U.S. District Court District of Alaska (Anchorage) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:18−cv−00119−HRH

CLOSED

Dowl et al v. Williams et al Assigned to: H. Russel Holland Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff Anas A. Dowl inmate #345639

Date Filed: 05/22/2018 Date Terminated: 09/06/2019 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Carolyn M. Homer CAIR Legal Defense Fund 453 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20003 202−516−4724 Fax: 202−379−3317 Email: cHomer@cair.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gadeir I. Abbas CAIR Legal Defense Fund 453 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20003 202−742−6420 Fax: 202−379−3317 Email: gabbas@cair.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lena Fatina Masri CAIR Legal Defense Fund 453 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20003 202−742−6420 Fax: 202−379−3317 Email: lmasri@cair.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ahmed M. Mohamed Council on American−Islamic Relations New York Chapter 46−01 20th Avenue Queens, NY 11105 646−665−7599 Email: ahmedmohamed@cair.com TERMINATED: 03/27/2019

Plaintiff
Ernest A. Jacobsson inmate #403566

represented by Gadeir I. Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lena Fatina Masri (See above for address)
Case: 3:18-cv-119 As of: 01/17/2020 11:42 AM AKST 1 of 7

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ahmed M. Mohamed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2019
Carolyn M. Homer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Dean Williams Commissioner, Alaska Department of Corrections, in his official capacity, only

represented by Matthias Cicotte State of Alaska Department of Law (Suite 403) 310 K Street, Suite 403 Anchorage, AK 99501 907−269−6379 Email: matthias.cicotte@alaska.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Clare Sullivan Deputy Commissioner of Institutions, Alaska Department of Corrections, in her official capacity, only

represented by Matthias Cicotte (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
April Wilkerson Director, Administrative Services, Alaska Department of Corrections, in her official and individual capacities

represented by Matthias Cicotte (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Sidney Wood Deputy Director, of Institutions, Alaska Department of Corrections, in his official and individual capacities

represented by Matthias Cicotte (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dan Aicher Facility Manager I, Facilities Management, Alaska Department of Corrections, in his official and individual capacities

represented by Matthias Cicotte (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Zane NighSwonger Superintendent, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in his and individual official capacities

represented by Matthias Cicotte (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Jason Mata Food Service Supervisor, Alaska

represented by Matthias Cicotte (See above for address)

Case: 3:18-cv-119 As of: 01/17/2020 11:42 AM AKST 2 of 7

Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in his official and individual capacities
Defendant
Gerald Silliman Chaplain, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in his official and individual capacities
Defendant
Gwen Helms Correctional Officer III, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in her individual capacity, only
Defendant
Deborah Luper Correctional Officer IV, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in her individual capacity, only

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthias Cicotte (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthias Cicotte (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthias Cicotte (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

05/22/2018

1 COMPLAINT (Verified) against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 097−−2521911.), filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/22/2018

2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order to supply adequate, pork−free nutrition during Ramadan by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order)(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/22/2018

3 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non−Resident ) Attorney Lena F. Masri by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson.(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/22/2018 4 Civil Cover Sheet. (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/22/2018

5 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non−Resident ) Attorney Gadeir I. Abbas by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson.(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/23/2018

6 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Judge John W. Sedwick recused. Case reassigned to Judge H. Russel Holland for all further proceedings. Please use case number 3:18−cv−00119−HRH on all future filings. (BJK, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018

7 ORDER re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. Motion Hearing set for 5/24/2018 at 1:30 PM in Anchorage Courtroom 1 before H. Russel Holland.Counsel may participate telephonically by calling (907) 677−6246 with Access Code 599153 five minutes prior to the scheduled start time. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 5/23/2018. (SDW, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018

8 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non−Resident ) Attorney Carolyn M. Homer. ( Pro Hac Vice Admission fee $150.00 paid. Receipt number 097−−2522648.) by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson.(Homer, Carolyn) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018

9 DECLARATION of Lena Masri re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order to supply adequate, pork−free nutrition during Ramadan by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson. (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018

10 DECLARATION of Carolyn Homer Regarding Rule 65 Notice Efforts re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order to supply adequate, pork−free nutrition during Ramadan by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson. (Homer, Carolyn) (Entered:

Case: 3:18-cv-119 As of: 01/17/2020 11:42 AM AKST 3 of 7

05/24/2018
05/24/2018 05/24/2018 05/24/2018 05/24/2018 05/24/2018 05/24/2018 05/24/2018
05/25/2018 05/25/2018 05/25/2018

05/23/2018)
11 Unissued summons re Defendant Dena Williams, (Attachments: # 1 Unissued Summons re Defendant Dan Aicher, # 2 Unissued Summons re Defendant Gwen Helms, # 3 Unissued Summons re Defendant Attorney General, # 4 Unissued Summons re Defendant Deborah Luper, # 5 Unissued Summons re Defendant Jason Mata, # 6 Unissued Summons re Defendant Gerald Sulliman, # 7 Unissued Summons re Defendant Clare Sullivan, # 8 Unissued Summons re Defendant April Wilkerson, # 9 Unissued Summons re Defendant Sidney Wood, # 10 Unissued Summons re Defendant Zane Nighswonger)(PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
Summons Issued as to Dan Aicher, Gwen Helms, Deborah Luper, Jason Mata, Zane NighSwonger, Gerald Silliman, Clare Sullivan, April Wilkerson, Dean Williams, Sidney Wood, Attorney General (PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
12 JUDGE HOLLAND TEXT ORDER: The Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Attorney Carolyn M. Homer, at docket 8 , is GRANTED. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
13 Receipt of 150.00 non−resident attorney payment for Lean Masri as to Plaintiff Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson. re 3 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non−Resident ) Attorney Lena F. Masri (PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
14 Receipt of 150.00 non−resident attorney payment for Gadeir Abbas as to Plaintiff Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson. re 5 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non−Resident ) Attorney Gadeir I. Abbas (PXS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
15 JUDGE HOLLAND TEXT ORDER: The Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Attorney Lena F. Masri, at docket 3 , is GRANTED. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
16 JUDGE HOLLAND TEXT ORDER: The Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Attorney Gadeir I. Abbas, at docket 5 , is GRANTED. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
17 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge H. Russel Holland: Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction 2 held 1:34 PM to 1:54 PM on 5/24/2018. Arguments heard re Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; Court to issue written order early tomorrow morning and will be effective immediately after order issued. Court and counsel heard re Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2 ; Defendants' response due 5/31/2018; Plaintiffs' reply due COB 6/1/2018 or if additional time is needed, due by 6/4/2018. Court called counsels' attention to LR 7.2B regarding hearings and/or evidentiary hearings. Court ordered Defendants shall not remove Plaintiffs from the Ramadan meal list while temporary restraining order is in effect. Court to issue scheduling order for the next proceeding. APPEARANCES: Gadeir I. Abbas, Pro Hac Vice (Tel), Lena Fatina Masri, Pro Hac Vice (Tel), Carolyn M. Homer, Pro Hac Vice (Tel) for Plts. A. Dowl and E. Jacobsson; Matthias Cicotte, State AG for Defendants; Becky Bohrer for Associated Press in Juneau (Tel); R. Joy Stancel, Court Reporter. (SDW, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
18 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. This temporary restraining order shall remain in effect until the court rules onplaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction due 5/31/18. Reply due 6/4/18. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 5/25/18. (JLH, COURT STAFF) Modified on 5/25/2018 to correct typo in docket text (JLH, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/25/2018)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthias Cicotte on behalf of Dean Williams (Cicotte, Matthias) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson re Summons Issued on Defendant Dean Williams, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Corrections (Homer, Carolyn) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

Case: 3:18-cv-119 As of: 01/17/2020 11:42 AM AKST 4 of 7

05/25/2018 05/29/2018 05/30/2018 05/30/2018
05/31/2018 06/05/2018 06/05/2018 06/11/2018 06/15/2018 06/15/2018 06/22/2018 06/22/2018
06/26/2018 06/29/2018 07/06/2018 07/20/2018

21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson re Summons Issued and served on the Attorney General of Alaska (Homer, Carolyn) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
22 ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS: Advising counsel of procedures to follow prior to filing a motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 5/29/18. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson re Summons Issued on Defendants Sidney Wood, Zane Nighswonger, Gerald Silliman, Jason Mata, and Dan Aicher (Homer, Carolyn) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson re 22 Order, 6 Order of Recusal, 9 Declaration, 7 Order,, Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, 18 Order on Motion for TRO, 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order to supply adequate, pork−free nutrition during Ramadan −− documents served by first−class mail to currently unrepresented parties (Homer, Carolyn) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
25 STIPULATION by Dean Williams.(Cicotte, Matthias) (Entered: 05/31/2018)
26 ORDER approving 25 Stipulation. Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is moot, and is deemed withdrawn. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 6/5/18. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/2018)
27 INITIAL CASE STATUS REPORT/CASE SCHEDULING AND PLANNING ORDER: Counsel for plaintiff shall serve and file the Rule 26 Meeting Report within 28 days of service of this order. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/2018)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson re Summons Issued on Defendants Clare Sullivan, Gwen Helms, and Deborah Luper (Homer, Carolyn) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthias Cicotte on behalf of All Defendants (Cicotte, Matthias) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
30 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by All Defendants.(Cicotte, Matthias) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
31 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST RE May 24, 2018 Hearing by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson. (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
32 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings ; Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction held on May 24, 2018, before Judge H. Russel Holland. Realtime Court Reporter: R. Joy Stancel.
Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy by calling Realtime Court Reporter, R. Joy Stancel 907−677−6104. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after Release of Transcript Restriction deadline of 9/20/2018. (RJS, ) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
33 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Homer, Carolyn) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
34 SCHEDULING AND PLANNING ORDER: Discovery completed by 5/30/2019. Dispositive Motions due by 6/28/2019. See Order for additional deadlines. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 6/29/18. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
35 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by All Plaintiffs.(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
36 ANSWER to 35 Amended Complaint by All Defendants.(Cicotte, Matthias) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

Case: 3:18-cv-119 As of: 01/17/2020 11:42 AM AKST 5 of 7

07/26/2018
07/31/2018 08/27/2018 08/27/2018 09/24/2018
09/25/2018 10/24/2018 10/29/2018 01/15/2019 01/16/2019 01/25/2019
01/28/2019 01/29/2019 01/29/2019 02/15/2019 02/26/2019 03/26/2019 03/27/2019

37 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non−Resident ) Attorney Ahmed Mohamed. ( Pro Hac Vice Admission fee $150.00 paid. Receipt number 097−−2554924.) by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson.(Mohamed, Ahmed) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
38 ORDER granting 37 Motion for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non−Resident) Attorney. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
39 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint (Unopposed) by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
40 ORDER granting 39 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Amended Complaint due by 9/24/18. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
41 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint (Unopposed) due to Defendants' delayed discovery responses by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
42 ORDER granting 41 Consent Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint. Amended Complaint due by 10/22/2018. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
43 ORDER re Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs shall filed their motion to amend and proposed second amended complaint or joint status report by 10/31/2018. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/24/2018)
44 STATUS REPORT (Joint) Per Dkt. 43 Order by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson. (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 10/29/2018)
45 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Final Witness List for Lay Witness (UNOPPOSED) by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
46 ORDER granting 45 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The parties' lay witness lists shall be served and filed by 1/29/19. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 1/16/19. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/16/2019)
47 MOTION for Protective Order by Dan Aicher, Gwen Helms, Deborah Luper, Jason Mata, Zane NighSwonger, Gerald Silliman, Clare Sullivan, April Wilkerson, Dean Williams, Sidney Wood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cicotte, Matthias) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
48 ORDER re 47 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 1/28/19. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
49 Witness List by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
50 Witness List by Dan Aicher, Gwen Helms, Deborah Luper, Jason Mata, Zane NighSwonger, Gerald Silliman, Clare Sullivan, April Wilkerson, Dean Williams, Sidney Wood. (Cicotte, Matthias) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
51 Joint STIPULATION to extend discovery by two months pursuant to D. Ak. L.R. 16.1(c)(3)[A] by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson.(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 02/15/2019)
52 ORDER approving 51 Joint Stipulation to Extend Discovery. Discovery closes 7/3/19. Dispositive Motions due 8/28/19. See Order for additional deadlines. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/26/2019)
53 Consent MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mohamed, Ahmed) (Entered: 03/26/2019)
54 ORDER re 53 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Ahmed Mohamed is allowed to withdraw as co−counsel for plaintiffs in this matter. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 3/27/19. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/27/2019)

Case: 3:18-cv-119 As of: 01/17/2020 11:42 AM AKST 6 of 7

04/24/2019
04/26/2019 05/03/2019 05/06/2019 08/30/2019 08/30/2019 09/03/2019 09/05/2019 09/06/2019

55 Endorsed MOTION to Take Deposition from Ernest Jacobsson by Dan Aicher, Gwen Helms, Deborah Luper, Jason Mata, Zane NighSwonger, Gerald Silliman, Clare Sullivan, April Wilkerson, Dean Williams, Sidney Wood. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cicotte, Matthias) (Entered: 04/24/2019)
56 ORDER granting 55 Motion to Take Deposition. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 4/26/19. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
57 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (two week extension of fact discovery only) by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
58 ORDER granting 57 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The close of fact discovery is extended to 5/17/19. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
59 ORDER re Certify Case Ready for Trial; parties to meet/confer and file report or request status conference by 9/20/2019. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 8/30/19. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/30/2019)
60 NOTICE of Settlement Agreement by All Defendants (Cicotte, Matthias) (Entered: 08/30/2019)
61 ORDER re 60 Notice of Settlement. Closing papers or status report due 10/3/2019. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
62 Joint MOTION for Settlement to be entered by Court by Anas A. Dowl, Ernest A. Jacobsson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Settlement Agreement for Entry by Court)(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
63 JUDGMENT approving Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 9/6/19. (JLH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

Case: 3:18-cv-119 As of: 01/17/2020 11:42 AM AKST 7 of 7

 
 CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND Lena F. Masri (D.C. # 100019) (pro hac vice admission pending)
lmasri@cair.com Gadeir I. Abbas* (VA # 81161) (pro hac vice admission pending)
gabbas@cair.com 453 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20003 Phone: (202) 742-6420 Fax: (202) 379-3317
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
* Licensed in VA, not in D.C. Practice limited to federal matters
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

ANAS A. DOWL, inmate # 345639 ERNEST A. JACOBSSON, inmate # 403566
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Corrections, in his official capacity, only;
CLARE SULLIVAN, Deputy Commissioner of Institutions, Alaska Department of Corrections, in her official capacity, only;
APRIL WILKERSON, Director, Administrative Services, Alaska Department of Corrections, in her official and individual capacities;
SIDNEY WOOD, Deputy Director, of Institutions, Alaska Department of Corrections, in his official and individual capacities;

Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-JWS
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 1 of 31

DAN AICHER, Facility Manager I, Facilities Management, Alaska Department of Corrections, in his official and individual capacities;
ZANE NIGHSWONGER, Superintendent, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in his and individual official capacities;
JASON MATA, Food Service Supervisor, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in his official and individual capacities;
GERALD SILLIMAN, Chaplain, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in his official and individual capacities;
GWEN HELMS, Correctional Officer III, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in her individual capacity, only; and,
DEBORAH LUPER, Correctional Officer IV, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in her individual capacity, only;
Defendants.
2
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 2 of 31

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs, ANAS A. DOWL and ERNEST A. JACOBSSON (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by
and through their undersigned counsel, CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND (“CAIR”), file this Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Defendants DEAN WILLAMS, CLARE SULLIVAN, APRIL WILKERSON, DON AICHER, ZANE NIGHSWONGER, GWEN HELMS, DEBORAH LUPER, GERALD SILLIMAN and JASON MATA (collectively “Defendants”), for violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc et seq., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and state as follows:
Jurisdiction and Venue 1. This Court has original federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims of violations of the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 2. This Court has federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 over Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the deprivation under color of State law of rights secured by the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States. 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants reside and conduct business in the State of Alaska. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 5. Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are sought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by the general, legal and equitable powers of this Court.
3 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 3 of 31

6. Plaintiffs’ claims for attorneys’ fees and costs are predicated upon 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 2000cc-2(d), which authorize the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing parties, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA.
7. Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by the general, legal, and equitable powers of this Court.
8. Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1391 as to all Defendants because Defendants operate within the geographical boundaries of the State of Alaska, and the substantial part of the acts described herein occurred within this District.
Plaintiffs 9. Plaintiff Anas A. Dowl is an individual, a male, a Muslim and an inmate at Anchorage Correctional Complex (Inmate No. 345639), and was at all relevant times considered a “person confined to an institution” as the term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. 10. Plaintiff Ernest A. Jacobsson is an individual, a male, a Muslim and an inmate at Anchorage Correctional Complex (Inmate No. 403566), and was at all relevant times considered a “person confined to an institution” as the term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.
Defendants Sued in Official Capacity, Only 11. Defendant Dean Williams is Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Corrections. Defendant Williams is the ultimate decision-maker with authority to approve all Alaska Department of Corrections policies, including its operations and dietary and religious accommodation policies for the Anchorage Correctional Complex, which is operated by the Alaska Department of Corrections. Defendant Williams is being sued in his official capacity, only. 12. Defendant Clare Sullivan is the Deputy Commissioner of Institutions of the Alaska Department of Corrections. Defendant Sullivan is a decision-maker with authority to approve all
4 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 4 of 31

Alaska Department of Corrections policies, including its operations and dietary and religious accommodation policies for the Anchorage Correctional Complex, which is operated by the Alaska Department of Corrections. Defendant Sullivan is being sued in her official capacity, only.
Defendants Sued in Individual Capacity, Only 13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gwen Helms is a Correctional Officer III at Anchorage Correctional Complex who had supervisory authority and control over the grievance process available to the Plaintiffs during the time of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Anchorage Correctional Complex. Defendant Helms personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Helms is being sued in her individual capacity, only. 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Deborah Luper is a Correctional Officer III at Anchorage Correctional Complex who had supervisory authority and control over the Plaintiffs’ confinement at Anchorage Correctional Complex. Defendant Luper personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Luper is being sued in her individual capacity, only.
Defendants Sued in Both Official and Individual Capacities 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant April Wilkerson is the Director of Administrative Services of the Alaska Department of Corrections who is a decision-maker and possesses authority to approve all policies concerning Alaska Department of Corrections facilities, including Anchorage Correctional Complex, during the time of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Anchorage Correctional Complex. Defendant Wilkerson personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Wilkerson is being sued in both her official and individual capacities. 16. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sidney Wood is the Deputy Director Institutions of the Alaska Department of Corrections who is a decision-maker and possesses authority to approve all policies, including food menus, concerning Alaska Department of Corrections facilities,
5 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 5 of 31

including Anchorage Correctional Complex, during the time of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Anchorage Correctional Complex. Defendant Wood personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Wood is being sued in both his official and individual capacities.
17. Upon information and belief, Defendant Dan Aicher is the Facility Manager I of the Alaska Department of Corrections who is a decision-maker and possesses authority to approve all policies concerning certain Alaska Department of Corrections facilities, including Anchorage Correctional Complex, during the time of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Anchorage Correctional Complex. Defendant Aicher personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Aicher is being sued in both his official and individual capacities.
18. Upon information and belief, Defendant Zane Nighswonger is the Superintendent of Anchorage Correctional Complex of the Alaska Department of Corrections who is a decision-maker and possesses authority to approve all policies concerning the facility during the time of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Anchorage Correctional Complex. Defendant Nighswonger personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Nighswonger is being sued in both his official and individual capacities.
19. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jason Mata is the Food Service Supervisor at the Anchorage Correctional Complex of the Alaska Department of the Corrections. Defendant Mata is a decision-maker and possesses authority to approve Anchorage Correctional Complex policies concerning food service at the facility. Defendant Mata personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Mata is being sued in both his official and individual capacities.
20. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gerald Silliman is the Chaplain at the Anchorage Correctional Complex of the Alaska Department of the Corrections. Defendant Silliman is a decision-maker and possesses authority to approve Anchorage Correctional Complex policies concerning religious services and accommodations at the facility. Defendant Silliman personally
6 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 6 of 31

engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Silliman is being sued in both his official and individual capacities.
Nature of this Action 21. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs seek costs and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 22. Anchorage Correctional Complex is an “institution” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997. 23. Defendants have not identified any compelling government interest for denying Plaintiffs’ requests for a religious diet that satisfies nutritional and caloric requirements during the month of Ramadan.1 24. Defendants have failed to enforce the applicable laws, policies, directives and regulations in the least restrictive means possible. 25. Defendants have unlawfully imposed a Muslim-specific and Ramadan-specific dietary policy that substantially burdens the rights of Plaintiffs to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and to the free exercise of religion by means that are not the least restrictive means available to the correctional facilities to protect their asserted governmental interest. 26. Defendants have imposed regulations that unreasonably subject Plaintiffs to cruel and unusual punishment and that limit religious exercise, discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of religious denomination, and treat Plaintiffs on less than equal terms with other religious and non-
1 Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic Calendar, which is based on a lunar calendar. Muslims worldwide observe Ramadan as a month of fasting. This annual observance is regarded as one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Among other things, while fasting from dawn until sunset, Muslims refrain from consuming food, drinking liquids, smoking and sexual relations. In 2018, Ramadan commenced on May 16, 2018 and will end on approximately June 15, 2018.
7 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 7 of 31

religious similarly-situated persons. Denial of a Proper Nutritional and Caloric Intake During the Month of Ramadan (“Ramadan Policy”) 27. Under State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive
805.01 “Food Service Standards,” Section VI.A., all menus and meals at correctional facilities, which include Anchorage Correctional Complex, are required to be “nutritious, well-balanced and hearthealthy.”
28. Further, under State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” Section VII.B.1., the food menu is required to “meet all recommended daily dietary allowances, with adjustments for age, sex, and activity.”
29. Pursuant to the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020” issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Plaintiffs’ estimated calorie needs in accordance with their age, sex and physical activity level ranges from 2,600 to 2,800 calories per day.2
30. Additionally, under State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” Section VII.A.1., prisoners shall receive three meals a day, at least two of which are hot meals.
31. Under State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 805.03 “Special and/or Religious Meals,” Section E.1., each Superintendent is required to develop standard operating procedures (“SOPs”) in coordination with the DOC Statewide Chaplaincy Coordinator to allow for the temporary accommodation of multi-day religious fasting and dietary prohibitions, including fasting during Ramadan.
2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 20152020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 8th Edition, December 2015. Available at: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/2015-2020_Dietary_Guidelines.pdf.
8 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 8 of 31

32. Upon information and belief, the Ramadan Policy and the Ramadan Bagged Meal Menu implemented at Anchorage Correctional Complex during the confinement of Plaintiffs was coordinated with Defendant Silliman as Chaplain for Anchorage Correctional Complex.
33. Upon information and belief, during Ramadan, Defendants do not provide Muslim inmates who participate in the Ramadan fast at Anchorage Correctional Complex, including Plaintiffs, a balanced nutritional and caloric diet on any given day during Ramadan. (This policy will hereinafter be referred to as the “Ramadan Policy.”)
34. Upon information and belief, Defendants provide other inmates at Anchorage Correctional Complex and throughout Alaska Department of Corrections facilities between 2,600 and 2,800 calories and a balanced nutritional diet on any given day.
35. Upon information and belief, pursuant to the Ramadan Policy, Defendants provide Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast, including Plaintiffs, with two bagged meals every evening that contain cold meals that range from approximately 500 to approximately 1,100 calories per day, depending on the day, which is substantially lower than what is required under Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” and the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020.”
36. Additionally, pursuant to the Ramadan Bagged Meal Menu, during several days, Defendants provide Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast, including Plaintiffs, with bologna sandwiches which upon information and belief contain pork product that, in accordance with their sincerely-held religious beliefs, Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates are not permitted to eat.
37. As a result, on the days that Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast receive bologna sandwiches, in accordance with their sincerely-held religious beliefs, they forego eating the sandwiches and as a result receive even less calories than the already substantially low amount they are given.
9 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 9 of 31

38. Upon information and belief, pursuant to the Ramadan Policy, Defendants do not permit Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast to receive hot meals, nor do they permit them to eat any food from the regular meal line that other inmates eat at.
39. Upon information and belief, pursuant to the Ramadan Policy, Defendants do not permit Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast to keep any food in their cells or eat any food other than the food that is contained in the two bagged meals provided to them by Defendants.
40. Accordingly, Plaintiffs other Muslim inmates at that facility, are completely dependent upon the Defendants to provide them with food.
41. The nutritional and caloric intake of the Ramadan Bagged Meal Menu given to Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast by Defendants is approximately less than half the number of calories that other inmates receive on any given day.
42. Plaintiffs observe the Ramadan fast, in accordance with their sincerely-held religious belief that fasting the month of Ramadan is a religious obligation which is compulsory on all healthy adult Muslims.
43. During the month of Ramadan, Muslims fast from sunrise to sundown by, among other things, abstaining from eating and drinking. Muslims believe Ramadan is a time for spiritual reflection, self-improvement, and increased devotion and worship.
44. During the month of Ramadan, Muslims are permitted to eat and drink from sundown to sunrise.
45. In order to ensure that Plaintiffs receive their meals before sunrise and after sundown, as opposed to regular meal times, Plaintiffs, along with other Muslim inmates, submitted a written application to eat from the Ramadan menu.
46. Each of Plaintiffs’ requests to eat from the Religious Ramadan menu were approved. 47. However, by requesting to eat from the Ramadan menu, Plaintiffs, along with other
10 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 10 of 31

Muslim inmates, are forced to sacrifice a proper nutritional and caloric diet in order to adhere to their sincerely-held religious beliefs.
48. Upon information and belief, other inmates on religious diets, menus or meal plans are not forced to consume such a significantly reduced number of calories or sacrifice a proper nutritional diet.
49. Defendants, via the Ramadan Policy, have subjected and continue to subject Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates with a religious basis for participating in the Ramadan fast to cruel and unusual punishment, distinctive and disparate treatment, and less than equal terms than inmates of other faith backgrounds by denying them a proper nutritional and caloric diet on a daily basis.
50. Defendants, via the Ramadan Policy, have subjected and continue to subject have imposed and continue to impose a substantial burden upon the rights of Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates to the free exercise of religion, and discriminate and continue to discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of religion or religious denomination in violation of, among other laws, RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(2).
51. Defendants are capable of providing Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates with a proper caloric and nutritional diet because it provides other inmates at its facilities with a proper caloric and nutritional diet.
52. The substantial burden that the Defendants, via the Ramadan Policy, impose on Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast is not necessary, or the least restrictive means, to achieve any compelling state interest.
Plaintiffs Anas A. Dowl and Ernest Jacobsson 53. As discussed above, upon information and belief, the meals provided to Plaintiff Dowl during the month of Ramadan in the years 2017 and 2018 and Plaintiff Jacobsson in the year 2018 did not and do not meet the minimum requirements that all inmates receive a balanced nutritional diet
11 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 11 of 31

containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan. 54. In fact, the meals provided to Plaintiffs Dowl and Jacobsson are less than half the
estimated number of calories that they need per day, based on their age, sex and activity level, in accordance with the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020,” which ranges from 2,600 to 2,800 calories per day.3
55. Moreover, the meals Plaintiffs Dowl and Jacobsson receive are “cold meals,” whereas other inmates at the same facility are receiving “hot meals.”
56. In addition to receiving meals that are below caloric and nutritional standards, oftentimes during the month of Ramadan, Plaintiffs Dowl and Jacobsson’s bagged meals contain pork product, which in accordance with their sincerely-held religious beliefs, they are not permitted to eat.
57. As such, on the days where their bagged meals contain pork product, they cannot and do not consume the pork product; and as a result, they eat even less than the already substantially low number of calories that they are given.
58. Plaintiff Dowl filed several Requests for Interview Form (“ROI”) (Form 808.11A) in accordance with State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 808.03 “Prisoner Grievances,” Section VII.A., in an attempt to informally resolve his grievances regarding the inadequate nutrition and calories that he is receiving pursuant to the Ramadan Policy, the pork products that he is being provided by Defendants that he cannot consume in accordance with his sincerely-held religious beliefs, and the lack of hot meals during both Ramadan 2017 and Ramadan 2018.
59. Similarly, and for the same reasons, Plaintiff Jacobsson filed several ROIs regarding the inadequate nutrition and calories that he is receiving pursuant to the Ramadan Policy, the pork products that he is being provided by Defendants that he cannot consume in accordance with his
3 Id. at 78. 12
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 12 of 31

sincerely-held religious beliefs, and the lack of hot meals during Ramadan 2018. 60. The grievances in the ROIs were either ignored, denied or left unanswered. 61. Also in accordance with State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and
Procedure Directive 808.03 “Prisoner Grievances,” Section VII.B.2., in an attempt to informally resolve their grievances regarding the inadequate nutrition and calories that Defendants are providing them pursuant to the Ramadan Policy directly, the pork products that Defendants are providing them that they cannot consume in accordance with their sincerely-held religious beliefs, and the hot meals that the Defendants are prohibiting them to eat during Ramadan 2018 (Plaintiff Dowl filed similar ROIs regarding Ramadan 2017), they spoke with Defendant Silliman, Defendant Mata, Defendant Luper, Defendant Helms and other staff members aware of or directly involved in their grievances.
62. On May 19, 2018, Plaintiff Dowl had a prescheduled call with his undersigned counsel. 63. At the time of the prescheduled call, Plaintiff Dowl’s undersigned counsel spoke with Defendant Luper and requested to be connected to Plaintiff Dowl. 64. Minutes after Plaintiff Dowl’s phone call with his undersigned counsel, Defendant Luper conducted a “shake down” of Plaintiff Dowl and Plaintiff Jacobsson’s cell, and confiscated all food items that they had saved in their cells to eat that day, including the two bagged meals provided to them the evening before and four hamburgers that they traded with other inmates in exchange for the bologna sandwiches that they could not eat in accordance with their sincerely-held beliefs. 65. In response to Plaintiffs’ inquiries as to why Defendant Luper confiscated their food that they had either received from the facility to eat or saved as they were not aware of any policy that has been posted that prohibits them from doing so, she responded that Defendant Williams issued a policy directive by email that prohibited Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast from saving food in their cells. 66. In another attempt to informally resolve their grievances, Plaintiffs Dowl and
13 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 13 of 31

Jacobsson explained to Defendant Luper that they were starving and needed food to eat, and that she took the only food they had to eat.
67. Defendant Luper responded by advising Plaintiffs that she was confiscating their food as a punishment for saving food in their cells.
68. Defendant Luper further informed Plaintiffs that she was going to remove both Plaintiff Dowl and Plaintiff Jacobsson from the Ramadan list as an added disciplinary measure for saving food in their cells.
69. That day, neither Plaintiff Dowl nor Plaintiff Jacobsson were given any bagged meals to eat; and accordingly, they ate nothing that day.
70. In accordance with their sincerely-held religious beliefs, they continued fasting the next day without having had anything to eat the day before.
71. In accordance with State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 808.03 “Prisoner Grievances,” Section VII.A.1.c., Plaintiff Dowl immediately submitted an ROI and afterwards two Prisoner Grievance Forms (Form 808.03C) regarding the lack of adequate meals and the pork products that he is being fed by Defendants, and Defendant Luper removing him from the Ramadan list and confiscating the only food he had to eat.
72. Similarly and for the same reasons, Plaintiff Jacobsson also immediately submitted two ROIs and afterwards a Prisoner Grievance Form regarding the lack of adequate meals and the pork products that he is being fed by Defendants, and Defendant Luper removing him from the Ramadan list and confiscating the only food he had to eat.
73. As of the date of this filing, Plaintiffs have not received any response to the grievances filed by Plaintiffs.
74. On May 21, 2018, both Plaintiffs Dowl and Jacobsson were told by a correctional officer that Defendant Luper advised that they cannot get food from the main meal line to supplement
14 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 14 of 31

the inadequate bagged meals Defendants are providing to Plaintiffs. 75. On May 21, 2018, in accordance with State of Alaska Department of Corrections
Policy and Procedure Directive 808.03 “Prisoner Grievances,” Section VI.B.1., both Plaintiffs Dowl and Jacobsson requested emergency grievances regarding the lack of adequate meals and the pork products being fed to them by Defendants. Defendants provided Plaintiffs with standard grievance forms instead, and Plaintiff Dowl wrote “emergency” across the top.
76. On May 22, 2018, both of Plaintiffs’ emergency grievances were denied processing as an emergency, and upon information and belief, are being processed in accordance with standard grievance procedure timelines.
77. Because Ramadan commenced on May 16, 2018 and will end on approximately June 16, 2018; it is unlikely that Plaintiffs’ grievances will be resolved before Ramadan concludes.
78. In accordance with State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 808.03 “Prisoner Grievances,” Section VII.D.1.C., prisoners “cannot appeal the Department’s determination as to whether the issue grieved is an emergency.”
79. In the meantime, Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm to their health, including malnutrition, starvation, weight loss, hunger pangs, headaches, dizziness, among other things.
80. Both Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies related to emergency grievances.
Count I Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
(Cruel and Unusual Punishment) 81. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 82. Under the Eighth Amendment, prisoners have the right to be from cruel and unusual punishment.
15 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 15 of 31

83. The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on Defendants to provide humane conditions of confinement, including insuring, among other things, that prisoners receive adequate food. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).
84. Upon information and belief, the Ramadan Policy does not provide Plaintiffs or Muslim inmates who observe the holy fast during Ramadan, a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan.
85. Upon information and belief, the daily caloric intake under the Ramadan Policy ranges from approximately 500 calories to approximately 1,100 calories, on any given day during Ramadan.
86. The nutritional and caloric intake under the Ramadan Policy is approximately less than half the number of calories that other inmates receive on any given day during Ramadan.
87. Defendants, acting under color of state law, took Plaintiffs into physical police custody. In doing so, they established a special custodial relationship with Plaintiffs, giving rise to affirmative duties on their part to secure and ensure that Plaintiffs would be given adequate food and to secure for Plaintiffs the constitutionally-protected rights identified above.
88. Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated Plaintiffs’ above-stated constitutionally-protected rights by wrongfully denying them adequate food.
89. Specifically, Defendants, acting under color of law, owed Plaintiffs the duty to follow, implement, and comply with State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” Section VI.A., and Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” Section VII.B.1., which mandate that all menus and meals at correctional facilities provide Plaintiffs “nutritious, well-balanced and heart-healthy” meals that “meet all recommended daily dietary allowances, with adjustments for age, sex, and activity.”
90. Defendants, acting under color of law, violated State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” Section VI.A., and
16 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 16 of 31

Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” Section VII.B.1. by deliberately failing to provide Plaintiffs and other Muslim prisoners who observe the holy fast during Ramadan, a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan.
91. Defendants’ depravation of a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan is objectively sufficiently serious in that it fails to provide Plaintiffs adequate food (i.e. a humane condition of confinement).
92. Despite Plaintiffs’ repeated pleas and requests for a proper nutritional and caloric diet on any given day during Ramadan, Defendants failed to take adequate measures to ensure that Plaintiffs were receiving adequate food.
93. Defendants subjectively perceived, or should have subjectively perceived, Plaintiffs’ complaints, regarding the inadequacy of food.
94. Defendants’ acts and omissions were sufficiently harmful to evidence a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast.
95. Defendants’ acts and omissions were sufficiently harmful to offend evolving standards of decency in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
96. Defendant’ acts and omissions in depriving Plaintiffs of a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan were such that they denied Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.
97. Defendants’ actions while acting under color of state law, in denying Plaintiffs a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan, amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and excessive force in violation of their constitutionally-protected rights as stated above.
98. Defendants’ conduct as outlined above, was so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or
17 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 17 of 31

excessive so as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness and violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
99. Defendants, acting under the color of state law, authorized, tolerated, ratified, permitted, or acquiesced in the creation of policies, practices, and customs, establishing a de facto policy of depriving Plaintiffs and other Muslim prisoners observing the holy fast during Ramadan with a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan.
100. Defendants’ policies, customs and practices were carried out willfully and with wanton disregard and with the spirit of gross negligence, were the direct and deliberate cause of constitutional deprivations including Plaintiffs’ rights to liberty and due process, and were the direct cause of Plaintiffs’ cruel and unusual punishment and excessive force.
101. As a direct and proximate result of these polices, practices and customs, Plaintiffs were deprived of their constitutionally-protected rights as described above, by Defendants.
102. As a direct and proximate result of these polices, practices and customs, Plaintiffs were and are forced to choose on a daily basis during the month of Ramadan whether to adhere to their sincerely-held religious beliefs or sacrifice their basic nutritional needs.
103. As a direct and proximate result of these polices, practices and customs, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer from starvation, weight loss, hunger pangs, severe headaches, dizziness, among other things.
104. As a result of their conduct described above, Defendants are also liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
105. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the Ramadan Policy is a violation of Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
106. Ramadan commenced on May 16, 2018 and will end on approximately June 15, 2018.
18 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 18 of 31

107. Upon information and belief, it is unlikely that this case will be resolved before Ramadan concludes.
108. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction granting the relief described in the Prayer for Relief below.
109. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from denying Plaintiffs a proper caloric and nutritional diet on any given day.
110. Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiffs harm and Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees in this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory relief and injunctive relief barring Defendants from engaging in further unconstitutional practices in prohibiting Plaintiffs and other Muslim prisoners from receiving a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan. Further, Plaintiffs request compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants sued in their individual capacity, only, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Count II Violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(Religious Exercise) 111. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 112. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy, whereby Defendants do not provide Plaintiffs with a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day in Ramadan chill Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise of religion. 113. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to the free exercise of religion as secured by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000,
19 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 19 of 31

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a) et seq., by imposing and implementing an unconstitutional and discriminatory Ramadan Policy that substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.
114. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy, in addition to the above-mentioned unlawful actions caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs harm because it forces them to choose, on a daily basis between violating their core religious beliefs (the first requires them to fast during the month of Ramadan and the second, requires them to abstain from foods that violate their religious tenets) and waiving their right to receiving a menu that meets minimum nutritional standards.
115. Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a Ramadan Policy requiring Muslim inmates to receive meals that do not provide a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan.
116. Defendants have not established a dietary policy requiring inmates of other faiths participating in religious diets to receive meals that do not meet minimum nutritional standards.
117. The restrictions imposed on Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates have substantially burdened their religious exercise.
118. By imposing and implementing the above-described Ramadan Policy on Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of Islam within Anchorage Correctional Complex.
119. Imposition of such a burden is not in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest, compelling or otherwise.
120. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the Ramadan Policy is a substantial burden to the free exercise of Plaintiffs’ religion, is not justified by a compelling government interest, and is in violation of RLUIPA.
121. Ramadan commenced on May 16, 2018 and will end on approximately June 15, 2018. 122. Upon information and belief, it is unlikely that this case will be resolved before
20 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 20 of 31

Ramadan concludes. 123. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction granting
the relief described in the Prayer for Relief below. 124. Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiffs harm and Plaintiffs are entitled to
injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees in this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory relief and injunctive relief barring Defendants from engaging in further unconstitutional practices in prohibiting Plaintiffs and other Muslim prisoners from receiving a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan. Further, Plaintiffs request compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants sued in their individual capacity, only, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Count III Violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(Discrimination on the Basis of Religion) 125. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 126. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy treats Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast on less than equal terms with other religious and non-religious prisoners in Anchorage Correctional Complex and throughout Alaska Department of Corrections facilities. 127. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy, in addition to the above-mentioned unlawful actions caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast harm because it forces them to choose, on a daily basis between violating their core religious beliefs (the first requires them to fast during the month of Ramadan and the second requires them to abstain from foods that violate their religious tenets) and waiving their right to receiving a menu that meets
21 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 21 of 31

minimum nutritional standards. 128. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs and other Muslim
inmates observing the Ramadan fast of their right to be free from religious discrimination as secured by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a) et seq., by imposing and implementing a Ramadan Policy in a manner that discriminates on the basis of religion.
129. Defendants have imposed onerous restrictions on Plaintiffs that have not been imposed on prisoners of other faith backgrounds in Anchorage Correctional Complex and throughout Alaska Department of Corrections facilities.
130. Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a Ramadan Policy requiring Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast to receive meals that do not meet minimum nutritional standards during the month of Ramadan.
131. Defendants have not established a dietary policy requiring inmates of other faith backgrounds participating in religious diets to receive meals that do not meet minimum nutritional standards.
132. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants’ Ramadan Policy constitutes discrimination on the basis of Plaintiffs’ religion, is not justified by a compelling government interest, and is in violation of RLUIPA.
133. Ramadan commenced on May 16, 2018 and will end on approximately June 15, 2018. 134. Upon information and belief, it is unlikely that this case will be resolved before Ramadan concludes. 135. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction granting the relief described in the Prayer for Relief below. 136. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from denying Plaintiffs a proper caloric and nutritional diet and a halal food diet.
22 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 22 of 31

137. Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiffs harm and Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees in this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory relief and injunctive relief barring Defendants from engaging in further unconstitutional practices in prohibiting Plaintiffs and other Muslim prisoners from receiving a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan. Further, Plaintiffs request compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants sued in their individual capacity, only, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Count IV Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
(Free Exercise of Religion) 138. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 139. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy, in addition to the above-mentioned unlawful actions caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs harm because it forces them to choose, on a daily basis between violating their core religious beliefs (the first requires them to fast during the month of Ramadan and the second, requires them to abstain from foods that violate their religious tenets) and waiving their right to receiving a menu that meets minimum nutritional standards. 140. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy and the above-mentioned unlawful actions chill Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise of religion. 141. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to free exercise of religion as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by imposing and implementing a Ramadan Policy that substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.
23 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 23 of 31

142. Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a Ramadan Policy requiring Muslim inmates to receive meals that do not meet minimum nutritional standards during the month of Ramadan.
143. Defendants have not established a dietary policy requiring inmates of other faiths participating in religious diets to receive meals that do not meet minimum nutritional standards.
144. By imposing and implementing the above-described Ramadan Policy on Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on their exercise of Islam.
145. Imposition of such a burden is not in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest, compelling or otherwise.
146. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the Ramadan Policy is a substantial burden to the free exercise of Plaintiffs’ religion, is not justified by a compelling government interest, and is in violation of Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to their free exercise of religion.
147. Ramadan commenced on May 16, 2018 and will end on approximately June 15, 2018. 148. Upon information and belief, it is unlikely that this case will be resolved before Ramadan concludes. 149. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction granting the relief described in the Prayer for Relief below. 150. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from denying Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast a proper caloric and nutritional diet. 151. Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiffs harm and Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees in this action.
24 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 24 of 31

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory relief and injunctive relief barring Defendants from engaging in further unconstitutional practices in prohibiting Plaintiffs and other Muslim prisoners from receiving a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan. Further, Plaintiffs request compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants sued in their individual capacity, only, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Count V Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
(Equal Protection) 152. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 153. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy treats these prisoners on less than equal terms with other religious and non-religious prisoners in Anchorage Correctional Complex and throughout Alaska Department of Corrections facilities, thereby creating a denominational preference against Islam as a religion. 154. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy, in addition to the above-mentioned unlawful actions caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast harm because it forces them to choose, on a daily basis between violating their core religious beliefs (the first requires them to fast during the month of Ramadan and the second requires them to abstain from foods that violate their religious tenets) and waiving their right to receiving a menu that meets minimum nutritional standards. 155. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast of their right to equal protection of the laws as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by imposing and implementing a Ramadan Policy in a manner that discriminates on the basis of religion.
25 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 25 of 31

156. Defendants have imposed onerous restrictions on Plaintiffs that have not been imposed on prisoners of other faiths at Anchorage Correctional Complex and throughout Alaska Department of Corrections facilities.
157. Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a Ramadan Policy requiring Muslim inmates to receive meals that do not meet minimum nutritional standards during the month of Ramadan.
158. Defendants have not established a dietary policy requiring inmates of other faiths participating in religious diets to receive meals that do not meet minimum nutritional standards.
159. The restrictions imposed on Plaintiffs are unconstitutional and have substantially burdened their religious exercise.
160. By imposing and implementing the above-described Ramadan Policy and denying a halal food diet to Muslim inmates, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of Islam.
161. Imposition of such a burden is not in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest, compelling or otherwise.
162. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the Ramadan Policy is a substantial burden to the free exercise of Plaintiffs’ religion, is not justified by a compelling government interest, and is in violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws.
163. Ramadan commenced on May 16, 2018 and will end on approximately June 15, 2018. 164. Upon information and belief, it is unlikely that this case will be resolved before Ramadan concludes. 165. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction granting the relief described in the Prayer for Relief below. 166. Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiffs harm and Plaintiffs are entitled to
26 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 26 of 31

injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees in this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory relief and injunctive relief barring Defendants from engaging in further unconstitutional practices in prohibiting Plaintiffs and other Muslim prisoners from receiving a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan. Further, Plaintiffs request compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants sued in their individual capacity, only, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants on each and every count in this complaint, and enter an Order awarding the following relief: 1. A declaratory judgment that:
a. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
b. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
c. Defendants’ denial of a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan constitutes a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and creates a chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion;
d. Defendants’ denial of Plaintiffs’ request for a balanced nutritional diet containing
27 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 27 of 31

between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan is a substantial burden to the free exercise of Plaintiffs’ religion and is not justified by a compelling government interest; e. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy treats these prisoners on less than equal terms with other religious and non-religious prisoners in Anchorage Correctional Complex and throughout Alaska Department of Corrections facilities; 2. An injunction that: a. Enjoins Defendants from denying Plaintiffs a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan, because Defendants’ denial of the proper caloric and nutritional diet forces Plaintiffs, who have a religious basis for fasting during the month of Ramadan, to choose, on a daily basis, between violating their core religious beliefs (ie: fasting during the month of Ramadan and abstaining from foods that violate their beliefs) and receiving a menu that meets minimum nutritional standards; b. Requires Defendants to remedy the constitutional and statutory violations identified above, including, but not limited to, eliminating any existing policy whereby Plaintiffs and other Muslim prisoners, and others similarly-situated, are denied a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan; 3. An award of compensatory and punitive damages against the individual capacity defendants, only, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 4. An award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of all litigation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and, 5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
28 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 28 of 31

JURY DEMAND NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby demand a jury trial of the above-referenced causes of action so triable.

Dated: May 22, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
By /s/ Lena F. Masri Lena F. Masri (D.C. Bar No. 100019) (pro hac vice admission pending) Gadeir I. Abbas (VA Bar No. 81161)* (pro hac vice admission pending) 453 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20003 Phone: (202) 742-6420 Fax: (202) 379-3317
* Licensed in VA, not in D.C. Practice limited to federal matters

29 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 29 of 31

Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 30 of 31

Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 1 Filed 05/22/18 Page 31 of 31

 
 WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

\

ANAS A. DOWL, inmate #345639, and

)

ERNEST A. JACOBBSON, inmate # 403566, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs.

)

)

DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner,

)

Alaska Department of Corrections, et al.,

)

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

No. 3:18-cv-0119-HRH

O R D E R

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiffs Anas A. Dowl and Ernest A. Jacobbson are inmates at the Anchorage

Correctional Complex, and they are practicing Muslims.1 In their verified complaint,

plaintiffs state that during Ramadan, which this year started on May 16, 2018 and ends on

June 15, 2018,2 they are being provided two cold, bagged meals to eat in their cells after

sunset but that these meals do not contain sufficient nutrition and at times have contained

pork products.3 More specifically, plaintiffs state that the bagged meals contain only

1Verified Complaint [etc.] at 4, ¶¶ 9-10, Docket No. 1. 2Id. at 7, n.1. 3Id. at 9, ¶¶ 35-37.
-1-
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 18 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 7

approximately 500 to 1100 calories per day, “which is substantially lower than what is required under [the Department of Corrections’] Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 ‘Food Service Standards,’ and the [federal] ‘Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020.’”4 Plaintiffs contend that per the federal guidelines, they should be receiving between 2600 and 2800 calories per day.5 Plaintiffs further contend that on the days that their bagged meals contain bologna sandwiches, which they believe contain pork product and which they cannot eat, they are receiving even fewer calories.6
Plaintiffs now move for a temporary restraining order7 compelling defendants to provide plaintiffs and all other fasting Muslim inmates with nutritionally adequate, and porkfree, meals during Ramadan. A hearing on the motion was held on May 24, 2018, at which counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for the Alaska Department of Corrections participated.
Discussion “[T]he legal standards applicable to TROs and preliminary injunctions are ‘substantially identical.’” Wash. v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir.
4Id. at 8, ¶ 29. 5Id. at ¶ 34. 6Id. at ¶¶ 36-37. 7Docket No. 2. Although the motion for a temporary restraining order was filed ex parte, the court declined to consider the motion on an ex parte basis. See Order re Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order at 1, Docket No. 7.
-2-
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 18 Filed 05/25/18 Page 2 of 7

2001)). “A party seeking a preliminary injunction must meet one of two variants of the same standard.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2017). “Under the original Winter standard, a party must show ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Id. (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “Under the ‘sliding scale’ variant of the Winter standard, ‘if a plaintiff can only show that there are serious questions going to the merits—a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits—then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,’ and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.’” Id. (quoting Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013)). A plaintiff need not establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of all his claims. A TRO or preliminary injunction may issue if a plaintiff can show he is likely to succeed on one claim and that he meets the other three requirements for injunctive relief. League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Connaughton, 752 F.3d 755, 766 n.3 (9th Cir. 2014).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 “‘requires that a prisoner challenging prison conditions exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit.’” Jackson v. Fong, 870 F.3d 928, 933 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 2014)). Plaintiffs state that they each filed an emergency grievance on May 21, 2018,
-3-
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 18 Filed 05/25/18 Page 3 of 7

and that on May 22, 2018, defendants determined that these grievances were not emergencies.8 Because the Emergency Grievance procedure provides that the decision as to whether an issue constitutes an emergency is not administratively appealable,9 plaintiffs have exhausted the Emergency Grievance procedure. The court concludes that, for purposes of the instant motion, plaintiffs have exhausted their available administrative remedies.
Turning then to the merits of plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO, plaintiffs only argue that they are likely to succeed on their claim in Count II that defendants have violated The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
Section 3 of RLUIPA provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless the government establishes that the burden furthers “a compelling governmental interest,” and does so by “the least restrictive means.” Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc–1(a)(1)-(2)). “[A] burden is substantial under RLUIPA when the state ‘denies [an important benefit] because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.’” Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 888 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 995). Courts “have
8Verified Complaint [etc.] at 15, ¶¶ 75-76, Docket No. 1. 9Id. at 15, ¶ 78.
-4-
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 18 Filed 05/25/18 Page 4 of 7

repeatedly held that forcing an inmate to choose between daily nutrition and religious practice is a substantial burden.” Thompson v. Holm, 809 F.3d 376, 380 (7th Cir. 2016); see also, McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 198 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[i]nmates . . . have the right to be provided with food sufficient to sustain them in good health that satisfies the dietary laws of their religion”). Plaintiffs contend that they are being provided with Ramadan meals that contain only 500 to 1100 calories per day, rather than the recommended federal guideline caloric intake of 2600 to 2800 calories per day. Even if plaintiffs received sufficient food on some days, there is evidence that they have not received sufficient food every day.10 At least one court has held that having insufficient food on only two days constituted a substantial burden. Thompson, 809 F.3d at 380. The court cannot perceive of any compelling governmental interest that would be furthered by providing plaintiffs with Ramadan meals that do not contain sufficient nutrition or that contain pork product. That it may cost slightly more to feed Muslim prisoners during Ramadan is not a compelling interest, given that RLUIPA “‘may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.’” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2781 (2014) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3). In sum, based on the facts as stated in plaintiffs’ verified complaint, plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on their RLUIPA claim in Count II.
10Declaration of Lena F. Masri [etc.] at 2, ¶¶ 2-5, Docket No. 9. -5-
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 18 Filed 05/25/18 Page 5 of 7

Because plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on one of their RLUIPA claims, they have met the other requirements for a TRO. “[T]he loss of religious freedom caused by a RLUIPA violation–standing alone–is sufficient to show irreparable harm. . . .” Harris v. Wall, 217 F. Supp. 3d 541, 560 (D.R.I. 2016). Plaintiffs are also being irreparably harmed because they may not be receiving adequate nutrition on a daily basis. As for the balance of equities and public interest, “[i]t is clear that it would not be equitable or in the public’s interest to allow the state . . . to violate the requirements of federal law[.]’” Ariz. Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1069 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1029 (9th Cir. 2013)).
“Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) generally provides that a” temporary restraining order “will not issue except upon the giving of security, it is not required where plaintiffs are indigent or where considerations of public policy make waiver of a bond appropriate.” Miller v. Carlson, 768 F. Supp. 1331, 1340 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Because plaintiffs are currently incarcerated, the court will waive the bond requirement.
Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order is granted. Effectively immediately, defendants are enjoined from
1) providing plaintiffs, and other fasting Muslim inmates, Ramadan meals that contain less than 2600 calories per day; defendants shall provide plaintiffs, and other fasting Muslim inmates, with daily Ramadan meals that contain at least 2600 calories;
-6-
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 18 Filed 05/25/18 Page 6 of 7

2) providing plaintiffs, and other fasting Muslim inmates, Ramadan meals that contain pork products; and
3) removing either or both of plaintiffs from the Ramadan Meal List for any reason. If either or both of plaintiffs are not currently on the Ramadan Meal List, defendants shall put them back on the list immediately.
This temporary restraining order shall remain in effect until the court rules on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Defendants’ response to plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction shall be filed by 4 p.m. Alaska Daylight Time, on May 31, 2018. Plaintiffs’ reply shall be filed no later than June 4, 2018. In further briefing plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, counsel are again directed to consider D. Ak. Local Rule 7.2(b) as regarding hearings and evidentiary hearings.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 25th day of May, 2018 at 9:12 a.m. /s/ H. Russel Holland United States District Judge
-7Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 18 Filed 05/25/18 Page 7 of 7

 
 CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND Lena F. Masri (D.C. # 100019) α
lmasri@cair.com Gadeir I. Abbas (VA # 81161) α β
gabbas@cair.com Carolyn M. Homer (CA # 286441) α
chomer@cair.com 453 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20003 Phone: (202) 742-6420 Fax: (202) 379-3317
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
α Admitted pro hac vice β Licensed in VA, not in D.C.
Practice limited to federal matters.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

ANAS A. DOWL, inmate # 345639 ERNEST A. JACOBSSON, inmate # 403566
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Corrections, in his official capacity, only;
CLARE SULLIVAN, Deputy Commissioner of Institutions, Alaska Department of Corrections, in her official capacity, only;
APRIL WILKERSON, Director, Administrative Services, Alaska Department of Corrections, in her official and individual capacities;
SIDNEY WOOD, Deputy Director, of Institutions, Alaska Department of Corrections, in his official and individual capacities;

Case No. 18-cv-0119-HRH
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 1 of 35

DAN AICHER, Facility Manager I, Facilities Management, Alaska Department of Corrections, in his official and individual capacities;
ZANE NIGHSWONGER, Superintendent, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in his and individual official capacities;
JASON MATA, Food Service Supervisor, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in his official and individual capacities;
GERALD SILLIMAN, Chaplain, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in his official and individual capacities;
GWEN HELMS, Correctional Officer III, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in her individual capacity, only; and,
DEBORAH LUPER, Correctional Officer IV, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage Correctional Complex, in her individual capacity, only;
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs ANAS A. DOWL and ERNEST A. JACOBSSON (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by
and through their undersigned counsel, CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND (“CAIR”), file this
Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Defendants DEAN WILLAMS,
CLARE SULLIVAN, APRIL WILKERSON, SIDNEY WOOD, DON AICHER, ZANE
NIGHSWONGER, JASON MATA, GERALD SILLIMAN, GWEN HELMS and DEBORAH
LUPER (collectively “Defendants”), for violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments 2
Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 2 of 35

to the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc et seq., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and state as follows:
Jurisdiction and Venue 1. This Court has original federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims of violations of the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 2. This Court has federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 over Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the deprivation under color of State law of rights secured by the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States. 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants reside and conduct business in the State of Alaska. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 5. Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are sought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by the general, legal and equitable powers of this Court. 6. Plaintiffs’ claims for attorneys’ fees and costs are predicated upon 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 2000cc-2(d), which authorize the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing parties, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA. 7. Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by the general, legal, and equitable powers of this Court. 8. Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1391 as to all Defendants because Defendants
3 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 3 of 35

operate within the geographical boundaries of the State of Alaska, and the substantial part of the acts described herein occurred within this District.
Plaintiffs 9. Plaintiff Anas A. Dowl is an individual, a male, a Muslim and an inmate at Anchorage Correctional Complex (Inmate No. 345639), and was at all relevant times considered a “person confined to an institution” as the term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. 10. Plaintiff Ernest A. Jacobsson is an individual, a male, a Muslim and an inmate at Anchorage Correctional Complex (Inmate No. 403566), and was at all relevant times considered a “person confined to an institution” as the term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.
Defendants Sued in Official Capacity, Only 11. Defendant Dean Williams is Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Corrections. Defendant Williams is the ultimate decision-maker with authority to approve all Alaska Department of Corrections policies, including its operations and dietary and religious accommodation policies for the Anchorage Correctional Complex, which is operated by the Alaska Department of Corrections. Defendant Williams is being sued in his official capacity, only. 12. Defendant Clare Sullivan is the Deputy Commissioner of Institutions of the Alaska Department of Corrections. Defendant Sullivan is a decision-maker with authority to approve all Alaska Department of Corrections policies, including its operations and dietary and religious accommodation policies for the Anchorage Correctional Complex, which is operated by the Alaska Department of Corrections. Defendant Sullivan is being sued in her official capacity, only.
Defendants Sued in Individual Capacity, Only 13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gwen Helms is a Correctional Officer III at Anchorage Correctional Complex who had supervisory authority and control over the grievance process available to the Plaintiffs during the time of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Anchorage Correctional
4 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 4 of 35

Complex. Defendant Helms personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Helms is being sued in her individual capacity, only.
14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Deborah Luper is a Correctional Officer III at Anchorage Correctional Complex who had supervisory authority and control over the Plaintiffs’ confinement at Anchorage Correctional Complex. Defendant Luper personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Luper is being sued in her individual capacity, only.
Defendants Sued in Both Official and Individual Capacities 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant April Wilkerson is the Director of Administrative Services of the Alaska Department of Corrections who is a decision-maker and possesses authority to approve all policies concerning Alaska Department of Corrections facilities, including Anchorage Correctional Complex, during the time of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Anchorage Correctional Complex. Defendant Wilkerson personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Wilkerson is being sued in both her official and individual capacities. 16. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sidney Wood is the Deputy Director Institutions of the Alaska Department of Corrections who is a decision-maker and possesses authority to approve all policies, including food menus, concerning Alaska Department of Corrections facilities, including Anchorage Correctional Complex, during the time of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Anchorage Correctional Complex. Defendant Wood personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Wood is being sued in both his official and individual capacities. 17. Upon information and belief, Defendant Dan Aicher is the Facility Manager I of the Alaska Department of Corrections who is a decision-maker and possesses authority to approve all policies concerning certain Alaska Department of Corrections facilities, including Anchorage Correctional Complex, during the time of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Anchorage Correctional Complex.
5 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 5 of 35

Defendant Aicher personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Aicher is being sued in both his official and individual capacities.
18. Upon information and belief, Defendant Zane Nighswonger is the Superintendent of Anchorage Correctional Complex of the Alaska Department of Corrections who is a decision-maker and possesses authority to approve all policies concerning the facility during the time of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Anchorage Correctional Complex. Defendant Nighswonger personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Nighswonger is being sued in both his official and individual capacities.
19. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jason Mata is the Food Service Supervisor at the Anchorage Correctional Complex of the Alaska Department of the Corrections. Defendant Mata is a decision-maker and possesses authority to approve Anchorage Correctional Complex policies concerning food service at the facility. Defendant Mata personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Mata is being sued in both his official and individual capacities.
20. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gerald Silliman is the Chaplain at the Anchorage Correctional Complex of the Alaska Department of the Corrections. Defendant Silliman is a decision-maker and possesses authority to approve Anchorage Correctional Complex policies concerning religious services and accommodations at the facility. Defendant Silliman personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiffs. Defendant Silliman is being sued in both his official and individual capacities.
Nature of this Action 21. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs seek costs and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
6 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 6 of 35

22. Anchorage Correctional Complex is an “institution” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §
2000cc-1(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997.
23. Defendants have not identified any compelling government interest for denying
Plaintiffs’ requests for a religious diet that satisfies nutritional and caloric requirements during the month of Ramadan.1
24. Nor have Defendants identified any compelling government interest for denying
Plaintiff Dowl’s requests, and Muslim inmates similarly situated, to participate in Friday religious services2 or conduct Muslim study groups.
25. Defendants have failed to enforce the applicable laws, policies, directives and regulations
in the least restrictive means possible.
26. Defendants have unlawfully imposed a separate religious services policy for Muslims
that substantially burdens the rights of Plaintiff Dowl, and Muslim inmates similarly situated, to the
free exercise of religion by means that are not the least restrictive means available to the correctional
facility to protect their asserted governmental interest.
27. Defendants have allowed inmates who are not Muslim to practice their faith in a manner
similar to the manner in which Plaintiff Dowl, and Muslim inmates similarly situated, desire to practice
their faith.
28. Defendants have unlawfully imposed a Muslim-specific and Ramadan-specific dietary
policy that substantially burdens the rights of Plaintiffs to be free from cruel and unusual punishment
1 Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic Calendar, which is based on a lunar calendar. Muslims worldwide observe Ramadan as a month of fasting. This annual observance is regarded as one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Among other things, while fasting from dawn until sunset, Muslims refrain from consuming food, drinking liquids, smoking and sexual relations. In 2018, Ramadan commenced on May 16, 2018 and will end on approximately June 15, 2018.
2 Muslims are required to conduct and participate in religious services every Friday, usually after noon, which consists of a religious sermon followed by a congregational prayer.
7 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 7 of 35

and to the free exercise of religion by means that are not the least restrictive means available to the correctional facilities to protect their asserted governmental interest.
29. Defendants have imposed regulations that unreasonably subject Plaintiffs to cruel and unusual punishment and that limit religious exercise, discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of religious denomination, and treat Plaintiffs on less than equal terms with other religious and nonreligious similarly-situated persons.
30. Plaintiff Dowl has a sincerely-held religious belief that he, and other Muslim inmates similarly situated, is required, in accordance with his Muslim faith, to conduct and participate in Friday religious services every Friday and to perform the five obligatory daily prayers as a congregation.
Denial of a Proper Nutritional and Caloric Intake During the Month of Ramadan (“Ramadan Policy”)
31. Under State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” Section VI.A., all menus and meals at correctional facilities, which include Anchorage Correctional Complex, are required to be “nutritious, well-balanced and hearthealthy.”
32. Further, under State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” Section VII.B.1., the food menu is required to “meet all recommended daily dietary allowances, with adjustments for age, sex, and activity.”
33. Pursuant to the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020” issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Plaintiffs’ estimated calorie needs in accordance with their age, sex and physical activity level ranges from 2,600 to 2,800 calories per day.3
3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 20152020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 8th Edition, December 2015. Available at: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/2015-2020_Dietary_Guidelines.pdf.
8 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 8 of 35

34. Additionally, under State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” Section VII.A.1., prisoners shall receive three meals a day, at least two of which are hot meals.
35. Under State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 805.03 “Special and/or Religious Meals,” Section E.1., each Superintendent is required to develop standard operating procedures (“SOPs”) in coordination with the DOC Statewide Chaplaincy Coordinator to allow for the temporary accommodation of multi-day religious fasting and dietary prohibitions, including fasting during Ramadan.
36. Upon information and belief, the Ramadan Policy and the Ramadan Bagged Meal Menu implemented at Anchorage Correctional Complex during the confinement of Plaintiffs was coordinated with Defendant Silliman as Chaplain for Anchorage Correctional Complex.
37. Upon information and belief, during Ramadan, Defendants do not provide Muslim inmates who participate in the Ramadan fast at Anchorage Correctional Complex, including Plaintiffs, a balanced nutritional and caloric diet on any given day during Ramadan. (This policy will hereinafter be referred to as the “Ramadan Policy.”)
38. Upon information and belief, Defendants provide other inmates at Anchorage Correctional Complex and throughout Alaska Department of Corrections facilities between 2,600 and 2,800 calories and a balanced nutritional diet on any given day.
39. Upon information and belief, pursuant to the Ramadan Policy, Defendants provide Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast, including Plaintiffs, with two bagged meals every evening that contain cold meals that range from approximately 500 to approximately 1,100 calories per day, depending on the day, which is substantially lower than what is required under Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” and the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020.”
9 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 9 of 35

40. Additionally, pursuant to the Ramadan Bagged Meal Menu, during several days, Defendants provide Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast, including Plaintiffs, with bologna sandwiches which upon information and belief contain pork product that, in accordance with their sincerely-held religious beliefs, Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates are not permitted to eat.
41. As a result, on the days that Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast receive bologna sandwiches, in accordance with their sincerely-held religious beliefs, they forego eating the sandwiches and as a result receive even less calories than the already substantially low amount they are given.
42. Upon information and belief, pursuant to the Ramadan Policy, Defendants do not permit Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast to receive hot meals, nor do they permit them to eat any food from the regular meal line that other inmates eat at.
43. Upon information and belief, pursuant to the Ramadan Policy, Defendants do not permit Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast to keep any food in their cells or eat any food other than the food that is contained in the two bagged meals provided to them by Defendants.
44. Accordingly, Plaintiffs other Muslim inmates at that facility, are completely dependent upon the Defendants to provide them with food.
45. The nutritional and caloric intake of the Ramadan Bagged Meal Menu given to Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast by Defendants is approximately less than half the number of calories that other inmates receive on any given day.
46. Plaintiffs observe the Ramadan fast, in accordance with their sincerely-held religious belief that fasting the month of Ramadan is a religious obligation which is compulsory on all healthy adult Muslims.
47. During the month of Ramadan, Muslims fast from sunrise to sundown by, among other things, abstaining from eating and drinking. Muslims believe Ramadan is a time for spiritual
10 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 10 of 35

reflection, self-improvement, and increased devotion and worship. 48. During the month of Ramadan, Muslims are permitted to eat and drink from sundown
to sunrise. 49. In order to ensure that Plaintiffs receive their meals before sunrise and after sundown,
as opposed to regular meal times, Plaintiffs, along with other Muslim inmates, submitted a written application to eat from the Ramadan menu.
50. Each of Plaintiffs’ requests to eat from the Religious Ramadan menu were approved. 51. However, by requesting to eat from the Ramadan menu, Plaintiffs, along with other Muslim inmates, are forced to sacrifice a proper nutritional and caloric diet in order to adhere to their sincerely-held religious beliefs. 52. Upon information and belief, other inmates on religious diets, menus or meal plans are not forced to consume such a significantly reduced number of calories or sacrifice a proper nutritional diet. 53. Defendants, via the Ramadan Policy, have subjected and continue to subject Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates with a religious basis for participating in the Ramadan fast to cruel and unusual punishment, distinctive and disparate treatment, and less than equal terms than inmates of other faith backgrounds by denying them a proper nutritional and caloric diet on a daily basis. 54. Defendants, via the Ramadan Policy, have subjected and continue to subject have imposed and continue to impose a substantial burden upon the rights of Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates to the free exercise of religion, and discriminate and continue to discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of religion or religious denomination in violation of, among other laws, RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(2). 55. Defendants are capable of providing Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates with a proper caloric and nutritional diet because it provides other inmates at its facilities with a proper caloric and
11 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 11 of 35

nutritional diet. 56. The substantial burden that the Defendants, via the Ramadan Policy, impose on
Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast is not necessary, or the least restrictive means, to achieve any compelling state interest.
The Impact of the Ramadan Policy on Plaintiffs Anas A. Dowl and Ernest Jacobsson 57. As discussed above, upon information and belief, the meals provided to Plaintiff Dowl
during the month of Ramadan in the years 2017 and 2018 and Plaintiff Jacobsson in the year 2018 did not and do not meet the minimum requirements that all inmates receive a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan.
58. In fact, the meals provided to Plaintiffs Dowl and Jacobsson are less than half the estimated number of calories that they need per day, based on their age, sex and activity level, in accordance with the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020,” which ranges from 2,600 to 2,800 calories per day.4
59. Moreover, the meals Plaintiffs Dowl and Jacobsson receive are “cold meals,” whereas other inmates at the same facility are receiving “hot meals.”
60. In addition to receiving meals that are below caloric and nutritional standards, oftentimes during the month of Ramadan, Plaintiffs Dowl and Jacobsson’s bagged meals contain pork product, which in accordance with their sincerely-held religious beliefs, they are not permitted to eat.
61. As such, on the days where their bagged meals contain pork product, they cannot and do not consume the pork product; and as a result, they eat even less than the already substantially low number of calories that they are given.
62. Plaintiff Dowl filed several Requests for Interview Form (“ROI”) (Form 808.11A) in

4 Id. at 78.
Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH

12 Document 35

Filed 07/06/18

Page 12 of 35

accordance with State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 808.03 “Prisoner Grievances,” Section VII.A., in an attempt to informally resolve his grievances regarding the inadequate nutrition and calories that he is receiving pursuant to the Ramadan Policy, the pork products that he is being provided by Defendants that he cannot consume in accordance with his sincerely-held religious beliefs, and the lack of hot meals during both Ramadan 2017 and Ramadan 2018.
63. Similarly, and for the same reasons, Plaintiff Jacobsson filed several ROIs regarding the inadequate nutrition and calories that he is receiving pursuant to the Ramadan Policy, the pork products that he is being provided by Defendants that he cannot consume in accordance with his sincerely-held religious beliefs, and the lack of hot meals during Ramadan 2018.
64. The grievances in the ROIs were either ignored, denied or left unanswered. 65. Also in accordance with State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 808.03 “Prisoner Grievances,” Section VII.B.2., in an attempt to informally resolve their grievances regarding the inadequate nutrition and calories that Defendants are providing them pursuant to the Ramadan Policy directly, the pork products that Defendants are providing them that they cannot consume in accordance with their sincerely-held religious beliefs, and the hot meals that the Defendants are prohibiting them to eat during Ramadan 2018 (Plaintiff Dowl filed similar ROIs regarding Ramadan 2017), they spoke with Defendant Silliman, Defendant Mata, Defendant Luper, Defendant Helms and other staff members aware of or directly involved in their grievances. 66. On May 19, 2018, Plaintiff Dowl had a prescheduled call with his undersigned counsel. 67. At the time of the prescheduled call, Plaintiff Dowl’s undersigned counsel spoke with Defendant Luper and requested to be connected to Plaintiff Dowl. 68. Minutes after Plaintiff Dowl’s phone call with his undersigned counsel, Defendant Luper conducted a “shake down” of Plaintiff Dowl and Plaintiff Jacobsson’s cell, and confiscated all
13 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 13 of 35

food items that they had saved in their cells to eat that day, including the two bagged meals provided to them the evening before and four hamburgers that they traded with other inmates in exchange for the bologna sandwiches that they could not eat in accordance with their sincerely-held beliefs.
69. In response to Plaintiffs’ inquiries as to why Defendant Luper confiscated their food that they had either received from the facility to eat or saved as they were not aware of any policy that has been posted that prohibits them from doing so, she responded that Defendant Williams issued a policy directive by email that prohibited Muslim inmates participating in the Ramadan fast from saving food in their cells.
70. In another attempt to informally resolve their grievances, Plaintiffs Dowl and Jacobsson explained to Defendant Luper that they were starving and needed food to eat, and that she took the only food they had to eat.
71. Defendant Luper responded by advising Plaintiffs that she was confiscating their food as a punishment for saving food in their cells.
72. Defendant Luper further informed Plaintiffs that she was going to remove both Plaintiff Dowl and Plaintiff Jacobsson from the Ramadan list as an added disciplinary measure for saving food in their cells.
73. That day, neither Plaintiff Dowl nor Plaintiff Jacobsson were given any bagged meals to eat; and accordingly, they ate nothing that day.
74. In accordance with their sincerely-held religious beliefs, they continued fasting the next day without having had anything to eat the day before.
75. In accordance with State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 808.03 “Prisoner Grievances,” Section VII.A.1.c., Plaintiff Dowl immediately submitted an ROI and afterwards two Prisoner Grievance Forms (Form 808.03C) regarding the lack of adequate meals and the pork products that he is being fed by Defendants, and Defendant Luper removing him
14 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 14 of 35

from the Ramadan list and confiscating the only food he had to eat. 76. Similarly and for the same reasons, Plaintiff Jacobsson also immediately submitted two
ROIs and afterwards a Prisoner Grievance Form regarding the lack of adequate meals and the pork products that he is being fed by Defendants, and Defendant Luper removing him from the Ramadan list and confiscating the only food he had to eat.
77. As of the date of this filing, Plaintiffs have not received any response to the grievances filed by Plaintiffs.
78. On May 21, 2018, both Plaintiffs Dowl and Jacobsson were told by a correctional officer that Defendant Luper advised that they cannot get food from the main meal line to supplement the inadequate bagged meals Defendants are providing to Plaintiffs.
79. On May 21, 2018, in accordance with State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 808.03 “Prisoner Grievances,” Section VI.B.1., both Plaintiffs Dowl and Jacobsson requested emergency grievances regarding the lack of adequate meals and the pork products being fed to them by Defendants. Defendants provided Plaintiffs with standard grievance forms instead, and Plaintiff Dowl wrote “emergency” across the top.
80. On May 22, 2018, both of Plaintiffs’ emergency grievances were denied processing as an emergency, and upon information and belief, are being processed in accordance with standard grievance procedure timelines.
81. Because Ramadan commenced on May 16, 2018 and will end on approximately June 16, 2018; it is unlikely that Plaintiffs’ grievances will be resolved before Ramadan concludes.
82. In accordance with State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 808.03 “Prisoner Grievances,” Section VII.D.1.C., prisoners “cannot appeal the Department’s determination as to whether the issue grieved is an emergency.”
83. In the meantime, Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm to their health, including 15
Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 15 of 35

malnutrition, starvation, weight loss, hunger pangs, headaches, dizziness, among other things.
84. Both Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies related to emergency
grievances.
Denial of Muslims from Participating in Friday Religious Services and Muslim Study Groups (“Muslim Religious Services Policy”)
85. Section 816.01 of the Department of Corrections Policies and Procedures provides
that “[i]t is the policy of the Department [of Corrections] to allow prisoners to participate in faith-
based programs and practices consistent with facility security and available resources” (“DOC
Religious Services Policy”). DOC Religious Services Policy further provides in pertinent part:
Prisoner participation in organized faith group activities where there is supervision of an Institutional Chaplain, Lay Leader or Clergy Volunteer shall not be limited except by documented threat to the secure or orderly operation of the institution. 86. Upon information and belief, Defendants have not permitted Muslims to perform
Friday religious services or conduct Muslim study groups, in violation of their own written policy.
(The DOC policy as applied to Muslim inmates and Plaintiff Dowl will hereinafter be referred to as
the “Muslim Religious Services Policy.”).
87. Upon information and belief, Defendants permit Christian inmates to perform
religious services every day.
88. Upon information and belief, Defendants permit Christian inmates to have bible study
on Fridays and Sundays. Christian religious groups that are permitted bible study religious services by
Defendants include but are not limited to “Anch Bible Study;” “Catholic Bible-Study;” Seventh-day
Adventists”; “Anch. City Church Bib St;” “Rock of Ages;” “Church of Nations;” and Lighthouse
Christian Fell.”
89. Upon information and belief, nonreligious groups are also permitted to congregate
and regularly meet in groups. 16
Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 16 of 35

90. In order to ensure they are meeting their religious obligations, Muslim inmates, including Plaintiff Dowl, have requested to perform Friday religious services and Muslim study groups in accordance with DOC Religious Services Policy.
91. However, Defendants have refused to allowed Plaintiff Dowl and other Muslim inmates to congregate for Friday religious services and conduct Muslim study groups.
92. On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff Dowl submitted an ROI requesting Friday religious services for him and other similarly situated Muslim inmates.
93. On July 5, 2017, Defendant Silliman replied, “we a looking for a approved leader who will come in when schedule will allow.”
94. Plaintiff Dowl subsequently submitted a grievance requesting Friday religious services but his grievance has not been returned or responded to.
95. On April 21, 2018, Plaintiff Dowl submitted another ROI requesting Friday congregational religious services. On April 24, 2018, Defendant Chaplain Silliman once again denied Plaintiff Dowl’s request and replied that “we are looking for an approved outside leader.”
96. On May 1, 2018, Plaintiff Dowl submitted two ROIs requesting Friday congregational religious services and received the same denial and response from Defendant Silliman on May 2, 2018.
97. On May 1, 2018, Plaintiff Dowl also submitted an ROI requesting a Muslim study group similar to the Christian bible study groups permitted by Defendants.
98. Once again, Defendant Silliman denied the request and instructed Plaintiff Dowl that “as soon as we can get a approved leader – it will take place.”
99. Plaintiff Dowl submitted grievances in response to Defendant Silliman’s denials to his ROIs. Plaintiff Dowl has not received a response to these grievances.
100. By failing to respond to Plaintiff Dowl’s grievances, Plaintiff Dowl’s grievances are considered denied; and, therefore he has exhausted his administrative remedies.
17 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 17 of 35

101. By denying Plaintiff Dowl’s requests, Defendants have unlawfully forced Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated Muslim inmates, to sacrifice their obligations in accordance with their sincerely-held beliefs.
102. The Muslim Religious Services Policy imposes a substantial burden upon the rights of Plaintiffs, and other Muslim inmates similarly situated, to the free exercise of religion, and discriminates, and continues to discriminate, against Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated inmates, on the basis of religion or religious denomination in violation of, among other laws, RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(2).
103. Defendants are capable of permitting Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated Muslim inmates, to perform Friday religious services and participate in Muslim study groups because they permit other inmates at its facilities to perform regular congregational prayers and participate in religious (namely Christian) study groups.
104. The Muslim Religious Services Policy subjects Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates similarly situated to disparate treatment by denying them the right to perform Friday religious services and Muslim study groups.
105. The substantial burden that the Muslim Religious Services Policy imposes on these inmates is not necessary, or the least restrictive means, to achieve any compelling state interest.
Count I Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
(Cruel and Unusual Punishment) 106. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 107. Under the Eighth Amendment, prisoners have the right to be from cruel and unusual punishment. 108. The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on Defendants to provide humane conditions
18 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 18 of 35

of confinement, including insuring, among other things, that prisoners receive adequate food. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).
109. Upon information and belief, the Ramadan Policy does not provide Plaintiffs or Muslim inmates who observe the holy fast during Ramadan, a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan.
110. Upon information and belief, the daily caloric intake under the Ramadan Policy ranges from approximately 500 calories to approximately 1,100 calories, on any given day during Ramadan.
111. The nutritional and caloric intake under the Ramadan Policy is approximately less than half the number of calories that other inmates receive on any given day during Ramadan.
112. Defendants, acting under color of state law, took Plaintiffs into physical police custody. In doing so, they established a special custodial relationship with Plaintiffs, giving rise to affirmative duties on their part to secure and ensure that Plaintiffs would be given adequate food and to secure for Plaintiffs the constitutionally-protected rights identified above.
113. Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated Plaintiffs’ above-stated constitutionally-protected rights by wrongfully denying them adequate food.
114. Specifically, Defendants, acting under color of law, owed Plaintiffs the duty to follow, implement, and comply with State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” Section VI.A., and Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” Section VII.B.1., which mandate that all menus and meals at correctional facilities provide Plaintiffs “nutritious, well-balanced and heart-healthy” meals that “meet all recommended daily dietary allowances, with adjustments for age, sex, and activity.”
115. Defendants, acting under color of law, violated State of Alaska Department of Corrections Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” Section VI.A., and Policy and Procedure Directive 805.01 “Food Service Standards,” Section VII.B.1. by deliberately
19 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 19 of 35

failing to provide Plaintiffs and other Muslim prisoners who observe the holy fast during Ramadan, a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan.
116. Defendants’ depravation of a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan is objectively sufficiently serious in that it fails to provide Plaintiffs adequate food (i.e. a humane condition of confinement).
117. Despite Plaintiffs’ repeated pleas and requests for a proper nutritional and caloric diet on any given day during Ramadan, Defendants failed to take adequate measures to ensure that Plaintiffs were receiving adequate food.
118. Defendants subjectively perceived, or should have subjectively perceived, Plaintiffs’ complaints, regarding the inadequacy of food.
119. Defendants’ acts and omissions were sufficiently harmful to evidence a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast.
120. Defendants’ acts and omissions were sufficiently harmful to offend evolving standards of decency in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
121. Defendant’ acts and omissions in depriving Plaintiffs of a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan were such that they denied Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.
122. Defendants’ actions while acting under color of state law, in denying Plaintiffs a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan, amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and excessive force in violation of their constitutionally-protected rights as stated above.
123. Defendants’ conduct as outlined above, was so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive so as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness and violates the
20 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 20 of 35

Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 124. Defendants, acting under the color of state law, authorized, tolerated, ratified,
permitted, or acquiesced in the creation of policies, practices, and customs, establishing a de facto policy of depriving Plaintiffs and other Muslim prisoners observing the holy fast during Ramadan with a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan.
125. Defendants’ policies, customs and practices were carried out willfully and with wanton disregard and with the spirit of gross negligence, were the direct and deliberate cause of constitutional deprivations including Plaintiffs’ rights to liberty and due process, and were the direct cause of Plaintiffs’ cruel and unusual punishment and excessive force.
126. As a direct and proximate result of these polices, practices and customs, Plaintiffs were deprived of their constitutionally-protected rights as described above, by Defendants.
127. As a direct and proximate result of these polices, practices and customs, Plaintiffs were and are forced to choose on a daily basis during the month of Ramadan whether to adhere to their sincerely-held religious beliefs or sacrifice their basic nutritional needs.
128. As a direct and proximate result of these polices, practices and customs, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer from starvation, weight loss, hunger pangs, severe headaches, dizziness, among other things.
129. As a result of their conduct described above, Defendants are also liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
130. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the Ramadan Policy is a violation of Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
131. Ramadan commenced on May 16, 2018 and ended on June 14, 2018. 132. Upon information and belief, it is unlikely that this case will be resolved before
21 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 21 of 35

Ramadan concludes. 133. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction granting
the relief described in the Prayer for Relief below. 134. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining
Defendants from denying Plaintiffs a proper caloric and nutritional diet on any given day. 135. Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiffs harm and Plaintiffs are entitled to
injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees in this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory relief and injunctive relief barring Defendants from engaging in further unconstitutional practices in prohibiting Plaintiffs and other Muslim prisoners from receiving a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan. Further, Plaintiffs request compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants sued in their individual capacity, only, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Count II Violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(Religious Exercise) 136. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 137. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy, whereby Defendants do not provide Plaintiffs with a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day in Ramadan and Defendants’ Muslim Religious Services Policy, whereby Defendants do not permit Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Muslims to perform Friday religious services or Muslim study groups, chill Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise of religion. 138. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to the free
22 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 22 of 35

exercise of religion as secured by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a) et seq., by imposing and implementing an unconstitutional and discriminatory Ramadan and Muslim Religious Services policies that substantially burden Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.
139. Defendants’ Ramadan and Muslim Religious Services policies, in addition to the above-mentioned unlawful actions, caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs harm because it forces them to choose, on a daily basis between violating their core religious beliefs (the first requires them to fast during the month of Ramadan and the second, requires them to abstain from foods that violate their religious tenets) and waiving their right to receiving a menu that meets minimum nutritional standards, and because it forces them to sacrifice their core sincerely-held religious beliefs.
140. Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a Ramadan Policy requiring Muslim inmates to receive meals that do not provide a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan.
141. Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a Muslim Religious Services Policy that prohibits Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Muslims from performing Friday religious services and conducting Muslim study groups.
142. Defendants have not established a dietary policy requiring inmates of other faiths participating in religious diets to receive meals that do not meet minimum nutritional standards.
143. By imposing and implementing the above-described Ramadan Policy on Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of Islam within Anchorage Correctional Complex.
144. Defendants have not established a religious services policy that prohibits inmates of other faiths from participating in or conducting religious congregational prayers and services.
145. The restrictions imposed on Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates have substantially burdened their religious exercise.
23 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 23 of 35

146. By imposing and implementing the above-described Muslim Religious Services and Ramadan policies, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of Islam.
147. Imposition of such a burden is not in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest, compelling or otherwise.
148. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the Ramadan and Muslim Religious Services policies are a substantial burden to the free exercise of Plaintiffs’ religion, is not justified by a compelling government interest, and is in violation of RLUIPA.
149. Ramadan commenced on May 16, 2018 and ended on June 14, 2018. 150. Upon information and belief, it is unlikely that this case will be resolved before Ramadan concludes. 151. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction granting the relief described in the Prayer for Relief below. 152. Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiffs harm and Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees in this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory relief and injunctive relief in the form requested in the Prayer for Relief below. Further, Plaintiffs request compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants sued in their individual capacity, only, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Count III Violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(Discrimination on the Basis of Religion) 153. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 154. Defendants’ Ramadan and Muslim Religious Services policies treat Plaintiffs and other
24 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 24 of 35

Muslim inmates on less than equal terms with other religious and non-religious prisoners in Anchorage Correctional Complex and throughout Alaska Department of Corrections facilities.
155. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy, in addition to the above-mentioned unlawful actions, caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast harm because it forces them to choose, on a daily basis between violating their core religious beliefs (the first requires them to fast during the month of Ramadan and the second requires them to abstain from foods that violate their religious tenets) and waiving their right to receiving a menu that meets minimum nutritional standards.
156. Defendants’ Muslim Religious Services Policy, in addition to the above-mentioned unlawful actions caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs harm because it forces them to sacrifice their core sincerely-held religious beliefs.
157. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast of their right to be free from religious discrimination as secured by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a) et seq., by imposing and implementing a Ramadan Policy in a manner that discriminates on the basis of religion.
158. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates of their right to be free from religious discrimination as secured by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a) et seq., by imposing and implementing a Muslim Religious Services Policy that discriminates against them on the basis of religion.
159. Defendants have imposed onerous restrictions on Plaintiffs that have not been imposed on prisoners of other faith backgrounds in Anchorage Correctional Complex and throughout Alaska Department of Corrections facilities.
160. Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a Ramadan Policy requiring 25
Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 25 of 35

Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast to receive meals that do not meet minimum nutritional standards during the month of Ramadan.
161. Defendants have not established a dietary policy requiring inmates of other faith backgrounds participating in religious diets to receive meals that do not meet minimum nutritional standards.
162. Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a Muslim Religious Services Policy prohibiting these Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates similarly situated from performing Friday religious services and daily congregational prayers.
163. Defendants have not established a policy prohibiting inmates of other faiths from performing Friday religious services and daily congregational prayers.
164. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants’ Ramadan and Muslim Religious Services policies constitute discrimination on the basis of Plaintiffs’ religion, are not justified by a compelling government interest, and are in violation of RLUIPA.
165. Ramadan commenced on May 16, 2018 and ended on June 14, 2018. 166. Upon information and belief, it is unlikely that this case will be resolved before Ramadan concludes. 167. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction granting the relief described in the Prayer for Relief below. 168. Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiffs harm and Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees in this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory relief and injunctive relief in the form requested in the Prayer for Relief below. Further, Plaintiffs request compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants sued in their individual capacity, only, plus all such other
26 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 26 of 35

relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action. Count IV
Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Free Exercise of Religion)
169. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
170. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy, in addition to the above-mentioned unlawful actions caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs harm because it forces them to choose, on a daily basis between violating their core religious beliefs (the first requires them to fast during the month of Ramadan and the second, requires them to abstain from foods that violate their religious tenets) and waiving their right to receiving a menu that meets minimum nutritional standards.
171. Defendants’ Muslim Religious Services Policy, in addition to the above-mentioned unlawful actions, caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Muslim inmates harm because it forces them sacrifice their core sincerely-held religious beliefs.
172. Defendants’ Ramadan and Muslim Religious Services policies and the abovementioned unlawful actions chill Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise of religion.
173. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to free exercise of religion as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by imposing and implementing Ramadan and Muslim Religious Services policies that substantially burden Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.
174. Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a Ramadan Policy requiring Muslim inmates to receive meals that do not meet minimum nutritional standards during the month of Ramadan.
175. Defendants have not established a dietary policy requiring inmates of other faiths 27
Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 27 of 35

participating in religious diets to receive meals that do not meet minimum nutritional standards. 176. By imposing and implementing the above-described Ramadan Policy on Plaintiffs and
other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on their exercise of Islam.
177. Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a Muslim Religious Services Policy that prohibits Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Muslims from performing Friday religious services and Muslim study groups
178. Defendants have not established a religious services policy that prohibits inmates of other faiths from participating in or conducting religious congregational prayers and services.
179. Imposition of such burdens are not in furtherance of a compelling government interest and are not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest, compelling or otherwise.
180. The restrictions imposed on Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates have substantially burdened their religious exercise.
181. By imposing and implementing the above-described Muslim Religious Services Policy, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of Islam.
182. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the Ramadan and Muslim Religious Services policies are a substantial burden to the free exercise of Plaintiffs’ religion, are not justified by a compelling government interest, and are in violation of Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to their free exercise of religion.
183. Ramadan commenced on May 16, 2018 and ended on June 14, 2018. 184. Upon information and belief, it is unlikely that this case will be resolved before Ramadan concludes. 185. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction granting
28 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 28 of 35

the relief described in the Prayer for Relief below. 186. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining
Defendants from denying Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast a proper caloric and nutritional diet.
187. Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiffs harm and Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees in this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory relief and injunctive relief in the form requested in the Prayer for Relief below. Further, Plaintiffs request compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants sued in their individual capacity, only, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Count V Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
(Equal Protection) 188. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 189. Defendants’ Ramadan and Muslim Religious Services policies treat these inmates on less than equal terms with other religious and non-religious prisoners in Anchorage Correctional Complex and throughout Alaska Department of Corrections facilities, thereby creating a denominational preference against Islam as a religion. 190. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy, in addition to the above-mentioned unlawful actions caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates observing the Ramadan fast harm because it forces them to choose, on a daily basis between violating their core religious beliefs (the first requires them to fast during the month of Ramadan and the second requires them to abstain from foods that violate their religious tenets) and waiving their right to receiving a menu that meets
29 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 29 of 35

minimum nutritional standards. 191. Defendants’ Muslim Religious Services Policy, in addition to the above-mentioned
unlawful actions caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs harm because it forces them to sacrifice their core sincerely-held religious beliefs.
192. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates of their right to equal protection of the laws as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by imposing and implementing a Ramadan and Muslim Religious Services policies in a manner that discriminates against them on the basis of religion.
193. Defendants have imposed onerous restrictions on Plaintiffs that have not been imposed on prisoners of other faiths at Anchorage Correctional Complex and throughout Alaska Department of Corrections facilities.
194. Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a Ramadan Policy requiring Muslim inmates to receive meals that do not meet minimum nutritional standards during the month of Ramadan.
195. Defendants have not established a dietary policy requiring inmates of other faiths participating in religious diets to receive meals that do not meet minimum nutritional standards.
196. The restrictions imposed on Plaintiffs are unconstitutional and have substantially burdened their religious exercise.
197. By imposing and implementing the above-described Ramadan Policy and denying a halal food diet to Muslim inmates, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of Islam.
198. Imposition of such a burden is not in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest, compelling or otherwise.
199. Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a Muslim Religious Services Policy 30
Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 30 of 35

prohibiting these Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates similarly situated from performing Friday religious services and conducting Muslim study groups.
200. Defendants have not established a policy prohibiting inmates of other faiths from performing Friday religious services and conducting religious study groups.
201. The restrictions imposed on Plaintiffs are unconstitutional and have substantially burdened their religious exercise.
202. By imposing and implementing the above-described Muslim Religious Services Policy, Defendants have imposed a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of Islam within the correctional facilities.
203. Imposition of such a burden is not in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest, compelling or otherwise. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the Ramadan and Muslim Religious Services policies are a substantial burden to the free exercise of Plaintiffs’ religion, are not justified by a compelling government interest, and are in violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws.
204. Ramadan commenced on May 16, 2018 and ended on June 14, 2018. 205. Upon information and belief, it is unlikely that this case will be resolved before Ramadan concludes. 206. Plaintiffs are entitled to issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction granting the relief described in the Prayer for Relief below. 207. Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiffs harm and Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees in this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory relief and injunctive
31 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 31 of 35

relief in the form requested in the Prayer for Relief below. Further, Plaintiffs request compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants sued in their individual capacity, only, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants on each and every count in this complaint, and enter an Order awarding the following relief: 1. A declaratory judgment that:
a. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
b. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
c. Defendants’ denial of a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan constitutes a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and creates a chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion;
d. Defendants’ denial of Plaintiffs’ request for a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan is a substantial burden to the free exercise of Plaintiffs’ religion and is not justified by a compelling government interest;
e. Defendants’ Ramadan Policy treats these prisoners on less than equal terms with other religious and non-religious prisoners in Anchorage Correctional Complex 32
Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 32 of 35

and throughout Alaska Department of Corrections facilities; f. Defendants’ actions in preventing these Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
Muslim inmates from performing Friday religious services and conducting Muslim study groups, constitutes a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and creates a chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion; g. Defendants’ denial of Plaintiffs’ requests to perform Friday religious services and Muslim study groups is a substantial burden to the free exercise of Plaintiffs’ religion and is not justified by a compelling government interest; h. The Muslim Religious Services Policy treats these Plaintiffs and similarly situated Muslim inmates on less than equal terms with other religious and non-religious inmates; and, i. Defendants’ unique application of the Muslim Religious Services Policy to Plaintiffs, and other Muslim inmates similarly situated, treats these Plaintiffs and Muslim inmates similarly situated on less than equal terms than inmates of other faiths, thereby creating a denominational preference against Islam as a religion. 2. An injunction that: a. Enjoins Defendants from denying Plaintiffs a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan, because Defendants’ denial of the proper caloric and nutritional diet forces Plaintiffs, who have a religious basis for fasting during the month of Ramadan, to choose, on a daily basis, between violating their core religious beliefs (ie: fasting during the month of Ramadan and abstaining from foods that violate their beliefs) and receiving a menu that meets minimum nutritional standards; b. Requires Defendants to remedy the constitutional and statutory violations
33 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 33 of 35

identified above, including, but not limited to, eliminating any existing policy whereby Plaintiffs and other Muslim prisoners, and others similarly-situated, are denied a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day during Ramadan; c. Enjoins Defendants from denying Plaintiffs, and other Muslim inmates similarly situated, from performing Friday religious services and conducting Muslim study groups, because Defendants’ denial of Muslims from performing Friday religious services and Muslim study groups caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs harm as it forces them to sacrifice their core sincerely-held religious beliefs; and, d. Requires Defendants to remedy the constitutional and statutory violations identified above, including, but not limited to, eliminating any existing policy whereby Plaintiffs, and other Muslim inmates similarly-situated, are denied from performing Friday religious services and conducting Muslim study groups. 3. An award of compensatory and punitive damages against the individual capacity defendants, only, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 4. An award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of all litigation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and, 5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby demand a jury trial of the above-referenced causes of action so triable.
34 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 34 of 35

Dated: July 6, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
By: /s/ Lena F. Masri Lena F. Masri (D.C. # 100019) α
lmasri@cair.com Gadeir I. Abbas (VA # 81161) α β
gabbas@cair.com Carolyn M. Homer (CA # 286441) α
chomer@cair.com 453 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20003 Phone: (202) 742-6420 Fax: (202) 379-3317
α Admitted pro hac vice β Licensed in VA, not in D.C.
Practice limited to federal matters.

35 Dowl, et al., v. Williams, et al. Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 35 Filed 07/06/18 Page 35 of 35

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

ANAS DOWL, inmate # 345639

Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-HRH

ERNEST JACOBSSON, inmate # 403566

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Corrections, in his
official capacity, only; et al.,

Defendants.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, on May 22, 2018, Plaintiffs Anas Dowl (then an inmate at Anchorage Correctional Complex) and Ernest Jacobsson (an inmate at Anchorage Correctional Complex) (together “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys CAIR Legal Defense Fund (“CAIR”), filed this lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Dean Williams, in his official capacity; Clare Sullivan, in her official capacity; April Wilkerson, in her official and individual capacities; Sidney Wood, in his official and individual capacities; Dan Aicher, in his official and individual capacities; Zane Nighswonger, in his official and individual capacities; Jason Mata, in his official and individual capacities; Gerald Silliman, in his official and individual capacities; Gwen Helms, in her individual capacity; and, Deborah Luper, in her individual capacity; based upon the denial of a religious diet that satisfies

1
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 62-1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 1 of 7

nutritional and caloric requirements during the month of Ramadan. See Dkt. 1. WHEREAS, on July 6, 2018, Plaintiffs amended this lawsuit to include claims based
upon the denial of participation in Friday religious services and Islamic study groups. See Dkt. 35.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs challenge the Alaska Department of Corrections (“DOC”) for implementing a religious dietary policy during the month of Ramadan that unreasonably subjects Plaintiffs to cruel and unusual punishment, limits their religious exercise, discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of religious denomination, and treats Plaintiffs on less than equal terms with other religious and non-religious similarly-situated persons.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs also challenge DOC for not permitting Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates to perform religious services and to participate in organized faith group activities in violation of their rights to free exercise of religion, to be free from discrimination on the basis of their religious denomination, and to be treated on equal terms with other religious and non-religious similarly-situated persons.
WHEREAS, CAIR indicated a desire to help develop revised and improved statewide policies.
WHEREAS, Defendants have indicated a desire to working with CAIR to adopt revised and improved statewide policies.
THEREFORE, as a result of the foregoing, the parties agree and the Court hereby enters the following Settlement Agreement.
2
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 62-1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 2 of 7

TERMS 1. Injunctive Relief In consideration for resolving Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, the DOC religious services and religious diets and meals policies will be revised to implement the following provisions: (1) Although DOC policy provides for a pre-Ramadan period for inmates to ask for inclusion on the “Ramadan List” to receive the Ramadan diet, inmates may request to be included on the Ramadan List at any time prior to and during Ramadan. DOC will fulfill said requests within one business day. (2) Muslim inmates fasting during the month of Ramadan will receive meals that consist of a minimum of 3,000 average daily calories and that meet nutritional standards provided by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Dietary Guidelines for Americans; (3) Muslim inmates fasting during the month of Ramadan will receive a minimum of two hot meals between sunset and dawn; (4) DOC officials are prohibited from removing Muslim inmates from the Ramadan List for not participating in other religious accommodations or services, for disciplinary reasons, or for any other reason; (5) A daily log shall be kept that tracks the meals that are provided to inmates fasting during the month of Ramadan; (6) Muslim inmates will be provided with pork-free meals, and DOC will provide ingredients labels to confirm the meals are pork-free; (7) Muslim inmates are permitted to participate in weekly Friday religious services as a
3
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 62-1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 3 of 7

congregation; (8) Muslim inmates are permitted to congregate for each of the five daily prayers in
their mods; (9) Muslim inmates are permitted to facilitate Friday religious services and five daily
prayers; (10) Muslim inmates are permitted to participate in Islamic study groups; and, (11) CAIR will provide a videoconference religious sensitivity training to Department
of Corrections superintendents, chaplains, and grievance officers statewide. This training will be provided free of charge by CAIR, and shall not exceed four hours.
*** WHEREAS, Defendants have already taken significant steps to adopt and implement the above policies: (1) Defendants have revised Policy 805.03 Special and/or Religious Diets and Meals on November 5, 2018 to adopt provisions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 (“Revised Special and/or Religious Diets Policy”). The Revised Special and/or Religious Diets Policy is hereby incorporated by reference. (2) Defendants have taken steps to implement provisions 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and will take the steps necessary to formally adopt them.
*** 2. Monetary Relief Defendants agree to pay Plaintiffs the sum of $102,500 in the form of damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.
4
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 62-1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 4 of 7

3. Release and Settlement In exchange for the consideration specified in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs hereby fully and completely release and discharge Defendants in their individual and official capacities from any and all claims asserted in this lawsuit, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. 4. Enforcement of Terms Plaintiffs, along with all individuals who are impacted by terms of this agreement, may enforce this agreement as third-party beneficiaries and/or intended beneficiaries. In the event that a party to this agreement believes that the terms of the agreement have not been fulfilled, the parties will make a good faith effort to resolve the matter before filing any motion with the court to enforce the agreement. 5. Retention of Jurisdiction The Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement should be appended to any order of dismissal. The Parties further agree that the Court should retain jurisdiction over this Settlement Agreement. 6. Modification Should Defendants at any time seek to change to amend a policy that it agreed to adopt as part of this settlement agreement, they will motion the court to amend the policy. Plaintiffs shall have 21 days to submit any objection to the amendment, and DOC shall have 21 days to respond to the objection, after which time the court shall determine whether a hearing or other action is necessary. Whether or not Plaintiffs file a response, the Court will grant the motion only if it finds that there is a significant change of circumstances warranting a modification.
5
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 62-1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 5 of 7

Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 62-1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 6 of 7

All parties having agreed, and the Court having reviewed it and found it equitable, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Settlement Agreement is ENTERED this ______ day of _______________, 2019.
_________________________________ HONORABLE H. RUSSEL HOLLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
Case 3:18-cv-00119-HRH Document 62-1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 7 of 7