todd McFarland Todd McFarland Seventh Day Adventist Church 12501 Old Columbia Pike Silver Spring, MD 20904 (30 1) 680-63 21 mcfarlandt@gc.adventist.org
Co-Counsel for Roger Hunt

15

 
 2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 1 of 15 Pg ID 124

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC DOWDY-EL, AVERIS X. WILSON, AMIRA SALEM, TOM TRAINI and ROGER HUNT, on behalfofthemselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PATRICIA L. CARUSO, in her official capacity as Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, MICHAEL MARTIN, in his official capacity as Correctional Facilities Administration Special Activities Coordinator, and DAVE BURNETT, in his official capacity as former Correctional Facilities Administration Special Activities Coordinator,
Defendants.
----------------~/

Case No. 2:06-CV-11765 Hon. Avern L. Cohn Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Eric Dowdy-El, Averis X. Wilson, Amira Salem, Tom Traini and Roger Hunt

("Representative Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and others similar situated, state as follows

tor their Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand:

Nature of the Action

I.

This action Is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and concerns violations of the

Representative Plaintiffs' rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause of the Michigan

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 2 of 15 Pg ID 125
Constitution, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the Free Exercise Clause of the Michigan Constitution.
2. On behalf of Plaintiffs Dowdy-El, Wilson, Salem and/or Traini who are Muslim, as well as all similarly situated inmates housed with the Michigan Department of Corrections, Plaintiffs seek the following system-wide relief:
a. Accommodation to attend a weekly, mandatory religious service on Friday (which service is already provided by all or most MDOC institutions) by the institution not scheduling relevant inmates for a conflicting school, work or other detail or activity.
b. Reversal and correction of any punitive actions taken by MDOC institutions against inmates who refused to attend work, school or other assignments but which required the inmate to miss the Friday Islamic religious service.
c. Accommodation for desirous Muslim inmates to be provided a religiously mandated diet (halal).
d. Accommodation for desirous Muslim inmates to participate in two annual feasts which are recognized as the high holy days in Islam.
3. On behalf of Plaintiff Hunt, who is a Seventh-day Adventist, as well as all similarly situated inmates housed with the Michigan Department of Corrections, Plaintiffs seek the following system-wide relief:
a. Accommodation of the Saturday holy day ("Sabbath") by the institution not scheduling relevant inmates for a conflicting school, work or other detail or activity.
2

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 3 of 15 Pg ID 126

b. Reversal and correction of any punitive actions taken by MDOC institutions

against inmates who refused to attend work, school or other assignments due to a

conflict with the Saturday Sabbath.

4.

The Representative Plaintiffs and putative class members hereby seek injunctive

and declaratory relief remedying and enjoining these illegal actions.

Parties and Jurisdiction

5.

Representative Plaintiff Eric Dowdy-El (aka Eric M. Dowdy) is presently

incarcerated in the Chippewa Correctional Facility, located in Kincheloe, Michigan. At the time

the original complaint was filed, Dowdy-El was incarcerated in Cotton Correctional Facility,

located in Jackson, Michigan.

6.

Representative Plaintiff Averis X. Wilson is presently incarcerated in the Kinross

Correctional Facility, located in Kincheloe, Michigan. At the time the original complaint was

filed, Wilson was incarcerated in Cotton Correctional Facility, located in Jackson, Michigan.

7.

Representative Plaintiff Amira Salem is presently incarcerated in the Huron

Valley Women's Correctional Facility, located in Ypsilanti, Michigan.

8.

Representative Plaintiff Tom Traini is presently incarcerated m the Lakeland

Correctional Facility, located in Coldwater, Michigan.

9.

Representative Plaintiff Roger Hunt is presently incarcerated in the Cooper Street

Correctional Facility, located in Jackson, Michigan.

10. Dowdy-El, Wilson, Salem and Traini are collectively referred to herein as

"Representative Muslim Plaintiffs".

I I. Defendant Patricia L. Caruso IS the Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections.

3

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 4 of 15 Pg ID 127
12. Defendant Michael Martin is the Correctional Facilities Administration Special Activities Coordinator for the State of Michigan.
13. Defendant Dave Burnett was the Correctional Facilities Administration Special Activities Coordinator for the State of Michigan at the time the original complaint was filed.
14. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
15. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Defendants' Illegal Refusal to Accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' Religious Requirements by Rejecting their Request to be Released from Work or School to
Worship at the Times Mandated by their Religion 16. Michigan's correctional facilities are subject to certain policy directives, mcluding, without limitation, Policy Directive 05.03 .150, entitled "Religious Beliefs and Practices of Prisoners." Despite this policy, which require the accommodation of Representative Plaintiffs' core beliefs and practices, Defendants have failed to do so. 17. Muslims observe Jum'ah or "Holy Day", a weekly congregational servtce of prayer and worship that begins around noon on Fridays and lasts approximately one hour. This service is an integral and mandatory part of Muslim life. Most if not all MDOC facilities provide Friday Islamic services for Muslim inmates. 18. Seventh-day Adventists observe the Sabbath, beginning on Friday at sundown and ending on Saturday at sundown, which is an integral and mandatory part of the Seventh-day Adventist faith. 19. Defendants have unreasonably failed to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' weekly worship requirements by rejecting their request to be released from work or school to
4

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 5 of 15 Pg ID 128
worship at the times mandated by their religion or to be scheduled for work or school details which do not conflict with the dictates of their religion .
20. Defendants' failure to accommodate these core beliefs and practices imposes a substantial burden for Representative Plaintiffs, interferes with their ability to practice the basic tenants of their religion, and is in violation of both fundamental constitutional principles and basic human rights law.
21. Defendants excuse inmates from work and school for a wide variety of reasons, including doctor appointments, attorney visits, administrative appointments and therapy. Nonetheless, they refuse to release Representative Plaintiffs and other similarly situated inmates for worship services mandated by their religion.
22. Moreover, MDOC facilities only require a limited number of work, school or similar details to be filled by inmates. Defendants could schedule inmates for details which do not conflict with services, but they refuse to do so.
23. If an inmate refuses to attend a scheduled detail due to a conflict with a religious service, that inmate is administratively punished (including being placed on "00" status), which can and does lead to a decrease in rights for the inmate and becomes part of the inmates' administrative file. Such actions damage inmates by reducing their rights and affecting their standing within the prison system.
Defendants' Illegal Refusal to Accommodate Representative Muslim Plaintiffs' Dietary Restrictions and Observance of the Eid Feasts
24. Representative Muslim Plaintiffs are Muslims who follow the doctrines, teachings, and practices of Islam. Muslims adhere to certain dietary restrictions and are pcnnitted to consume only halal food. A halal diet requires, among other things, that meat be
5

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 6 of 15 Pg ID 129

slaughtered in a ritual manner and that adherents refrain from consuming pork as well as any

foods prepared in a kitchen in which pork is cooked or otherwise prepared.

25. Muslims observe two annual feasts, Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha (the "Eid

Feasts"). Eid ui-Fitr occurs at the end of Ramadan, a month of fasting. Eid ul-Adha is

celebrated approximately 70 days after the end of Ramadan to commemorate God's forgiveness

of Abraham for vowing to sacrifice his son. These two feasts are the most holy days in Islam.

26. The Policies include a number of specific requirements regarding religious dietary

nt:eds, inter alia:

a.

Prisoners are entitled to observe religious dietary restrictions only

as provided in the Policies. (Policies, ~ YY).

b.

Any facility "at which meals are provided to meet necessary

religious dietary restrictions" shall provide "[a]dequate menu substitutions." (!d.,

~ PP).

c.

Directors of correctional facilities "may authorize the development

of a separate menu to meet the necessary religious dietary restrictions of a

prisoner." (Jd., ~ QQ).

d. Correctional Facilities Administration (CFA) prisons must provide

kosher meals. (!d.)

e.

Prisoners may eat from one of the "religious menus" provide by

the prison "only with approval of the CFA Special Activities Coordinator," and

such approval shall be granted "only if it is necessary to the practice of the prisoner's designated religion." (!d.,~ SS).

6

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 7 of 15 Pg ID 130

f

The Michigan penal system must accommodate the annual

Passover Seder observed in Judaism. (!d., ,-r WW).

27. Despite Representative Muslim Plaintiffs' requests for accommodation of dietary

restrictions dictated by Islam, and despite the fact that Defendants accommodate Jewish inmates'

dietary restrictions by providing kosher meals to observant Jews and permit Jews to have a seder

at Passover, Defendants have refused to accommodate Representative Muslim Plaintiffs' and

other Muslim inmates dietary requirements. Specifically, Defendants have refused to provide

halal food or to accommodate Muslim inmates desiring to honor the Eid Feasts.

28. Defendants' failure to accommodate these core Muslim beliefs and practices

Imposes a substantial burden for Representative Muslim Plaintiffs, interferes with their ability to

practice the basic tenants of their religion, and is in violation of federal law, state and federal

constitutional principles and basic human rights law.

Class Allegations

29. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully stated

herein.

30. The class represented by Representative Plaintiffs is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

3 I . There are questions of law or fact common to the class.

32. The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or

defenses ofthis class;

3 3. class.

The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

7

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 8 of 15 Pg ID 131
34. This action alleges that Defendants acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.
COUNT 1: RLUIPA 35. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully stated herein. 36. Representative Plaintiffs and Defendants are governed by and subject to the requirements of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. 37. RLUPIA provides that the government may not "impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution, as defined in section 1997 of this title, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person (1) is in the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest." § 2000cc-a. This rule applies to, inter alia, "a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance." !d. 38. Each correctional facility in which any Representative Plaintiff is incarcerated is an "institution" as defined 42 U.S.C. § 1997. 39. On information and belief, the Michigan Department of Corrections receives federal financial assistance. 40. By failing to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' dietary and worship needs as described above, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Representative Plaintiffs.
8

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 9 of 15 Pg ID 132
41. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs is not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
42. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs IS not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling interest.
43. Representative Plaintiffs have satisfied all legal and procedural requirements for bnnging an action under RLUIP A.
WHEREFORE Representative Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: (A) certify a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all current and future Michigan inmates:
(i) practicing Islam who have been, or will be denied the opportunity (a) to receive a halal diet, (b) to observe the Eid Feasts and/or (c) to observe Jum'ah or the Friday "Holy Day" service without a conflicting work, school or similar detail and without penalty of any sort; and (ii) practicing Seventh-day Adventism who have been, or will be, denied the ability to participate in the Sabbath without a conflicting work, school or similar detail and without penalty of any sort; and (iii) practicing Islam or Seventh-day Adventism who, in the past or pursuant to Defendants' policies and practices, has been or would be placed on "00" status or have any adverse administrative action taken against him or her due to failure to report to a scheduled detail or similar assignment due to conflict with either the Muslim Friday service or the Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath, respectively. (b) grant a declaratory judgment in Plaintiffs' favor declaring that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' religious freedom rights protected by RLUIP A,
9

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 10 of 15 Pg ID 133
(c) grant injunctive relief requiring Defendants to permit and provide for halal meals; to accommodate the Eid Feasts; to accommodate Muslim dietary requirements; to allow Muslim inmates to observe and participate in the Friday service and to allow Seventh-day Adventist inmates to be free of work or school details on the Sabbath free of a conflicting work, school or similar detail; and to clear the administrative records of any inmate to the extent such records reflect negatively upon the inmate for having refused to attend a scheduled work or other detail due to a conflict with a religious service; and (d) grant attorney fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs, and (e) grant such additional relief as this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT II: EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 44. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully stated herein. 45. The due process requirements imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that states must provide for the equal protection of law. 46. By failing to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' dietary and worship needs as described above, while accommodating the dietary needs of similarly situated Jewish inmates, Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 47. By failing to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' dietary and worship needs as described above, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Representative Plaintiffs. 48. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs is not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
10

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 11 of 15 Pg ID 134
49. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs ts not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling interest.
50. Representative Plaintiffs have satisfied all legal and procedural requirements for bringing an action under the Equal Protection Clause.
WHEREFORE Representative Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court (a) grant JUdb,:rment in its favor under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, (b) certify a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all Michigan inmates as described ahove; (c) grant injunctive relief as described above; (d) grant attorney fees and costs incurred by Plainti tfs, and (e) grant such additional relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
COUNT III: VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, § 2 51. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully stated
herein. 52. Article I, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution provides: "No person shall be denied
the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin."
53. By failing to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' dietary and worship needs as described above, while accommodating the dietary needs of similarly situated Jewish inmates, Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Michigan Constitution.
54. By failing to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' dietary and worship needs as described above, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Representative Plaintiffs.
11

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 12 of 15 Pg ID 135
55. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs in not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
56. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs IS not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling interest.
57. Representative Plaintiffs have satisfied all legal and procedural requirements for bringing an action under the Michigan Constitution.
WHEREFORE Representative Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court (a) grant judgment in its favor under the Michigan Constitution, (b) certify a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P 23 on behalf of all Michigan inmates as described above; (c) grant injunctive relief as described above; (d) grant attorney fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs, and (e) grant such additional relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
COUNT IV: FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT 58. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully stated herein. 59. The Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution provides that Congress "shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." U.S. Const., amend. l. This guarantee applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. 60. Defendants' policies and practices and use thereof are neither neutral nor generally applicable. 61. By failing to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' dietary and worship needs as described above, while accommodating the dietary needs of similarly situated Jewish inmates, Defendants have violated Plaintiffs free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
12

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 13 of 15 Pg ID 136
62. Representative Plaintiffs have satisfied all legal and procedural requirements for bringing an action under the First Amendment.
WHEREFORE Representative Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court (a) grant Judgment in its favor under the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution, (b) certify a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all Michigan inmates as described above; (c) grant injunctive relief as described above; (d) grant attorney fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs, and (e) grant such additional relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
COUNT V: VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, § 4 63. Representative Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully stated
herein. 64. Article 1, § 4 of the Michigan Constitution provides in relevant part: "Every
person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.... The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief."
65. By failing to accommodate Representative Plaintiffs' dietary and worship needs as described above, Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the Michigan Constitution.
66. The Policies and the Defendants' use thereof burden the exercise of Representative Plaintiffs' sincere and religiously motivated beliefs.
67. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs in not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
68. The burden on Representative Plaintiffs IS not a narrowly tailored means of furthering any compelling interest.
13

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 14 of 15 Pg ID 137
69. Representative Plaintiffs have satisfied all legal and procedural requirements for
bringing an action under the Michigan Constitution.
WHEREFORE Representative Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court (a) grant
Judgment in its favor under the Free Exercise Clause of the Michigan Constitution, (b) certify a
class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all Michigan inmates as described above; (c)
grant injunctive relief as described above; (d) grant attorney fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs,
and (e) grant such additional relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
By: Is/ Daniel D. Quick Daniel D. Quick (P481 09) Trent B. Collier (P66448) Doron Yitzchaki (P72044) Cooperating Attorneys, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 38525 Woodward Ave., Suite 2000 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-2970 (313) 223-3500 dguick@dickinsonwright.com tcollicr@dickinsonwright.com dyitzchaki(i.4dickinsonwright.com
Is/ Michael J. Steinberg Michael J. Steinberg (P43085) Kary L. Moss (49759) American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578-6814 msteinberg@acl umich.org
Attorneys for all Plaintiffs
Is/ Todd McFarland Todd McFarland Seventh Day Adventist Church
14

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 37 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 15 of 15 Pg ID 138

Dated: January 27, 2010

12501 Old Columbia Pike Silver Spring, MD 20904 (301) 680-6321 mcfarlandt@gc.adventist.org
Co-Counsel for Roger Hunt

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on January 27, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all registered ECF Counsel.
Respectfully submitted,
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
By: Is/ Doran Yitzchaki Doron Yitzchaki (P72044) 301 E. Liberty, Suite 500 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 623-1947 dyitzchaki@dickinsonwright.com

15

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC DOWDY-EL, AVERIS X. WILSON, AMIRA SALEM, TOM TRAINI, and ROGER HUNT

Case Number: 06-11765

Plaintiffs,

HON. AVERN COHN

v.

PATRICIA L. CARUSO, MICHAEL MARTIN, and DAVE BURNETT,

Defendants. ______________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 73)
AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (Doc. 56)
I. Introduction Plaintiffs are Muslim1 inmates housed by the Michigan Department of Corrections
(“MDOC”) who challenge the defendant prison officials’ alleged failure to accommodate
their requests to observe three distinct Islamic religious practices: (1) attending Jum’ah
prayer services; (2) receiving a halal diet; and (3) participating in the Eid ul-Fitr and Eid
ul-Adha Feasts (the “Eid Feasts”). Plaintiffs challenge each alleged failure to
accommodate under: (1) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of
the United States Constitution; (2) the Free Exercise Clause of
the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, (3) the Michigan Constitution’s
counterparts to the United States Constitution’s Equal Protection and Free Exercise

1The magistrate judge has separately recommended that the sole non-Muslim plaintiff’s claims be dismissed. (Doc. 70 at 2, fn. 1)

Clauses, Article 1 §§ 2 and 4, respectively; and (4) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq, “RLUIPA”). The matter has been referred to a magistrate judge, before whom plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.2
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“MJRR”), recommending that the motion be granted. Neither party has filed objections to the MJRR and the time for filing objections has passed. Accordingly, the MJRR will be adopted and plaintiffs’ motion for class certification will be granted.
II. The MJRR and Class Certification The magistrate judge recommends that a class be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). With respect to the attendance at Jum’ah services, plaintiffs seek to certify a class comprised of “all current and future Michigan Muslim inmates who desire but have been denied …the ability to participate in Jum’ah because of a conflicting work, school or similar detail. With respect to the provision of a halal diet, plaintiffs seek to certify a class comprised of “all current and future Michigan Muslim inmates who desire but have been denied …a halal diet that is free of contamination by foods considered haram,” i.e., non-halal meats and/or vegetarian foods that have been “contaminated” by
2The parties also filed cross motions for summary judgment. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the motions be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 70). The parties have objected. (Docs. 71, 72) The cross motions for summary judgment and objections to the report and recommendation will be the subject of a separate order.
2

coming into contact with such meats.3 III. Legal Standard
The failure to file objections to the MJRR waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the MJRR releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the magistrate judge.
IV. Conclusion Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is GRANTED. The class is certified as indicated above under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23 (b)(2), as further explained in the MJRR. SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2012

S/Avern Cohn UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record on this date, December 20, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Sakne Chami Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

3The magistrate judge did not address participation in the Eid feasts, noting that he recommended the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment be granted on this issue. The magistrate judge then correctly noted that should the Court adopt this recommendation, the class certification issue becomes moot. Conversely, as the magistrate judge noted, should the Court reject this recommendation, defendants will have prevailed, also rendering the class certification issue moot.
3

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC DOWDY-EL, AVERIS X. WILSON, AMIRA SALEM, TOM TRAINI, and ROGER HUNT,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PATRICIA L. CARUSO, MICHAEL MARTIN, and DAVE BURNETT,
Defendants. ______________________________/

Case Number: 06-11765 HON. AVERN COHN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 70)
AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 55) AND
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 57) AND
SETTING A STATUS CONFERENCE
I. Introduction
Plaintiffs are Muslim1 inmates housed by the Michigan Department of Corrections
(“MDOC”) who challenge the defendant prison officials’ alleged failure to accommodate
their requests to observe three distinct Islamic religious practices:

1The magistrate judge has recommended that the sole non-Muslim plaintiff’s claims be dismissed for failure to respond to defendants’ motion. (Doc. 70 at 2, n. 1). The Court agrees. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Roger Hunt is GRANTED. Hunt is DISMISSED as a party to this case.

(1) attending Jum’ah prayer services;
(2) receiving a halal diet; and
(3) participating in the Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha Feasts (the “Eid feasts”).
Plaintiffs challenge each alleged failure to accommodate under: (1) the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (2)
the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, (3)
the Michigan Constitution’s counterparts to the United States Constitution’s Equal
Protection and Free Exercise Clauses, Article 1 §§ 2 and 4, respectively; and (4) the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et
seq, “RLUIPA”). The matter has been referred to a magistrate judge, before whom the
parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. (Docs. 55, 57).2
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“MJRR”),
recommending that the motions be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 70).
Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends:
(1) Plaintiffs’ state and federal constitutional claims under the Equal Protection Clause relating to Jum’ah and halal diet be DISMISSED
2Plaintiffs also filed a motion for class certification. (Doc. 56). The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be granted. (Doc. 73). Neither party objected to the recommendation, which the Court adopted. (Doc. 77). Accordingly, the Court certified a class with respect to the attendance at Jum’ah services, comprised of “all current and future Michigan Muslim inmates who desire but have been denied …the ability to participate in Jum’ah because of a conflicting work, school or similar detail. With respect to the provision of a halal diet, the Court certified a class comprised of “all current and future Michigan Muslim inmates who desire but have been denied …a halal diet that is free of contamination by foods considered haram,” i.e., non-halal meats and/or vegetarian foods that have been “contaminated” by coming into contact with such meats. The Court did not certify a class with respect to the Eid feasts, as the magistrate judge has recommended that judgment enter in favor of plaintiffs regarding this religious practice.
2

(2) Plaintiffs state and federal constitutional claims under the Free Exercise clause relating to Jum’ah prayer services be DISMISSED.
(3) Plaintiffs’ state and federal constitutional claims under the Free Exercise Clause relating to halal diet CONTINUE
(4) Plaintiffs’ RLUIPA claims relating to Jum’ah prayer services and halal diet CONTINUE
(5) Judgment enter in favor of plaintiffs on all claims relating to the Eid feast Stated differently, if the MJRR is adopted, the following claims will remain for trial: (1) halal diet - Free Exercise Claim under state and federal constitutions and
RLUIPA (2) Jum’ah prayer services - RLUIPA Claim Both parties have filed objections. (Docs. 71, 72). For the reasons that follow, the MJRR will be adopted and the parties cross motions for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.
II. Legal Standards A. Review of MJRR A district court must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district “court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate" judge. Id. The requirement of de novo review “is a statutory recognition that Article III of the United States Constitution mandates that the judicial power of the United States be vested in judges with life tenure.” United States v. Shami, 754 F.2d 670, 672 (6th Cir. 1985). A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously
3

presented, is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge. An “objection” that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate judge's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an objection as that term is used in this context. Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991) (“It is arguable in this case that Howard’s counsel did not file objections at all.... [I]t is hard to see how a district court reading [the ‘objections’] would know what Howard thought the magistrate had done wrong.”).
B. Summary Judgment “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A moving party may meet that burden “by ‘showing’ – that is, pointing out to the district court -- that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Revised Rule 56 expressly provides that: A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The revised Rule also provides the consequences of failing to properly support or address a fact:
4

If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may: (1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; (3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials – including the facts considered undisputed – show that the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any other appropriate order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). “The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). When the moving party has met its burden under Rule 56, “its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Electric Industries Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Ultimately a district court must determine whether the record as a whole presents a genuine issue of material fact, id. at 587, drawing “all justifiable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,” Hager v. Pike County Bd. Of Education, 286 F.3d 366, 370 (6th Cir. 2002).
III. Discussion
A. The MJRR
The Court has carefully reviewed the objections. The parties essentially repeat the arguments considered and rejected by the magistrate judge. The Court is satisfied that the recommendations of the magistrate judge should be adopted. What follows is a brief discussion of each religious practice and the Court’s findings, consistent with the
5

MJRR. 1. Eid Feasts
The magistrate judge recommends that judgment enter in favor of plaintiffs on all claims relating to participation in the Eid feasts. The MDOC objects, contending as it did before the magistrate judge, that the issue is moot because a December 10, 2010 MDOC Memo specifically permits participation. Plaintiffs disagree, arguing, correctly, that the Memo is not official MDOC policy, can be reversed at any time, and does not address whether inmates may observe the Eid feasts when they have conflicting work detail. Significantly, defendants have not contended that plaintiffs have a right to participate in the Eid feasts, i.e. they have not challenged the substantive merit of plaintiffs’ claims as to the Eid feasts. As such, a judgment shall enter in favor of plaintiffs as to participation in the Eid feasts. Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed judgment, to which defendants may respond, as set forth below.
B. Halal Diet The heart of the dispute over this religious practice appears to surround whether the current systems which provides a non-meat diet, i.e. selecting a vegetarian and protein substitute, is sufficient to meet the plaintiffs’ dietary needs. There is also an issue of cross contamination. The there are genuine issues of material fact as to (1) whether plaintiffs receive a halal diet under the current system and as to defendants’ ability to provide halal meals, (2) whether defendants’ cost concerns constitute a compelling governmental interest, and (3) whether the current system is the least restrictive means of advancing that interest. In light of these disputes, plaintiffs’ claims
6

under the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA regarding the provision of a halal diet must proceed to trial.
C. Jum’ah Prayer Services The parties disagree on whether the MDOC’s work release policy is sufficient to permit plaintiffs to attend weekly Friday afternoon Jum’ah prayer services when the prayer conflicts with a work or school detail. The Court concludes that (1) attendance at Jum’ah prayer services is a protected religious exercise under RLUIPA, (2) the current work release policy substantially burdens plaintiffs’ ability to participate in Jum’ah prayer services, and (3) defendants’ have identified a compelling interest of prison security justifying the work release policy. However, and significantly, that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the work release policy is the least restrictive means of enforcing the MDOC’s compelling interest in prison security. As a result, plaintiffs’ claims under RLUIPA regarding participation in Jum’ah prayer services must proceed to trial.
IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the MJRR is ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court, as supplemented above. The parties cross motions for summary judgment are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs are granted judgment regarding the Eid feats. Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed judgment on or before Monday, June 3, 2013. Defendants may file a response to the proposed judgment on or before Monday, June 10, 2013.
7

Plaintiffs’ claims regarding halal diet and Jum’ah prayer services shall proceed to trial as described above.
The Court will hold a status conference on Tuesday, June 18 at 2:00 p.m. to chart the future course of the case.
SO ORDERED.
S/Avern Cohn AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: May 24, 2013 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record on this date, May 24, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. S/Sakne Chami Case Manager, (313) 234-5160
8

 
 2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 85 Filed 08/13/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 2872

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC DOWDY-EL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 2:06-CV-11765 Honorable Avern Cohn Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

JUDGMENT WHEREAS the Magistrate Judge having i ssued a Report and Recommendation dated July 24, 2012 as to the parties’ Motions for Su mmary Judgm ent and the parties having filed Objections with this Court; WHEREAS this Court, by Orde r dated May 24, 2013, and f or the reasons stated therein, having adopted the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation as to the issue of the Eid Feasts (as defined below) and having gr anted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summ ary Judgment in its en tirety as to the issue of the Eid Feasts; WHEREAS the parties having a ttended a hearing on July 31, 2013 and having stipulated to the form of this Judgment:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. This Judgment applies to the named Defendants in their official capacity and shall be equally binding upon their su ccessors, agents, officials, em ployees, representatives and assigns, including Daniel H. Heyns , the Directo r of the Michigan Dep artment of Corrections (“MDOC”).

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 85 Filed 08/13/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 2873
2. The Court declares that Defendants have deprived the Class of their rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitu tion, a nd the F ree Exerc ise a nd Equal Pr otection Cla uses of th e Michigan Constitution, to attend, congregate for, observe and celebrate (collectively, “Observe”) the Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha feasts (collectively, the “Eid Feasts”).
3. Defendants are ordered as follows: a. The MDOC shall maintain the Handbook on Religious Groups. The Handbook shall identify religious holy days, including any fasts or feasts, that prisoners shall be permitted to observe consistent with Department policy. This includes but is not limited to Ramadan fasts, Seders, and Eid-Ul-Fitr and Eid-Ul-Adha feasts. The MDOC shall ensure that the list of holy days, including any fasts or feasts, is posted in the chapel or the room where religious services are conducted. b. Special provisions for the observance of religious holidays or holy days shall be permitted only as authorized and specifically provided for by Department policy. c. Prisoners shall be released from work or school assignments to attend group religious services and approved holy day observances so long as the procedures set forth in PD 05.03.150 (eff. 7/26/13)(or the substantial equivalent in a subsequent policy) shall be followed. Observance or request for such observance shall not lead to any punishment or deprivation of any right or benefit (including being placed on “00” status). Any determination to deny a request under PD 05.03.150 (or the substantial equivalent in a subsequent policy) must be based upon a particularized review and finding of a compelling government interest and that prohibiting observance by that inmate is the least restrictive means of enforcing said interest as to that inmate.
2

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 85 Filed 08/13/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 2874

4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of enabling any party to the Judgment to apply to the Court for: (i) such further orders or directions as may be necessary or appropriate for the interpretation or implementation of this Judgment; (ii) for Plaintiffs to apply to this Court for the enforcement of any provision or the punishment of any violation of this Judgment; and (iii) for Plaintiffs’ counsel to move for an award of costs and fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988 and/or pursuant to any other applicable basis.
This is not a final order and does not close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2013
APPROVED: /s/ Daniel D. Quick Counsel for Plaintiffs /s/ John Thurber Counsel for Defendants

s/Avern Cohn UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

 
 2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 88 Filed 09/17/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 2902

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC DOWDY-EL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 2:06-CV-11765 Honorable Avern Cohn Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

PRELIMINARY ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT WHEREAS the Court having certified a class by Order dated December 20, 2012; WHEREAS the Court having entered a Judg ment on August 13, 2013 regarding certain matters at issue in this litigation and which Judgment shall remain in full force and effect; WHEREAS the parties having othe rwise resolved the remaining issues in this case and having stipulated to the form of this Order; WHEREAS Plaintiffs having filed a Motion for Prelim inary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Defendants having agreed to the form of this Order; WHEREAS the Court being otherwise advised in the premises;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED. 2. This Order applies to the na med Defendants in their official capacity and shall be equally binding upon their successo rs, agents, officials, em ployees, representatives and assigns, including Daniel H. Heyns, the Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”).

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 88 Filed 09/17/13 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 2903
3. The parties have agreed to resolve the remaining issues in this case through the entry of a Stipulated F inal Order A pproving Settlem ent which would provide, inter alia , as follows:
A. Defendants shall provide a religious meal that c omports with all re ligious tenets including Halal tenets and satisfies basic nutritional requirements applicable to all prisoners. Defendants have adopte d PD 05.03.150 (eff. 7/26/13) and OP 5.03.150A. (eff. 7/30/13) addressi ng the provision of religious m eals to prisoners and setting forth provisions for the prep aration and servic e of said m eals in conformity with Halal as well as other religious requirements. The parties and the Court understand the language contai ned in PD 05.03.150 ¶PP (“The … m enu shall comply with … Halal religious tene ts.”) to include not only the food item s but also the manner of preparation and service. Defendants are not bound to serve any specif ic relig ious meal/m enu but will p rovide religious m eals tha t com port with prisoners’ religious tenets and nutritional needs.
B. Within 30 c alendar days of the entry of Judgment the Departm ent of Cor rections shall post a notice in all housing units which will inform prisoners that any prisoner w ho was found guilty of m isconduct or received any form of administrative action including being clas sified as une mployable (“00”), from August 1, 2003 through the date of this Judgm ent, due to (a) a request to attend or attendance at a religious service whic h conflicted with a work, school or administrative detail or assignm ent or (b) refusal to attend a work, school or administrative deta il d ue to a co nflicting religious service, has the f ollowing agreed upon remedy:
2

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 88 Filed 09/17/13 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 2904
i. Within 30 calendar days of the posti ng of the notice, the prisoner m ay request expungem ent of the m isconduct or correction of any other administrative action by filing a grievan ce directly at Step III as s tated in the notice. No extension for filing the Step III grievance past the 30 day time limit is permitted.
ii. If the Departm ent determ ines that the prisoner was found guilty of misconduct or receiv ed other adm inistrative action because of one of the reasons set forth above, th e Departm ent shall expunge the misconduct and/or correct the prisoner’s commitm ent files to clarify the other administrative action.
iii. If the Departm ent determ ines that the m isconduct or other administrative action w as not a result of one of the reasons set forth above, the m isconduct or other adm inistrative action shall rem ain in the prisoner’s commitment files as originally issued.
iv. The Departm ent shall notify the prisoner in writing of its final determination.
C. This Court shall retain jurisd iction ove r th is matte r f or the purpose of enablin g any party to the Judgm ent to apply to the Court for: (i) such further orders or directions as m ay be necess ary or appropriate for the inte rpretation o r implementation of this Judgment; (ii) for Plaintiffs to apply to this Court f or the enforcement of any provision or the perceived violation of this Judgment; and (iii) for Plaintiffs’ counsel to m ove for an award of costs and f ees under 42 U.S.C. §1988 and/or pursuant to any other applicable basis.
3

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 88 Filed 09/17/13 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 2905
D. Except as to the foregoing, this is a fina l order and closes this case. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants would appeal or challenge any order or judgm ent entered in this m atter, including without limitation the Order dated December 20, 2012, the prior Judgment or the Final Order.
4. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2), the Court preliminarily approves the proposed Settlement as set forth above as being fair, r easonable, and adequate to warrant notifying the class of the proposed Settlem ent and further cons ideration of the propos ed Settlem ent at the hearing described below.
5. This Court will hold a hearing on Nove mber 18, 2013 at 2:00 p.m . to consider entry of a final Order Approving Settlement which shall be consistent with the foregoing.
6. Within 14 d ays of this Order, notice of this Order, ob jection procedures and the final hearing date shall be provided to class mem bers in the f orm attached hereto (or which is substantially similar and approved by all counsel) by the MDOC conspicuously posting a copy of the Notice in the public areas of each of its facilities and camps and in two conspicuous locations within each of prisoners housing units.
7. Any member of the class m ay file an objection to the settlement for consideration by the Court but on ly in accord with the follo wing procedure. No m ember of the clas s or an y other person opposing the settlement or any provision thereof shall be heard or entitled to contest the approval of the term s and cond itions of the settlem ent a nd if approved the judgm ent to be entered thereon and no papers or briefs submitt ed by any m ember of the class or any other personnel shall be received and considered exce pt by Order of the court for good cause shown, unless, no later than ten business days prior to the hearing copies of (a) a written notice of intention to appear, (b) proof of any clas s membership, (c) a detailed statement of each person ’s
4

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 88 Filed 09/17/13 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 2906

specific objections to any m atter before the co urt, (d) the grounds for such objections and any

reasons for such person’s desiring to appear and to be heard, as well as all docum

ents and

writings such person desires this court to consider, and (e) a statement advising the Court and the

parties of any court proceeding in which said objector and his c ounsel has made an objection to

a class action settlement within the past three years identifying the past objections made by case

name, docket number and court shall be served upon the following counsel:

Daniel D. Quick Dickinson Wright 2600 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 300 Troy, MI 48034

John Assistan Corrections P.O. Lansing,

L. Thurber t Attorney General Division
Box 30217 MI 48909

and then filed with the Clerk of the Court. Unless the Court otherwise directs, no m embers of the class shall be entitled to object to the settlem ent or to the judgment to be entered herein, or otherwise to be heard, except by serving and f iling written o bjections as described above. Any person who fails to object in th e manner provided above shall be deemed to have waived such objection and shall forever be barr ed from making any such objecti on in this action or any other action proceeding.
8. The parties shall file any supplem ental papers in support of the proposed settlement no later than five business days before the hearing.
9. If the settlement provided for in the stipulation is approved by the Court following the hearing, judgment shall be entered in the form consistent with the foregoing and in a for m to be submitted to the Court.

5

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 88 Filed 09/17/13 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 2907

10. Except as otherwise pro vided in the stipula tion, all pre- trial proceeding s in this action except for such proceeding s ordered b y the court with respect to app roval of the settlement, are stayed and suspended until further order of this Court.
11. The Court reserves the right to approve the stipulation an d the s ettlement with modifications and without further notice to m embers of the class, and retains jurisdiction over the action to consider all furt her applications arising out or connected with the proposed settlement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2013 s/Avern
APPROVED: /s/ Daniel D. Quick Counsel for Plaintiffs /s/ John Thurber Counsel for Defendants

Cohn UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 88 Filed 09/17/13 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 2908
NOTICE TO PRISONERS
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
A class action lawsuit, filed in 2006, is being settled. If you are a class member, your rights may be affected by the settlement. Please read this notice carefully.
DOES THIS APPLY TO ME?
This notice applies to you if you fall in to 1 of the following categories:
 A Muslim inm ate who desires but has been denied a halal diet th at is free of contamination by foods considered haram.
 A Muslim inmate who was found guilty of misconduct or received any for m of administrative action including being clas sified as une mployable (“00”), from August 1, 2003 through the date of the hear ing noted below , due to (a) a request to attend or attendance at a religious se rvice which conflicted with a work, school or adm inistrative detail or assignm ent or (b) refusal to attend a work, school or administrative detail due to a conflicting religious service.
WHAT WAS THE LAWSUIT?
The lawsuit did not seek money damages but a change to MDOC policy on three items: (a) allow Muslim inmates to ce lebrate the Eid feasts; (b) allow inm ates with a conflicting work or school detail to attend religious servi ces without penalty or punishm ent; and (c) allow Muslim inmates to have halal meals. The first two item s were resolv ed in a Judgm ent entered by the Court and as to which the MDOC has changed its policy (as set forth in prior notices). Now the rest of the case is being resolved.
WHAT IS THE SETTLEMENT?
With regard to MDOC policy, the proposed settlement provides as follows:
 The MDOC shall provide a religious meal that com ports with halal tenets and satisfies basic nutritional requirem ents applicable to all prisoners. Defendants have adopted PD 05.03.150 (eff. 7/26/13) and OP5.03.150A. (eff. 7/ 30/13) addressing the provision of religious meals to prisoners and setting forth provisions for the preparation and service of said meals in conf ormity with Is lamic religious requirements. Defendants are not bound to serve any specific religious m eal/menu but will provide religious meals that comport with prisoners’ religious tenets and nutritional needs.
 Previously, the Court entered a Judgment requiring, in part: “P risoners shall be released from work or school assignm ents to attend group religious servic es and approved holy day observances so long as the procedures set forth in PD 05.03.150 (eff. 7/26/13)(or the substantial equivalent in a subsequent polic y) shall be follo wed. Obser vance or req uest for such observance shall not lead to any punishment or deprivation of any right or benefit (including being placed on “00” status ).” As part of this settlement, the MD OC will adopt a procedure for any priso ner who was found guilty of m isconduct or received any form of adm inistrative act ion including being classified as unem ployable (“00”),

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 88 Filed 09/17/13 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 2909

from August 1, 2003 through the date of the Judg ment, due to (a) a re quest to attend or attendance at a religious service which conf licted with a work, school or adm inistrative detail or assignment or (b) refusal to attend a work, school or administrative detail due to a conflicting religious service, to have that punishment removed from the inmate’s file.
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT ME?
You do not need to do anything. The settlement is believed to be in the best interests of the class members by the lawyers representing the inm ates, which includes the Am erican Civil Liber ties Union of Michigan. However, if yo u are a clas s member and wish to object to th e settlement, you m ay file an objection. If approved by the Cour t, you will still enjoy the benefits of the settlement.
If you are a class member and for some reason believe the settlement is not in your best interests, you can express your concerns to the Court. The Court will hold a hearing on November 18, 2013 to review any objections and either approve or reject the settlement.
HOW DO I OBJECT?
To object, you m ust, in writing, s tate (a) how you are a m ember of the cl ass, (b ) a detailed statement of your specific objections to any m atter before the court, (c) the grounds for such objections and any reasons for your objection, as well as all docum ents and writings you desire the court to consider, and (d) a statem ent a dvising the C ourt and the parties of any court proceeding in which you have m ade an objection to a class action settlem ent within the past three years identifying the past objections made by case nam e, docket num ber and court. You must mail this to:

Daniel D. Quick Dickinson Wright 2600 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 300 Troy, MI 48034 248-433-7242

and filed with the Clerk of the Court by mailing it to:

Clerk'

s Office

Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse

231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Room 564

Detroit, MI 48226

You should include the case nu mber (2:06-CV-11765) on your co rrespondence. An y objection must be received by the Court by no later than November 8, 2013.

Unless the Court otherwise directs, no m embers of the cla ss shall be entitled to o bject to the settlement or to the judgment to be entered herein, or otherwise to be heard, except by serving and filing w ritten objections as described above. Any person who fails to object in the m anner provided above shall be deem ed to have waived such objection and shall forever be barred from making any such objection in this action or any other action proceeding.

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC DOWDY-EL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. PATRICIA L. CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants. ______________________________/

Case Number: 06-11765 HON. AVERN COHN

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT (Doc. 219) I.
Plaintiffs, Muslim inmates housed by the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), sued challenging the defendant prison officials’ alleged failure to accommodate their requests to observe three distinct Islamic religious practices:
(1) attending Jum’ah prayer services; (2) receiving a halal diet; and (3) participating in the Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha Feasts (the “Eid feasts”) The Court approved a settlement agreement between the parties that, among other things, required the MDOC to provide a halal meal. (Doc. 129). The MDOC now provides one religious meal that meets all religious requirements, including halal and Kosher. It is a soy based meal. The order approving the settlement (Settlement Order), states that “[t]his Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of enabling . . . any class member to apply to this Court for the enforcement of any provision or the punishment of any violation of this Order . . .” (Doc. 129). Thus, the

Court retained jurisdiction to allow a class member to enforce any provision of the settlement agreement and allow for punishment if the MDOC is violating any provision.
Before the Court is David Lindensmith’s motion for contempt ruling. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
II. Following entry of the settlement agreement, the Court has received a multitude of motions from prisoners complaining about various related and unrelated aspects of the settlement. Relevant to the instant motion, on September 28, 2015, David Lindensmith filed a Motion for Contempt Ruling. Lindensmith, who is on the religious diet, says that the director of the food service and food service workers have violated the settlement agreement by refusing his request to drink Kosher milk instead of soy milk. He says he filed a grievance which was denied at step II. He seeks injunctive relief and damages.
III. Lindensmith seeks relief that is beyond the scope of the settlement agreement. Nothing in the Settlement Order requires the MDOC to provide a particular prisoner with a deviation from the religious diet. The MDOC agreed to make major policy changes to provide, among other things, prisoners of all religions with a diet that would meet their religious needs. The MDOC has done that. The settlement did not attempt to eradicate every conceivable issue a prisoner might come up with related to religious meals. As the Court has said in prior orders directed at other prisoners, if Lindemsmith is dissatisfied with his individual situation then he should exhaust the grievance process and file his own lawsuit. Relief on an individualized basis is not within the confines of
2

this case. SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 6, 2015 Detroit, Michigan

S/Avern Cohn AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

 
 2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 129 Filed 11/20/13 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 3557

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC DOWDY-EL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 2:06-CV-11765 Honorable Avern Cohn Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE WHEREAS the Court having certified a class by Order dated December 20, 2012; WHEREAS the Court having entere d a Judgment on August 13, 2013 regarding certain m atters at issue in this litigation and which Judgm ent shall remain in full force and effect; WHEREAS the parties having otherwise resolved the rem aining issues in this case; WHEREAS Plaintiffs having filed a Motion for Prelim inary Approval of Class Action Settlem ent and the Cour t having entered a Prelim inary Order Approving Settlement on September 17, 2013; WHEREAS notice to the class havin g b een provided as set forth in the Preliminary Order;

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 129 Filed 11/20/13 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 3558
WHEREAS the Court having held a hearing with pr oper n otice on November 18, 2013 to consider whether th is Order should be entered pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e);
WHEREAS the Court received and considered objections to the settlemen t and, by separate order, ha ving found that the objections lack merit and otherwise do not bar entry of the settlement.
WHEREAS Defendants having agreed to the form of this Order; WHEREAS the Court being otherwise advised in the premises;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. This Order applies to the nam ed Defendants in their official capacity and shall be equally binding upon their successors, agents, officials, em ployees, representatives and assigns, including Da niel H. Heyns, the Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). 2. Defendants shall provide a religious m eal that com ports with halal tenets and satisfies basic nutritional requ irements applicable to all prisoners. Defendants have adopted PD 05.03.150 (eff. 7/26/ 13) and OP5.03.150A. (eff. 7/30/13) addressing the provision of religi ous meals to prisoners and setting forth provisions for the preparation and service of said meals in conformity with Islamic religious requirem ents. The partie s and the Court unde rstand the language contained in PD 05.03.150 ¶PP (“The … m enu shall com ply with … Halal
2

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 129 Filed 11/20/13 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 3559
religious tenets.”) to in clude not only the food item s but also the m anner of preparation and service. Defendants ar e not bound to serve any specific religious meal/menu but will provide religious m eals that co mport with prisoners’ religious tenets and nutritional needs.
3. Within 30 calendar days of the entr y of this Order the Departm ent of Corrections shall post a notice in all housing units which will inform prisoners that any prisoner wh o was found guilty of misconduct or received any form of administrative action including being classified as unem ployable (“00”), from August 1, 2003 through the da te of this Judgm ent, due to (a) a request to attend or attendance at a religious service wh ich conflicted with a work, school or administrative detail or assignment or (b) refusal to attend a work, school or administrative detail due to a conflicting religious service, has the following agreed upon remedy:
A. Within 30 calendar days of the posting of the notice, the prisoner may request expungem ent of the misconduct or correction of any other administrative action by filing a grievance directly at Step III as stated in the notice.
B. If the Department determines that the prisoner was found guilty of misconduct or received other adm inistrative action b ecause of one of the reasons set forth above, the Departm ent shall expunge the
3

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 129 Filed 11/20/13 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 3560
misconduct and/or correct the prisoner’s com mitment files to clarify the other administrative action. C. If the Departm ent determ ines that the m isconduct or other administrative action was not a re sult of one of the reasons set forth above, the m isconduct or other adm inistrative action shall remain in the prisoner’s commitment files as originally issued. D. The Departm ent shall notify the prisoner in writing of its final determination. 1. This Court shall retain jurisdic tion over this m atter for th e purpose of enabling any party to the Order to apply to the Court for: (i) such further orders or directions as m ay be necessary or appropriate for the interpretation or implementation of this Order; (ii) for any class member to apply to t his Court for the enforcement of any provision or the punishm ent of any violation of this Order; and (iii) for Plaintiffs’ counsel to m ove for an award of costs and fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988 and/or pursuant to any other applicable basis. 2. Except as to the foregoing , t his i s a final order and closes this case. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants shall a ppeal or challenge any order or judgm ent entered in this m atter, including wit hout limitation the Order dated December 20, 2012, the prior Judgment nor this Order.
4

2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG Doc # 129 Filed 11/20/13 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 3561

3. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e )(2), the Court approves the proposed settlement as set forth herein as being fair, reasonable, and adequate.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2013

s/ Avern Cohn UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPROVED:
/s/ Daniel D. Quick Counsel for Plaintiffs
/s/ John Thurber Counsel for Defendants

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record on this date, November 20, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol Bethel for Sakne Chami Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

5

 
 2:06-cv-C1a1s7e6:51-A4C-2-6D0R2G DDooccu#m2e2n5t: 2F3i-l1ed 1F2/il0e8d/:1152/0P8g/210o1f55 PPaggIeD: 14422

(1 of 5)

Deborah S. Hunt Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988

Tel. (513) 564-7000 www.ca6.uscourts.gov

Filed: December 08, 2015

Mr. Gene T. Favors Chippewa Correctional Facility 4269 W. M-80 Kincheloe, MI 49784
Mr. John L. Thurber Office of the Attorney General of Michigan P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, MI 48909
Re: Case No. 14-2602, Eric Dowdy, et al v. Patricia Caruso, et al Originating Case No. : 2:06-cv-11765
Dear Counsel and Mr. Favors:
The Court issued the enclosed (Order/Opinion) today in this case.
Sincerely yours,

cc: Mr. David J. Weaver Enclosure Mandate to issue

s/Amy E. Gigliotti for Jill Colyer, Case Manager Direct Dial No. 513-564-7042

2:06-cv-C1a1s7e6:51-A4C-2-6D0R2G DDooccu#m2e2n5t: 2F3i-l2ed 1F2/il0e8d/:1152/0P8g/220o1f55 PPaggIeD: 14423

(2 of 5)

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
No. 14-2602
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ERIC DOWDY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
and
GENE T. FAVORS,
Interested Party-Appellant, v.
PATRICIA CARUSO; DAVE BURNETT; MICHAEL MARTIN,
Defendants-Appellees.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ) MICHIGAN ) ) ) ) )

O R D E R

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, SUTTON, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

Gene T. Favors, a Michigan prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district court order denying his motion for relief from judgment, which Favors filed after the district court denied his motion to hold the defendants in civil contempt for violating a settlement agreement. This case has been referred to a panel of the court that, upon examination, unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
In 2010, several Muslim inmates housed by the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) filed an amended complaint on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated inmates. They alleged that former MDOC Director Patricia Caruso, former MDOC Special Activities Coordinator Dave Burnett, and MDOC Special Activities Coordinator Michael Martin failed to accommodate their requests to attend Jum’ah prayer services, receive a halal diet, and

2:06-cv-C1a1s7e6:51-A4C-2-6D0R2G DDooccu#m2e2n5t: 2F3i-l2ed 1F2/il0e8d/:1152/0P8g/230o1f55 PPaggIeD: 24424
No. 14-2602 - 2 -

(3 of 5)

participate in Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha Feasts. The case was certified as a class-action lawsuit, with the class defined, in relevant part, as “‘all current and future Michigan Muslim inmates who desire but have been denied . . . a halal diet that is free of contamination by foods considered haram,’ i.e., non-halal meats and/or vegetarian foods that have been ‘contaminated’ by coming into contact with such meats.”
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their claims regarding the observation of the Eid feasts, and it ordered the defendants to allow the plaintiffs to participate in those feasts. Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. In relevant part, the settlement agreement required MDOC to “provide a religious meal that comports with halal tenets and satisfies basic nutritional requirements applicable to all prisoners.” In approving the settlement agreement, the district court noted that policies recently adopted by MDOC—“PD 05.03.150” and “OP5.03.150A”—“address[ed] the provision of religious meals to prisoners and set[] forth provisions for the preparation and service of said meals in conformity with Islamic religious requirements.” The district court stated that it would retain jurisdiction over the case to enforce the settlement agreement and punish violations of the court’s order.
Favors subsequently moved to hold the defendants in contempt for violating the settlement agreement. He alleged that MDOC denied his request for a halal or vegan diet and failed to provide an explanation for the denial. He stated that MDOC had recognized his Muslim faith for years and allowed him to participate in Muslim services and purchase religious items. Favors further alleged that the defendants violated Policy Directive 100.03.100, which requires MDOC to serve one hot meal per day; refused to provide hot water for coffee and oatmeal; and refused to allow prisoners to use microwaves. Finally, he contended that, when food service workers prepare halal food trays, they have pork on their gloves, which contaminates the halal meals that are served. Favors asked the court to order MDOC to determine whether he is entitled to a halal diet, place him on a halal diet, and award him $10,000 in damages for each day that his constitutional rights were violated. The district court denied Favors’s motion to hold the defendants in contempt, finding that the relief that Favors sought was beyond the scope of the settlement agreement and that Favors had failed to exhaust the grievance process.

2:06-cv-C1a1s7e6:51-A4C-2-6D0R2G DDooccu#m2e2n5t: 2F3i-l2ed 1F2/il0e8d/:1152/0P8g/240o1f55 PPaggIeD: 34425
No. 14-2602 - 3 -

(4 of 5)

Favors filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing that he did not bear the burden of proving exhaustion and that there was no evidence in the record to support a finding that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The district court denied the motion, finding that MDOC provides a halal meal to prisoners who are approved for a halal diet, in compliance with MDOC Policy Directive 05.03.150 and as required by the settlement agreement. It determined that Favors’s claim that he was denied approval to receive halal meals should be pursued through MDOC’s grievance procedure and brought in a separate lawsuit once Favors exhausts his administrative remedies.
On appeal, Favors argues that the defendants retaliated against him and treated him differently than other similarly situated Muslim inmates by denying his requests of vegan meals without adequate explanation. He contends that the settlement agreement states that all prisoners are entitled to halal or vegan meals and that the district court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement. He also argues that MDOC violated his due process rights by denying his requests for a vegan or halal diet without providing a hearing or a written explanation of its reasons for denying his requests. Favors has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, which is unnecessary, because the district court granted Favors leave to appeal in forma pauperis. He has also filed a motion to appoint counsel.
As an initial matter, because Favors filed his motion for relief from judgment within twenty-eight days of the district court’s order denying his motion to hold the defendants in contempt, the time for filing a notice of appeal was tolled until the district court ruled on the motion for relief from judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Thus, Favors’s notice of appeal was timely with respect to both the district court’s underlying judgment and the order denying his motion for relief from judgment.
We review a district court’s decision on a civil contempt motion for an abuse of discretion. Peppers v. Barry, 873 F.2d 967, 968 (6th Cir. 1989). We also review a district court’s denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from judgment for an abuse of discretion. Thompson v. Bell, 580 F.3d 423, 442 (6th Cir. 2009). An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact or applies an erroneous legal standard. Romstadt v. Allstate Ins. Co., 59 F.3d 608, 615 (6th Cir. 1995).

2:06-cv-C1a1s7e6:51-A4C-2-6D0R2G DDooccu#m2e2n5t: 2F3i-l2ed 1F2/il0e8d/:1152/0P8g/250o1f55 PPaggIeD: 4426
No. 14-2602 - 4 -

(5 of 5)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Favors’s motion to hold the defendants in contempt or in denying his motion for relief from judgment. The settlement agreement clearly contemplated that it would be effectuated by the implementation of two newly created internal policies—PD 05.03.150 and OP 5.03.150A. Policy Directive 05.03.150 states that “[a] prisoner may eat from a religious menu only with approval of the [Correctional Facilities Administration] Special Activities Coordinator” and sets forth procedures for requesting such approval. In his contempt motion, Favors did not allege that MDOC wholly failed to provide Muslim prisoners with halal or vegan meals. In fact, his contention that he is being treated differently than other Muslim prisoners suggests that other Muslim prisoners are being provided with religious meals. Neither did he allege that MDOC was failing to implement Policy Directive 05.03.150. Again, it appears from his allegations that MDOC was enforcing the policy directive, as it agreed to do in the settlement agreement, by requiring Favors to seek approval before being provided with religious meals.
Although Favors’s contention that the halal meals that were served were contaminated arguably falls within the scope of the settlement agreement, the district court lacked authority to grant the relief that Favors sought, namely, an order directing MDOC to accommodate him with a halal or vegan diet. By Favors’s own admission, MDOC had already considered his request for a halal or vegan diet and determined that he was entitled to no such accommodation. And though Favors argues that due process requires MDOC to provide reasons for the denial, Policy Directive 05.03.150—and by extension the settlement agreement—include no such requirement. Consequently, the requested relief lies outside the settlement agreement and the denial of Favors’s contempt motion fell within the district court’s discretion.
Accordingly, Favors’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and to appoint counsel are DENIED, and the district court’s orders denying the contempt motion and the motion for relief from judgment are AFFIRMED.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

 
 Case 2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG ECF No. 253 filed 08/29/18 PageID.4598 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC DOWDY-EL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No. 06-11765

PATRICIA L. CARUSO, et al.,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants. ______________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT (Docs. 246, 248)
AND MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT (Docs. 249, 250)

I.

Plaintiffs, Muslim inmates housed by the Michigan Department of Corrections

(“MDOC”), sued challenging the defendant prison officials’ alleged failure to

accommodate their requests to observe three distinct Islamic religious practices:

(1) attending Jum’ah prayer services;

(2) receiving a halal diet; and

(3) participating in the Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha Feasts (the “Eid feasts”)

The Court approved a settlement agreement between and entered a judgment

that allows plaintiffs to participate in the Eid feasts. (Doc. 85). The order approving the

settlement (Settlement Order), states that “[t]his Court shall retain jurisdiction over this

matter for the purpose of enabling . . . any class member to apply to this Court for the

enforcement of any provision or the punishment of any violation of this Order . . .” (Doc.

129). Thus, the Court retained jurisdiction to allow a class member to enforce any

Case 2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG ECF No. 253 filed 08/29/18 PageID.4599 Page 2 of 3
provision of the settlement agreement and allow for punishment if the MDOC is violating any provision.
Before the Court are motions by class members Lamont Heard and Bekeiba Holland to enforce the judgment and for contempt. Heard and Holland contend that the MDOC will not allow Nation of Islam members, such as them, participate in the Eid Al Adha feast. For the reasons that follow, the motions are DENIED.
II. According to the papers, on July 10, 2018, Holland received an email from Philip Monahan, the acting chaplain at the Cotton Correctional Facility, which stated that members of the Nation of Islam (NOI) could not attend the Eid Al Adha. Three days later Holland received another email from Monahan that referenced David Leach and indicated that there would be no accommodations made for NOI members to attend the Eid Al Adha. David Leach is the Special Activities Coordinator for the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). Leach oversees the chaplains for the MDOC. On August 8, 2018, counsel for the MDOC received an email purporting to be from Heard, stating that the MDOC will not allow members of the NOI to participate in Eid Al Adha. That same day, Leach issued a memo to all MDOC chaplains indicating that NOI members can participate in the Eid Al Adha. See MDOC Exhibit B. On August 10, 2018, Heard and Holland, filed a motions for enforcement of the judgment and motions for to hold Leach in contempt of Court. Heard and Holland want the Court to order that members of the NOI be allowed to participate in the Eid Al Adha and Leach be held in contempt for not complying with the judgment.
2

Case 2:06-cv-11765-AC-DRG ECF No. 253 filed 08/29/18 PageID.4600 Page 3 of 3

III. As to the motions to enforce, the Eid Al Adha took place on August 21, 2018. Based on Leach’s memo directing that all members of the NOI, including Heard and Holland, be able to participate in the Eid Al Adha, the motions for enforcement are moot as Heard and Holland were able to participate and will continue to be able to participate in the Eid feasts going forward. Thus, the MDOC has complied with the judgment. As to the motion for contempt, although Heard and Holland’s requests to participate in Eid Al Adha were initially denied, Leach made clear that they were able to participate. The Sixth Circuit has held that “In order to hold a litigant in contempt, the movant must produce clear and convincing evidence that shows that ‘he violated a definite and specific order of the court requiring him to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts with knowledge of the court’s order.’” Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund of Local Union #58 v. Gary’s Elec. Serv. Co., 340 F.3d 373, 378 (6th Cir. 2003). Heard and Holland have not shown by clear and convincing evidence that Leach violated any order. In fact, Leach ultimately gave Heard and Holland the relief they want. Thus, there is no basis to find Leach in contempt. There is no basis to find that Heard and Holland will not be able to participate in the Eid Al Adha in the future. SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/29/2018 Detroit, Michigan

S/Avern Cohn AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

 
 Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 1 of 23
CLOSED,reassigned
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06−cv−11765−AC−DRG

Dowdy et al v. Caruso, et al

Assigned to: District Judge Avern Cohn

Referred to: Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

Case in other court:

U.S. Court of Appeals − Sixth

Circuit, 13−02504

Date Filed: 04/12/2006 Date Terminated: 11/20/2013 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

U.S. Court of Appeals − Sixth Circuit, 13−02537

U.S. Court of Appeals − Sixth Circuit, 14−02602

U.S. Court of Appeals − Sixth Circuit, 15−01201

Cause: No cause code entered

Plaintiff

Eric Dowdy

represented by Daniel D. Quick Dickinson Wright 2600 West Big Beaver Road Suite 300 Troy, MI 480834−3312 248−433−7242 Fax: 248−433−7200 Email: dquick@dickinsonwright.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Doron Yitzchaki Dickinson Wright 350 South Main Street Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104−2131 734−623−1947 Fax: 734−623−1625 Email: DYitzchaki@dickinsonwright.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kary L. Moss American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 313−578−6800 Fax: 313−578−6811 Email: kmoss@aclumich.org (Inactive) TERMINATED: 08/07/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Cook Dickinson Wright PLLC 38525 Woodward Ave. Suite 2000 Bloomifield Hills, MI 48304−5092 248−433−7200 Fax: 248−433−7274 Email: Michael.Cook@ceflawyers.com TERMINATED: 01/05/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Steinberg

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 2 of 23

American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 313−578−6814 Email: msteinberg@aclumich.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trent B. Collier Collins, Einhorn, Farrell & Ulanoff, PC 4000 Town Center Suite 909 Southfield, MI 48075 248−355−4141 Fax: 248−355−2277 Email: trent.collier@ceflawyers.com TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Averis X Wilson

represented by Doron Yitzchaki (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel D. Quick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kary L. Moss (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/07/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Cook (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trent B. Collier (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
James Holly TERMINATED: 01/27/2010

represented by Daniel D. Quick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Doron Yitzchaki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kary L. Moss (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/07/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Cook (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 3 of 23

TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trent B. Collier (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mujahid Latif TERMINATED: 02/02/2009 also known as James Moultrie

represented by Daniel D. Quick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kary L. Moss (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/07/2009

Michael J. Cook (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trent B. Collier (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Roger Hunt TERMINATED: 05/24/2013

represented by Daniel D. Quick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Doron Yitzchaki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kary L. Moss (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/07/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Cook (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd R. McFarland General Conference of Seventh−day Adventists 12501 Old Columbia Pike Silver Spring, MD 20904−6600 301−680−6321 Fax: 301−680−6329 Email: mcfarlandt@gc.adventist.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 4 of 23

Plaintiff Amira Salem
Plaintiff Tom Traini

represented by Daniel D. Quick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Doron Yitzchaki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Cook (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel D. Quick (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Doron Yitzchaki (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Cook (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/24/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Patricia L. Caruso

represented by John L. Thurber MI Dept of Atty Gen Complex Litigation Division P.O. Box 30736 525 W. Ottawa St. Lansing, MI 48909 517−335−3055 Fax: 517−335−7157 Email: thurberj@michigan.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin R. Himebaugh Michigan Department of Attorney General Civil Litigation, Employment & Elections Division P.O. Box 30736 525 W. Ottawa St. Lansing, MI 48909 517−373−6434 Fax: 517−373−2454 Email: AG−PEET@michigan.gov TERMINATED: 08/04/2009
Michael R. Dean Michigan Department of Attorney General P.O. Box 30736 525 W. Ottawa St. Lansing, MI 48909 517−373−6434 Fax: 517−373−2454

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 5 of 23

Email: deanm2@mich.gov TERMINATED: 08/04/2009

Defendant Dave Burnett

represented by John L. Thurber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin R. Himebaugh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2009

Michael R. Dean (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2009

Defendant Michael Martin

represented by John L. Thurber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Movant David Lindensmith TERMINATED: 11/20/2013
Claimant Curwood−Lewis Price
Interested Party Ali Sareini
Interested Party Sharon Smith
Interested Party

represented by David Lindensmith 488856 CENTRAL MICHIGAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 320 N. HUBBARD ST. LOUIS, MI 48880 PRO SE
represented by Curwood−Lewis Price 220572 LAKELAND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 141 FIRST STREET COLDWATER, MI 49036 PRO SE
represented by Ali Sareini 203519 CARSON CITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 10274 BOYER ROAD CARSON CITY, MI 48811 PRO SE
represented by Sharon Smith 142019 Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility 3201 Bemis Rd. Ypsilanti, MI 48197 PRO SE

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 6 of 23

Gene T Favors

represented by Gene T Favors 159735 CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 4269 W. M−80 KINCHELOE, MI 49784 PRO SE

Interested Party Tabu Wright

represented by Tabu Wright 189728 ST. LOUIS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 8585 N. CROSWELL ROAD ST. LOUIS, MI 48880 PRO SE

Interested Party Bilal Chaaban

represented by Bilal Chaaban 482127 ALGER MAXIMUM CORRECTIONAL FACILITY N6141 INDUSTRIAL PARK DRIVE MUNISING, MI 49862 PRO SE

Interested Party Umar Ahmad Siddiq

represented by Umar Ahmad Siddiq 106503 BARAGA MAXIMUM CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 13924 WADAGA ROAD BARAGA, MI 49908 PRO SE

Interested Party Jerry VanDiver

represented by Jerry VanDiver 141306 EARNEST C. BROOKS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 2500 S. SHERIDAN DRIVE MUSKEGON HEIGHTS, MI 49444 PRO SE

Interested Party Dawud Ayatollah Clark−X

represented by Dawud Ayatollah Clark−X 195334 CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 4269 W. M−80 KINCHELOE, MI 49784 PRO SE

Interested Party Anam−Ullah

represented by Anam−Ullah 438200 MUSKEGON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 2400 S. SHERIDAN MUSKEGON, MI 49442 PRO SE

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 7 of 23

Interested Party Robert Jackson

represented by Robert Jackson 421729 ALGER MAXIMUM CORRECTIONAL FACILITY N6141 INDUSTRIAL PARK DRIVE MUNISING, MI 49862 PRO SE

Interested Party Brian White

represented by Brian White 198559 BARAGA MAXIMUM CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 13924 WADAGA ROAD BARAGA, MI 49908 PRO SE

Interested Party Jimmie Simpson

represented by Jimmie Simpson 183627 MUSKEGON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 2400 S. SHERIDAN MUSKEGON, MI 49442 PRO SE

Interested Party
Daniel Horacek TERMINATED: 11/20/2013

represented by Daniel Horacek 218347 NEWBERRY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 13747 E. County Road 428 NEWBERRY, MI 49868 PRO SE

Interested Party Lamont Sumerlin

represented by Lamont Sumerlin 641153 OJIBWAY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY N5705 OJIBWAY ROAD MARENISCO, MI 49947 PRO SE

Interested Party Karl Little

represented by Karl Little 225889 CENTRAL MICHIGAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 320 N. HUBBARD ST. LOUIS, MI 48880 PRO SE

Interested Party Samuel Surles

represented by Samuel Surles 122260 LAKELAND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 141 FIRST STREET COLDWATER, MI 49036 PRO SE

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 8 of 23

Interested Party Lystra Moore
Interested Party Lamont Heard
Interested Party Garret Patton
Interested Party William Johnson
Interested Party Lorense L. Johnson
Interested Party Brian Vaughn
Interested Party Bekeiba Holland

represented by Lystra Moore 212695 LAKELAND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 141 FIRST STREET COLDWATER, MI 49036 PRO SE
represented by Lamont Heard 252329 G. ROBERT COTTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 3500 N. ELM ROAD JACKSON, MI 49201 PRO SE
represented by Garret Patton 494543 CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 4269 W. M−80 KINCHELOE, MI 49784 PRO SE
represented by William Johnson 235820 CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 4269 W. M−80 KINCHELOE, MI 49784 PRO SE
represented by Lorense L. Johnson 176204 IONIA MAXIMUM CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 1576 W. BLUEWATER HIGHWAY IONIA, MI 48846 PRO SE
represented by Brian Vaughn 180241 CARSON CITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 10274 BOYER ROAD CARSON CITY, MI 48811 PRO SE
represented by Bekeiba Holland 219346 G. ROBERT COTTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 3510 N. ELM ROAD

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 9 of 23
JACKSON, MI 49201 PRO SE

Date Filed 04/12/2006 04/12/2006 04/24/2006 04/25/2006
05/22/2006 05/24/2006 06/05/2006 08/03/2006 08/29/2007 05/30/2008 08/14/2008 08/14/2008 02/02/2009
02/05/2009
02/06/2009
02/09/2009 04/29/2009 07/17/2009 07/31/2009 07/31/2009

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Eric Dowdy, Averis Wilson, James Holly, Mujahid Latif against Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso.(DTyle, ) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
2 NOTICE of returning payment regarding Civil Rights Complaint (DTyle, ) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
3 REQUEST for extension of time to submit full payment of filing fee by plaintiffs. (PPaul, ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
4 ORDER GRANTING 3 Request Regarding Payment of Filing Fee filed by Eric Dowdy,, Mujahid Latif,, James Holly,, Averis Wilson, Signed by Honorable Avern Cohn. (JOwe, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
5 NOTICE of Receipt in the amount of $250 for Habeas Filing Fee by Eric Dowdy − Receipt No. 542947 (LHack, ) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
6 ORDER Referring Pretrial Matters to Magistrate Judge Paul J Komives. Signed by Honorable Avern Cohn. (SSchoe, ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
7 ORDER. Signed by Honorable Paul J Komives. (EBut, ) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
8 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Eric Dowdy El (LHack, ) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
9 NOTICE of Change of Address by Eric Dowdy. (LHac) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel D. Quick on behalf of Eric Dowdy, Averis Wilson, James Holly, Mujahid Latif. (Quick, Daniel) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Trent B. Collier on behalf of Eric Dowdy, Averis Wilson, James Holly, Mujahid Latif. (Collier, Trent) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Eric Dowdy, Averis Wilson, James Holly, Mujahid Latif re 11 Notice of Appearance (Collier, Trent) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
13 AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Eric Dowdy, Averis Wilson, James Holly against Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso. (Quick, Daniel) Modified on 2/3/2009 (PMil).[AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS NOT FILED ON BEHALF OF JAMES HOLLY. AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS ALSO FILED ON BEHALF OF ROGER HUNT] (Entered: 02/02/2009)
14 ORDER directing service without prepayment of cost and authorizing US Marshal to collect costs after service is made. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul J Komives. (EBut) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael J. Steinberg on behalf of Eric Dowdy, Averis Wilson, Roger Hunt, James Holly, Mujahid Latif. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Kary L. Moss on behalf of Eric Dowdy, Averis Wilson, Roger Hunt, James Holly, Mujahid Latif. (Moss, Kary) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
17 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Todd R. McFarland − NOT SWORN appearing on behalf of Roger Hunt (McFarland − NOT SWORN, Todd) (Entered: 04/29/2009)
18 ACKNOWLEDGMENT from U.S. Marshal Service of Receipt of Service of Process Documents. (EBro) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
19 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Kevin R. Himebaugh appearing on behalf of Patricia L. Caruso with Certificate of Service (Himebaugh, Kevin) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
20 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Michael R. Dean appearing on behalf of Patricia L. Caruso with Certificate of Service (Dean, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 10 of 23

08/03/2009 08/03/2009 08/03/2009
08/04/2009
08/06/2009 08/06/2009 08/07/2009 08/12/2009 08/18/2009 09/21/2009 09/21/2009 11/02/2009 11/15/2009 11/19/2009 12/08/2009 12/17/2009
01/27/2010
01/27/2010
01/29/2010
02/01/2010 02/01/2010 02/01/2010

21 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Michael R. Dean appearing on behalf of Dave Burnett with Certificate of Service (Dean, Michael) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
22 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Kevin R. Himebaugh appearing on behalf of Dave Burnett with Certificate of Service (Himebaugh, Kevin) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
23 NOTICE of Appearance by Doron Yitzchaki on behalf of Eric Dowdy, Roger Hunt, James Holly. (Yitzchaki, Doron) Modified on 8/4/2009 (PMil).[APPEARANCE ALSO FILED ON BEHALF OF AVERIS WILSON] (Entered: 08/03/2009)
24 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION for Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso: John L. Thurber added. Attorney Michael R. Dean and Kevin R. Himebaugh terminated. with Certificate of Service (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
25 NOTICE by Eric Dowdy, Averis Wilson, Roger Hunt re 13 Amended Complaint, Waiver of Service of Summons (Yitzchaki, Doron) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
26 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Patricia L. Caruso waiver sent on 7/21/2009, answer due 9/21/2009. (ATee) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
Attorney Kary L. Moss is discontinued from receiving Notices of Electronic Filing. (Moss, Kary) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
27 NOTICE by Eric Dowdy, Averis Wilson, Roger Hunt of Filing of Waiver of Service of Summons (Yitzchaki, Doron) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
28 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Dave Burnett waiver sent on 7/30/2009, answer due 9/28/2009. (NHol) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
29 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
30 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso (Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
31 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Scheduling Conference set for 11/30/2009 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Paul J Komives (EBut) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
32 DISCOVERY plan jointly filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) (Yitzchaki, Doron) (Entered: 11/15/2009)
33 NOTICE of Appearance by John L. Thurber on behalf of Michael Martin. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
34 SCHEDULING ORDER: Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul J Komives. (Refer to image for additional dates) (EBut) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
35 STIPULATION of the Parties Permitting Plaintiffs to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint by Eric Dowdy (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Second Amended Class Action Complaint) (Yitzchaki, Doron) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
36 STIPULATED ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF'S TO FILE SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul J Komives. (EBut) (Entered: 01/27/2010)
37 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT filed by Eric Dowdy against all defendants. (Yitzchaki, Doron) (Entered: 01/27/2010)
38 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses Entitled: Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and Certificate of Service by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
39 Defendants' Preliminary WITNESS LIST by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso (Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
40 Defendants' Preliminary Exhibit List by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
41 PRELIMINARY WITNESS LIST by Eric Dowdy (Yitzchaki, Doron) (Entered: 02/01/2010)

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 11 of 23

02/01/2010 02/22/2010 04/28/2010 04/28/2010 05/07/2010 05/17/2010
05/26/2010 06/11/2010
06/14/2010 07/14/2010 08/31/2010 02/04/2011 02/07/2011 02/28/2011 04/15/2011
04/15/2011
04/15/2011

42 Preliminary Exhibit List by Eric Dowdy. (Yitzchaki, Doron) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
43 STIPULATED ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul J Komives. (EBut) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
44 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael J. Cook − NOT SWORN on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Cook − NOT SWORN, Michael) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
45 MOTION to Compel Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, Answer to Plaintiff's Second Set of Discovery for Defendant Dave Burnett) (Cook − NOT SWORN, Michael) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
46 NOTICE of hearing on 45 MOTION to Compel Discovery. Motion Hearing set for 5/28/2010 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Paul J Komives. (EBut) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
47 RESPONSE to 45 MOTION to Compel Discovery Index of Exhibits, Exhibits 1−3 and Certificate of Service filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
48 NOTICE Cancelling hearing set for 5/28/10 at 10:00a.m. and resetting to 6/11/10 at 10:00a.m. before Magistrate Judge Komives. (EBut) (Entered: 05/26/2010)
Minute Entry − Motion Hearing held on 6/11/2010 re 45 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Amira Salem, James Holly, Mujahid Latif, Roger Hunt, Averis X Wilson, Eric Dowdy, Tom Traini before Magistrate Judge Paul J Komives. Disposition: granted in part denied in part (Tape #PJK 6/11/10) (EBut) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
49 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul J Komives. (EBut) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
50 Stipulated Order amending Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul J Komives. (EBut) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
51 STIPULATED ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul J Komives. (EBut) (Entered: 08/31/2010)
52 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Pretrial Conference set for 2/15/2011 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Paul J Komives (EBut) (Entered: 02/04/2011)
53 RENOTICE TO APPEAR: Pretrial Conference set for 2/23/2011 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Paul J Komives (EBut) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
54 SCHEDULING ORDER: Dispositive Motion Cut−off set for 4/15/2011 Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives. (Refer to image for additional dates) (EBut) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
55 MOTION for Summary Judgment w/Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by Patricia L. Caruso. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 7a, # 10 Exhibit 7b, # 11 Exhibit 8) (Thurber, John) Modified on 4/15/2011 (DWor). [DOCUMENT FILED BY ALL DEFENDANTS] (Entered: 04/15/2011)
56 MOTION to Certify Class Motion For Certification by Eric Dowdy, Amira Salem, Tom Traini, Averis X Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O) (Cook, Michael) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
57 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Eric Dowdy, Amira Salem, Tom Traini, Averis X Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20) (Cook, Michael) (Entered: 04/15/2011)

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 12 of 23

04/15/2011
05/06/2011
05/10/2011 05/10/2011 05/11/2011 05/24/2011 05/24/2011 05/24/2011 05/24/2011 07/26/2011 12/02/2011 01/04/2012 01/05/2012 07/24/2012 07/24/2012 07/24/2012 08/07/2012

58 STATEMENT of Of Material Facts by Eric Dowdy, Amira Salem, Tom Traini, Averis X Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21) (Cook, Michael) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
59 RESPONSE to 55 MOTION for Summary Judgment w/Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5) (Cook, Michael) (Entered: 05/06/2011)
60 RESPONSE to 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment w/certificate of service filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
61 RESPONSE to 58 Statement,, of Material Facts w/certificate of service by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
62 RESPONSE to 56 MOTION to Certify Class Motion For Certification w/certificate of service filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 05/11/2011)
63 REPLY to Response re 55 MOTION for Summary Judgment w/Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment w/Proof of Service filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
64 AFFIDAVIT of John L. Thurber re 63 Reply to Response to Motion w/certificate of service by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin (Thurber, John) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
65 REPLY to Response re 56 MOTION to Certify Class Motion For Certification filed by All Plaintiffs. (Yitzchaki, Doron) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
66 REPLY to Response re 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Eric Dowdy, James Holly, Roger Hunt, Mujahid Latif, Amira Salem, Tom Traini, Averis X Wilson. (Cook, Michael) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
67 NOTICE of Change of Address/Contact Information by Daniel D. Quick on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Quick, Daniel) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
68 NOTICE of reassignment from *Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives* to *Magistrate Judge David R. Grand* pursuant to Administrative Order 11−AO−041. (SSch) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
69 ORDER Referring Pretrial Matters to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe) (Entered: 01/04/2012)
Attorney Michael J. Cook is discontinued from receiving Notices of Electronic Filing. Reason: Attorney Michael J. Cook is no longer with The Law Offices of Dickinson Wright.. (Cook, Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
70 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment 55 , 57 − Signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Grand. (FMos) (Entered: 07/24/2012)
Attorney Michael J. Cook is discontinued from receiving Notices of Electronic Filing. Reason: Michael J. Cook, Esq. is no longer with The Law Offices of Dickinson Wright. (Cook, Michael) (Entered: 07/24/2012)
Attorney Trent B. Collier is discontinued from receiving Notices of Electronic Filing. Reason: Trent B. Collier is no longer with the Law Offices of Dickinson Wright. (Collier, Trent) (Entered: 07/24/2012)
71 OBJECTION to 70 Report and Recommendation by Eric Dowdy, Amira Salem, Tom Traini, Averis X Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − Part 1, # 3 Exhibit A − Part 2, # 4 Exhibit A − Part 3, # 5 Exhibit A − Part 4, # 6 Exhibit A − Part 5, # 7 Exhibit A − Part 6, # 8 Exhibit A − Part 7, # 9 Exhibit A − Part 8, # 10 Exhibit A− Part 9, # 11 Exhibit A − Part 10, # 12 Exhibit B − Part 1, # 13 Exhibit B − Part 2, # 14 Exhibit B − Part 3, # 15 Exhibit B − Part 4, # 16 Exhibit B − Part 5, # 17

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 13 of 23

08/10/2012 08/15/2012 08/27/2012
12/03/2012 12/18/2012 12/18/2012 12/20/2012
01/18/2013 01/18/2013 02/07/2013 02/08/2013 04/30/2013 05/14/2013 05/24/2013
05/24/2013 06/03/2013 06/18/2013 06/19/2013 06/19/2013

Exhibit B − Part 6, # 18 Exhibit B − Part 7, # 19 Exhibit B − Part 8, # 20 Exhibit B − Part 9, # 21 Exhibit B − Part 10, # 22 Exhibit C, # 23 Exhibit D − Part 1, # 24 Exhibit D − Part 2, # 25 Exhibit E, # 26 Exhibit F, # 27 Exhibit G, # 28 Exhibit H, # 29 Exhibit I, # 30 Exhibit J) (Yitzchaki, Doron) (Entered: 08/07/2012)
72 OBJECTION to 70 Report and Recommendation w/certificate of service by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
73 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION on Plaintiffs' 56 MOTION for Class Certification − Signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Grand. (FMos) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
74 RESPONSE to Defendants' Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 72] by Eric Dowdy, Amira Salem, Tom Traini, Averis X Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2) (Yitzchaki, Doron) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
75 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 12/18/2012 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SSro) (Entered: 12/03/2012)
Minute Entry − Status Conference held on 12/18/2012 before District Judge Avern Cohn. (SSro) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
76 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 1/22/2013 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SSro) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
77 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING 73 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 56 MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SSro) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Status Conference on 1/22/2013 is Cancelled (SCha) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
78 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 2/7/2013 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SCha) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
Minute Entry − Status Conference held on 2/7/2013 before District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
79 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 4/30/2013 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (Refer to image for additional dates) (SCha) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/14/2013 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SCha) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
Minute Entry − Status Conference held on 5/14/2013 before District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 05/14/2013)
80 Memorandum and Order Adopting 70 Report and Recommendation and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 55 Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' 57 Motion for Summary Judgment and Setting a Status Conference. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 05/24/2013)
81 NOTICE TO APPEAR : Status Conference set for 6/18/2013 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SCha) (Entered: 05/24/2013)
82 NOTICE by Eric Dowdy, Amira Salem, Tom Traini, Averis X Wilson of Proposed Judgment as to Eid Feasts (Yitzchaki, Doron) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Avern Cohn: Status Conference held on 6/18/2013 (SCha) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
83 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Hearing Regarding Entry of Judgment set for 7/31/2013 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SCha) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
84 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/17/2013 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn Jury Trial set for 9/30/2013 09:00 AM before

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 14 of 23

07/31/2013
08/13/2013 09/10/2013
09/11/2013 09/11/2013
09/17/2013
09/17/2013 09/18/2013 10/10/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013
10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/11/2013 10/16/2013 10/17/2013 10/17/2013 10/24/2013

District Judge Avern Cohn Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Avern Cohn: Hearing Regarding Entry of Judgment held on 7/31/2013 (Court Reporter Sheri Ward) (SCha) (Entered: 07/31/2013)
85 JUDGMENT re 80 Memorandum and Order Adopting 70 Report and Recommendation Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
86 MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NOTICE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A. Preliminary Order Approving Settlement, # 3 Exhibit B. Notice to Muslim Prisoners) (Quick, Daniel) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Final Pretrial Conference on 9/17/2013 and Jury Trial on 9/30/2013 are Cancelled (SCha) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
87 NOTICE OF HEARING on 86 MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NOTICE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT. Motion Hearing set for 9/17/2013 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SCha) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Avern Cohn: Motion Hearing held on 9/17/2013 re 86 MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NOTICE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT filed by Amira Salem, James Holly, Mujahid Latif, Roger Hunt, Averis X Wilson, Eric Dowdy, Tom Traini Disposition: Granted, Order to Follow(Court Reporter Sheri Ward) (SCha) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
88 Preliminary Order Approving Settlement. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
89 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Fairness Hearing set for 11/18/2013 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SCha) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
94 [OBJECTION] MOTION to Object the Judgment by Tom Traini. (DWor) Modified on 10/28/2013 (SCha). (Entered: 10/28/2013)
95 Mandatory Judicial NOTICE and Invocation of Equitable Rights and Relief by Curwood−Lewis Price (DWor) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
96 NOTICE of Compulsory Countersuit and Objection to Settlement of the Case due to Malicious Retaliation and Fraud by the Defendants filed by Curwood−Lewis Price (DWor) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
97 NOTICE and Demand for the Withdraw of Attorney General Representation of Defendant by Curwood−Lewis Price (DWor) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
98 NOTICE of Payment and Surety by Curwood−Lewis Price (DWor) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
99 NOTICE of Lien and Levy by Curwood−Lewis Price (DWor) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
100 NOTICE and Invocation of Pro Se Litigant Rights by Curwood−Lewis Price (DWor) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
101 NOTICE OF APPEAL and MOTION to Stay Proceedings by Curwood−Lewis Price. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. (DWor) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
90 OBJECTIONS to Class Action Settlement in Case Number 2:06−cv−11765 by Ali Sareini. (DWor) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
91 OBJECTION to Class Action Settlement in Case Number 2:06−cv−11765 by Sharon Smith. (SCha) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
92 MOTION to Intervene by David Lindensmith. (PMil) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
93 [OBJECTION] MOTION for Objection(s) by Gene T Favors. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation) (DWor) Modified on 10/28/2013 (SCha). (Entered:

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 15 of 23

10/30/2013 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 10/31/2013
10/31/2013 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 10/31/2013 11/01/2013 11/05/2013 11/05/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/08/2013 11/11/2013
11/12/2013
11/12/2013

10/25/2013)
102 Certificate of Service re 101 Notice of Appeal. (DWor) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
103 MOTION for Mandamus/Enforce Judgment of the Court by Tabu Wright. (DWor) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
104 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Tabu Wright (DWor) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
105 OBJECTION to Class Action Proposed Settlement on behalf of Class Members Muslims of the Muskegon Correctional Facility by Tabu Wright. (DWor) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
106 Affirmation of Class Membership filed by Bilal Chaaban. (DWor) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
107 OBJECTIONS to Proposed Settlement by Bilal Chaaban. (DWor) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
108 Letter with copy of grievance from Tom Traini. (DWor) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
109 DOCUMENT filed by Umar Ahmad Siddiq. (DWor) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
110 Muslim Prisoner Class Member Jerry VanDiver #141306 Written OBJECTIONS. (DWor) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
111 OBJECTION to Settlement by Dawud Ayatollah Clark−X. (DWor) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
112 [OBJECTION] MOTION for Objection by Gene T Favors. (PMil) Modified on 11/4/2013 (SCha). (Entered: 11/04/2013)
113 NOTICE OF APPEAL by David Lindensmith. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. (DWor) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
114 APPLICATION to Proceed without prepaying fees or costs on Appeal by David Lindensmith. (DWor) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
115 Certificate of Service re 113 Notice of Appeal. (DWor) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
117 MOTION for objection to Defendant's Proposed Settlement Agreement by Anam−Ullah. (DWor) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
118 OBJECTION to Class Action Settlement by Robert Jackson. (DWor) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
119 OBJECTION by Brian White. (DWor) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
120 MOTION for Objection to Defendant's Proposed Settlement Agreement by Jimmie Simpson. (DWor) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
134 MOTION for Objection to Defendant's Proposed Settlement Agreement by Dave McGibbon. (ATee) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
135 OBJECTION to Settlement by David Hardy.. (ATee) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
116 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 92 MOTION to Intervene, 88 Order on Motion − Free filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, Policy Directive, # 3 Exhibit 2, Plaintiff Correspondence, # 4 Exhibit Julia Cotlett Correspondence, # 5 Exhibit (Proposed) Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case) (Quick, Daniel) (Entered: 11/11/2013)
121 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 88 Order on Motion − Free filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
122 PLAINTIFF−INTERVENOR'S PROPOSED PLEADING 42 U.S.C. 1983 Claims Against Defendants filed by Daniel Horacek. (DWor) (Entered: 11/13/2013)

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 16 of 23

11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/13/2013 11/14/2013
11/15/2013 11/15/2013 11/15/2013 11/15/2013 11/15/2013 11/18/2013
11/20/2013
11/20/2013 11/20/2013 11/20/2013 11/25/2013 11/25/2013 11/25/2013 11/26/2013
12/13/2013 12/23/2013 01/03/2014

123 MOTION for Waiver of Fees and Costs by Daniel Horacek. (DWor) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
124 APPLICATION to Intervene by Daniel Horacek. (DWor) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
125 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 122 Docket Annotation, 124 Application by Daniel Horacek (DWor) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
126 RESPONSE to 123 MOTION for Waiver of Fees and Costs & Application to Intervene [Dkt. 124] filed by All Plaintiffs. (Quick, Daniel) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
Attorney Trent B. Collier is discontinued from receiving Notices of Electronic Filing. Reason: No longer with firm representing parties. (Collier, Trent) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
131 MOTION for Reconsideration Class Action Settlement (2006) by Lamont Sumerlin. (DWor) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
132 OBJECTION to Class Action Settlement regarding religious meals menu by Karl Little. (DWor) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
133 MOTION for Objection to Defendant's Proposed Settlement Agreement by Redge Keith. (ATee) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
136 MOTION for Objection to Defendant's Proposed Settlement Agreement by Tommy Tolefrel. (ATee) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
137 Document Received Entitled: Class Action − 2006 − Settlement filed by Samuel Surles and Lystra Moore. (DWor) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Avern Cohn: Fairness Hearing held on 11/18/2013 Disposition: taken under advisement(Court Reporter Sheri Ward) (CBet) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
127 MEMORANDUM and ORDER Overruling Objections to Settlement 103 117 120 . Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (CBet) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
128 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 92 124 Motion/Application to Intervene. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (CBet) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
129 ORDER Approving Settlement and dismissing Case. (Approved by Counsel) Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (CBet) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
130 REPLY BRIEF in opposition re 92 MOTION to Intervene filed by David Lindensmith. (DWor) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
138 REQUEST for leave to respond to Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Motion to Intervene by Daniel Horacek. (DWor) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
139 REPLY to Response [Entitled Response] re 92 MOTION to Intervene filed by Daniel Horacek. (DWor) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
141 MOTION for Guidance(s) by Gene T Favors. (DWor) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
140 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OVERRULING SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS TO SETTLEMENT (Docs. 131, 132, 133, 136, 137). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (CBet) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
142 STIPULATED ORDER extending time for Plaintiffs to file a motion for fees and costs. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (CBet) (Entered: 12/13/2013)
145 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Gene T Favors. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. (DWor) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
143 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − Declaration of Michael J. Steinberg, # 3 Exhibit B − Declaration of Daniel D. Quick, # 4 Exhibit C − Resume of Daniel D. Quick, # 5 Exhibit D − Summary of time spent by Dickinson Wright attorneys, # 6 Exhibit E − Itemized list of costs) (Quick, Daniel) (Entered: 01/03/2014)

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 17 of 23

01/08/2014 01/15/2014 01/17/2014 01/21/2014 01/22/2014 01/22/2014
01/27/2014 01/29/2014 02/27/2014
02/28/2014 02/28/2014 03/03/2014 03/17/2014 03/24/2014 03/27/2014 03/27/2014 03/31/2014 04/03/2014 04/03/2014 04/07/2014

144 Documentation filed by Tabu Wright (DWor) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
148 ORDER from U.S. Court of Appeals − Sixth Circuit re 101 Notice of Appeal filed by Curwood Price[Appeal Case Number 13−2504] (KKra) Modified on 3/21/2014 (KKra). (Entered: 01/21/2014)
146 Certificate of Service re 145 Notice of Appeal. (DWor) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
147 STIPULATION AND ORDER re: Plaintiff's 143 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (CBet) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
149 ORDER denying 134 objection to settlement and providing a copy by the Clerk of the Order to Approve Settlement/Dismissing case to Favors 141 Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (CBet) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 149 Order on Motions − sent to Gene T Favors, #159735, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80KINCHELOE, MI 49784 and Dave McGibbon #189043, Muskegon Correctional Facility 2400 S. Sheridan Drive, Muskegon, M 49442−6298 (CBet) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
150 Class Member MOTION for defendants and non−party Aramark to be held in contempt of court for violating the settlement agreement/w affidavit by Lamont Heard. (DWor) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
151 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. re 146 Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal − 6th Circuit (DWor) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
152 RESPONSE to 150 MOTION for defendants and non−party Aramark to be held in contempt of court for violating the settlement agreement/w affidavit filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A) Affidavit of Richard Russell) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
153 Order Denying Class Member's 150 Motion for Defendants and Non Party Aramark to be Held in Contempt for Violating Settlement Agreement. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 153 Order on Motion − Free on Lamont Heard 252329, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (SCha) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
154 ORDER from U.S. Court of Appeals − Sixth Circuit re 145 Notice of Appeal filed by Gene T Favors [Appeal Case Number 13−2537] (KKra) (Entered: 03/03/2014)
155 MOTION for Piggy Backing to Defendant(s) Reponse Too Plaintiff Lamont Heard(s) Motion by Gene Favors. (KKra) Modified on 3/21/2014 (KKra). (Entered: 03/17/2014)
156 Letter from Lamont Heard (SCha) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
157 Order Denying as Moot Class Member Gene Favor's 155 "Motion for Piggy Backing to Defendant(s) Response Too [sic] Plaintiff Lamont Heard(s) Motion.". Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 157 Order on Motion − Free on Gene T Favors 159735, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (SCha) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
158 Letter from Sharon Smith (SCha) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
159 ORDER Denying 156 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 159 Order on Lamont Heard 252329, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (SCha) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
160 MOTION for Guidance by Gene T Favors. (KKra) (Entered: 04/07/2014)

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 18 of 23

04/11/2014 04/17/2014 04/18/2014
04/29/2014 04/29/2014
05/01/2014 05/07/2014 05/07/2014
06/20/2014 07/17/2014
07/23/2014
07/25/2014
09/02/2014 09/15/2014
09/18/2014 09/22/2014 09/22/2014 09/23/2014
09/25/2014 09/30/2014 09/30/2014

161 NOTICE OF FAILURE to Pay Filing Fee (KKra) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
162 Letter from Sharon Smith (SCha) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
163 RESPONSE to 160 MOTION for Guidance filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A) MDOC Policy Directive (PD) 05.03.150, # 3 Exhibit B) MDOC Policy Directive (PD) 03.02.130) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
164 ORDER Denying 160 Motion for Guidance. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 164 Order on Motion − Free on Gene T Favors 159735, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (SCha) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
165 MOTION for re−match to defendants' response by Gene T Favors. (DPer) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
166 ORDER Denying 165 "Motion for Rematch to Defendant(s) Response". Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 166 Order on Motion − Free on Gene T Favors 159735, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (SCha) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
167 ORDER from U.S. Court of Appeals − Sixth Circuit [Appeal Case Number 14−1099] (KKra) (Entered: 06/23/2014)
168 MOTION for enforcement of specific part of judgment that require MDOC to allow all Muslims to participate in Eid Islamic feast by Lamont Heard, Garret Patton. (DPer) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
169 RESPONSE to 168 MOTION for enforcement of specific part of judgment that require MDOC to allow all Muslims to participate3 in Eid Islamic feast. filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex A−Affidavit of David Leach) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 07/23/2014)
170 REPLY to Response re 168 MOTION for enforcement of specific part of judgment that require MDOC to allow all Muslims to participate3 in Eid Islamic feast. filed by All Plaintiffs. (Quick, Daniel) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
171 MOTION for Defendant(s) to be Slap In Contempt of Court for Violating Settlement Agreement by Gene T Favors. (KKra) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
172 RESPONSE to 171 MOTION for Defendant(s) to be Slap In Contempt of Court for Violating Settlement Agreement filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
173 NOTICE TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE: Status Conference set for 9/22/2014 11:30 AM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SCha) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Telephonic Status Conference on 9/22/2014 is Cancelled (SCha) (Entered: 09/22/2014)
174 NOTICE TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE: Status Conference set for 9/23/2014 02:00 PM before District Judge Avern Cohn (SCha) (Entered: 09/22/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Avern Cohn: Telephonic Status Conference held on 9/23/2014 (Court Reporter Carol Sapala) (SCha) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
175 Affidavit in Opposition to Defendant(s) Washroom Response by Eric Dowdy (KKra) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
176 ORDER Denying 171 Motion for Contempt. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 176 Order on Motion − Free on Gene T Favors, 159735, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (SCha) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 19 of 23

10/03/2014 10/15/2014 10/15/2014 10/21/2014 10/22/2014
10/22/2014
10/27/2014
10/31/2014 11/04/2014 11/04/2014
11/04/2014 11/04/2014
11/20/2014
12/16/2014 01/06/2015
01/08/2015 01/08/2015
01/08/2015 01/16/2015 01/22/2015
01/22/2015
02/12/2015

177 Letter from Edward Burley (SCha) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
178 MEMORANDUM re Status Conference via telephone on September 23, 2014 by All Defendants (Thurber, John) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
179 MOTION to Enforce settlement by Tom Traini. (DTyl) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
180 MOTION for Relief from Judgment by Gene T Favors. (SCha) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
181 Order Denying Class Members 168 Motion for Enforcement of Specific Part of Judgment that Require MDOC to Allow All Muslims to Participate in Eid Feasts. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 181 Order on Motion − Free on Lamont Heard 252329, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 and Garret Patton 494543, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (SCha) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
182 RESPONSE to 179 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
183 RESPONSE to 180 MOTION for Relief from Judgment filed by All Defendants. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
184 Order Denying 179 Motion to Enforce Settlement. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 184 Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment on Tom Traini #461218, Central Michigan Correctional Facility, 320 N. Hubbard St., St. Louis, MI 48880 (SCha) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
185 Order Denying 180 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 185 Order on Motion − Free on Gene T Favors 159735, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (SCha) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
186 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Gene T Favors re 184 Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment, 185 Order on Motion − Free. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. (SOso) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
187 Certificate of Service re 186 Notice of Appeal. (SOso) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
188 MOTION to enforce the settlement agreement, or, alternatively, hold defendants in civil contempt of court for violating the settlement agreement by William Johnson. (DPer) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
189 Letter from Lamont Heard (SCha) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 178 Memorandum on Lamont Heard 252329, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (SCha) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
190 Letter from Edward Burley (SCha) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
191 RESPONSE to 188 MOTION MOTION for Contempt filed by All Defendants. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
192 Order Denying Class Member William Johnson's 188 Motion for Enforcement or Alternatively Hold Defendants in Civil Contempt of Court for Violating the Settlement Agreement. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 192 Order on Motion − Free, Order on Motion for Contempt on William Johnson, 235820, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (SCha) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
193 NOTICE OF APPEAL by William Johnson re 192 Order. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. (DPer) (Entered: 02/13/2015)

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 20 of 23

02/13/2015 03/09/2015 03/24/2015 03/24/2015
04/08/2015 04/17/2015 04/21/2015 04/21/2015 05/13/2015 05/14/2015 05/14/2015
05/28/2015 05/28/2015 06/04/2015 06/17/2015
06/18/2015
06/18/2015
06/25/2015

194 Certificate of Service re 193 Notice of Appeal. (DPer) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
195 APPLICATION to proceed without prepaying fees or costs on appeal by Eric Dowdy; with prison account statment. (document filed as a motion) (DPer) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
196 Order Denying Class Member William Johnson's 195 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 196 Order on Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs on William Johnson, 235820, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (SCha) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
197 JUDICIAL NOTICE of adjudicative facts by Dawud Ayatollah Clark−X. (DPer) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
198 NOTICE by All Defendants re 197 Notice (Other) Defendants' Response to David Clark's Judicial Notice of Ajudicative Facts (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
199 ORDER Denying 197 "Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts" Construed as a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 04/21/2015)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 199 Order on Dawud Ayatollah Clark−X Pris. No. 195334 at Chippewa Correctional Facility, 4269 W. M−80, Kincheloe, Michigan 49784. (SCha) (Entered: 04/21/2015)
200 APPLICATION to proceed without prepaying fees or costs by Gene T Favors; with prison account statement. (DPer) (Entered: 05/13/2015)
201 ORDER Granting 200 Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs on Appeal. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 201 Order on Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs on Gene T Favors, 159735, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (SCha) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
202 NOTICE of Change of Address/Contact Information by Robert Jackson. (DPer) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
203 OBJECTION to class action settlement by Robert Jackson. (DPer) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
204 MOTION for enforcement of specific act of judgment that requires MDOC officials to permit Muslims special religious meals during Eid−ul−Fitr and Eid−ul−Adha feasts by Lamont Heard; with request for expedited hearing. (DPer) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
205 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Defendants' Motion to Extend Time to File a Response to Lamont Heard's Motion for Enforcement with Certificate of Service by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
206 ORDER Granting 205 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 205 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Defendants' Motion to Extend Time to File a Response to Lamont Heard's Motion for Enforcement with Certificate of Service Response due by 6/25/2015. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 206 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, on Lamont Heard, 252329, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (SCha) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
207 RESPONSE to 204 MOTION Defendants' Response to Class Member Motion for Enforcement of Specific Act of Judgment that Require MDOC Officials to Permit Muslims Special Religious Meals During EID−UL−FITR and EID−UL−ADHA

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 21 of 23

07/02/2015
07/02/2015 07/13/2015 07/14/2015 07/14/2015 07/15/2015
07/20/2015 07/20/2015 07/27/2015
09/08/2015 09/17/2015 09/22/2015 09/25/2015 09/25/2015 09/28/2015 09/29/2015
10/02/2015

Feasts with Certificate of Service filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
208 ORDER DENYING CLASS MEMBER MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SPECIFICACT OF JUDGMENT THAT REQUIRES MDOC TO PERMIT MUSLIMS SPECIALRELIGIOUS MEALS DURING EID−UL−FITR and EIDUL−ADHA FEASTS (Doc. 204). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 208 Order on Motion − Free on Plaintiff Lamont Heard (MVer) Modified on 7/2/2015 (MVer). (Entered: 07/02/2015)
209 MOTION for Reconsideration re 208 Order on Motion − Free by Lamont Heard. (MVer) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
210 MOTION for Immediate Consideration of Motion to Show Cause for Contempt of Court and to Enforce the Settlement Agreement by Eric Dowdy. (SSch) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
211 MOTION to Order to Show Cause for Contempt of Court and to Enforce the Settlement Agreemetn by Eric Dowdy. (SSch) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
212 RESPONSE to 209 MOTION for Reconsideration re 208 Order on Motion − Free Defendants' Response to Class Member Lamont Heard's Motion for Reconsideration with Certificate of Service filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
213 ORDER denying 209 Motion for Reconsideration re 208 Order on Motion. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 213 Order on Motion for Reconsideration on Lamont Heard, 252329, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 4269 W. M−80, KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (SCha) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
214 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Doc. 211) AND DENYING MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION (Doc 210. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
215 MOTION to Enforce Religious Diet Court Order on Michigan Department of Corrections by Lorense L. Johnson. (SSch) (Entered: 09/14/2015)
216 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement by Dawud Ayatollah Clark−X. (SSch) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
217 ORDER Requiring Response from John Thurber to 216 Motion to Enforce Agreement Response due by 9/29/2015 Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
218 ORDER DENYING LORENSO JOHNSONS MOTION TO ENFORCE RELIGIOUS DIET COURT ORDER ON MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (Doc. 215). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 218 Order on Motion − Free on Lorenzo Johnson, No. 176204, Ionia Correctional Facility, 1576 W. Bluewater HwyIonia, MI 48846 (SCha) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
219 MOTION for contempt ruling by David Lindensmith. (DPer) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
220 RESPONSE to 216 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A. MDOC Policy Directive 05.03.150 1/22/15, # 3 Exhibit B. MDOC Policy Directive 05.03.150 9/15/15) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
221 ORDER DENYING DAWUD CLARKS MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Doc. 216). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 10/02/2015)

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 22 of 23

10/02/2015
10/05/2015 10/06/2015 10/06/2015
10/08/2015 12/08/2015 03/24/2016
04/01/2016 04/08/2016 04/27/2016
06/30/2016
09/29/2016 10/04/2016
09/28/2017 10/23/2017 10/23/2017 11/01/2017
11/02/2017 11/09/2017 11/27/2017 12/07/2017

TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 221 Order on Motion − Free on Dawud Ayatollah Clark−X, 195334, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 4269 W. M−80KINCHELOE, MI 49784 (MVer) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
222 RESPONSE to 219 MOTION for Contempt Ruling filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
223 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT (Doc. 219). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 223 Order on Motion for Contempt − Free on David Lindensmith, 488856, PARNALL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 1780 E. PARNALL JACKSON, MI 49201 (MVer) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
224 RESPONSE to 220 Response to motion to enforce settlement agreement by Dawud Ayatollah Clark−X. (DPer) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
225 ORDER from U.S. Court of Appeals − Sixth Circuit re 193 Notice of Appeal filed by William Johnson [Appeal Case Number 14−2602] (Ahmed, N) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
226 MANDATE from U.S. Court of Appeals − Sixth Circuit as to 186 Notice of Appeal filed by Gene T Favors, 225 Appeal Order/Opinion/Judgment [Appeal Case Number 14−2602] (Ahmed, N) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
227 ORDER from U.S. Court of Appeals − Sixth Circuit re 193 Notice of Appeal filed by William Johnson [Appeal Case Number 15−1201] (Ahmed, N) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
228 NOTICE of Change of Address/Contact Information by Robert Jackson. (DPer) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
229 MANDATE from U.S. Court of Appeals − Sixth Circuit as to 193 Notice of Appeal filed by William Johnson, 227 Appeal Order/Opinion/Judgment [Appeal Case Number 15−1201] (Ahmed, N) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
230 LETTER from the US Supreme Court that a petition for writ of certiorari was filed on 04/26/2016. [Supreme Court Case Number: 15−9912] [Court of Appeals Case Number: 14−2602] (Ahmed, N) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
231 NOTICE of Change of Address/Contact Information by Robert Jackson. (Ahmed, N) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
232 LETTER from the US Supreme Court denying the petition for writ of certiorari [Supreme Court Case Number: 15−9912] [Court of Appeals Case Number: 14−2602] (Ahmed, N) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
233 Letter from Kenneth Kosh. (Ahmed, N) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
234 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement by FREDERICK ROBERTSON. (Krause, S) (Entered: 10/26/2017)
235 AFFIDAVIT of Frederick D. Robertson by FREDERICK ROBERTSON. (Krause, S) (Entered: 10/26/2017)
236 ORDER Requiring Response to Motion to Enforce Settlement 234 Docket Annotation. Response due by 11/27/2017 Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
237 MOTION to enforce settlement agreement by Brian Vaughn. (DPer) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
238 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement by Eric Dowdy. (BGar) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
239 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 234 Docket Annotation filed by Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
240 ORDER DENYING FREDERICK ROBINSON'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT re 234 Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 12/07/2017)

Case: 2:06-cv-11765 As of: 11/04/2018 02:22 PM EST 23 of 23

01/29/2018 01/29/2018 02/22/2018 02/22/2018 02/22/2018 02/22/2018 06/13/2018 06/27/2018 08/09/2018 08/10/2018 08/14/2018 08/16/2018 08/20/2018
08/27/2018 08/29/2018 08/29/2018

241 RESPONSE to 237 MOTION filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
242 RESPONSE to 238 MOTION filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Thurber, John) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
243 ORDER DENYING BRIAN VAUGHNS MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Doc. 237). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 243 Order on Motion − Free on Brian Vaughn (MVer) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
244 ORDER DENYING FATHIREE ALIS MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Doc. 238). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 244 Order on Motion − Free on Ali Fathiree (MVer) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
245 DOCUMENTATION received re Brian White (DPer) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
246 MOTION for enforcement of judgment and to hold defendants/prison official in contempt of court by Lamont Heard. (DPer) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
247 ORDER Requiring Response to 246 Motion, Motion for Contempt. Response due by 8/27/2018 Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 08/09/2018)
248 MOTION for enforcement of judgment and 181 Court order by Lamont Heard, Bekeiba Holland. (DPer) (Entered: 08/10/2018)
249 MOTION to hold Department of Corrections Official David Leach in contempt of court for disobeying Court command by Lamont Heard. (DPer) (Entered: 08/14/2018)
250 MOTION to hold Department of Corrections Official David Leach in contempt of Court for disobeying Court command by Lamont Heard, Bekeiba Holland. (DPer) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
251 RESPONSE to 249 MOTION for Contempt, 248 MOTION filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A. Email from Lamont Heard, # 3 Exhibit B. David Leachs Email, # 4 Exhibit C. Affidavit of David Leach) (Thurber, John) Modified on 8/21/2018 (DTyl).[DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO CLASS MEMBER MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT AND TO HOLD DEFENDANTS/PRISON OFFICIAL IN CONTEMPT OF COURT] (Entered: 08/20/2018)
252 RESPONSE to 246 MOTION MOTION for Contempt filed by Dave Burnett, Patricia L. Caruso, Michael Martin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. MDOC PD 05.03.150) (Thurber, John) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
253 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT (Docs. 246, 248) AND MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT (Docs. 249, 250). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
TEXT−ONLY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 253 Order on Motion − Free, Order on Motion for Contempt,,, on Lamont Heard, Bekeiba Holland (MVer) (Entered: 08/29/2018)