Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-15543/USCOURTS-ca11-15-15543-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15543

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cv-00215-RH-CAS

JOHN E. WATKINS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 versus

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(October 28, 2016)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-15543 Date Filed: 10/28/2016 Page: 1 of 3
2

The Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections appeals the 

summary judgment and injunction in favor of John Watkins’s complaint that the 

Department violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 

Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. The Secretary argues that the Department is 

not required to provide Watkins a kosher diet because the state has a compelling 

interest in cost containment and security and that the injunction is not narrowly 

drawn as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We affirm.

Two standards of review govern this appeal. We review a summary 

judgment de novo. Frazier-White v. Gee, 818 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2016). 

And we review the entry of a permanent injunction for an abuse of discretion. 

Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1303 (11th Cir. 2010).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of 

Watkins and against the Secretary. Our recent decision in United States v. Sec’y, 

Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 828 F.3d 1341, 1345–46 (11th Cir. 2016), forecloses the 

Secretary’s argument that the Department has no obligation to provide a Watkins a 

kosher diet. To the extent that the Secretary argues that Watkins’s complaint is 

distinct because he may later ask for an individual diet, that argument is not ripe. 

Watkins offers no complaint about the diet that the Department is currently 

providing him.

USCA11 Case: 15-15543 Date Filed: 10/28/2016 Page: 2 of 3
3

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in entering an injunction 

against the Secretary. The injunction is narrowly drawn. It limits relief to Watkins 

alone. It does not enter system-wide relief requiring the Department to provide 

religiously acceptable diets to any other inmate. An injunction defining in detail 

the requirements for a kosher meal would be broader than necessary and would 

impose greater restrictions on the Department. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-15543 Date Filed: 10/28/2016 Page: 3 of 3