Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02413/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02413-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2413

___________

Anthony Pratt, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

Corrections Corporation of America; * of Minnesota.

Darren Swenson; Wangeler, Assistant *

Warden; Jeff Berger; D. Engelbrecht; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Barry Brace; Marcia Wellnitz; Patrick *

O’Malley, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 29, 2004

Filed: February 14, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Inmate Anthony Pratt, who practices the Islam religion, appeals from the

district court’s dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he sought

compensatory damages for his “severe and emotional psychological injuries,” as well

as declaratory and injunctive relief. He alleged that Corrections Corporation of

America (CCA) on behalf of Prairie Correctional Facility (PCF), and various CCAPCF officials, violated his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Appellate Case: 04-2413 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2005 Entry ID: 1867210 
-2-

(RFRA) and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, by denying his repeated

requests for special “Halal” meals. The district court dismissed the complaint,

concluding that (1) Mr. Pratt’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot,

because he was no longer incarcerated at PCF and had not alleged facts showing that

CCA dictated his dietary options while he was at PCF; and (2) Mr. Pratt could not

recover damages based on his alleged mental and emotional injuries, because he

failed to allege a physical injury as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The court also

denied Mr. Pratt leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. We grant IFP

status, and reverse.

According to the complaint, Mr. Pratt’s Islam religion requires that he adhere

to a Halal diet: permitted foods include non-animal products and special Halal meat,

i.e., red meat, chicken, or turkey from animals that were blessed in the name of Allah

before their slaughter. Sometime in 2002, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections

(WDOC) transferred Mr. Pratt to PCF, a privately-owned CCA facility in Minnesota.

To accommodate Mr. Pratt’s sincerely held beliefs of a Halal dietary standard, PCF

agreed to offer him special vegetarian meals; these meals did not contain Halal meat.

Mr. Pratt complained to PCF that the vegetarian meals did not provide him with the

requisite calories, protein, calcium, vitamins, or iron for a balanced diet. He

complained further that he had lost 30 pounds on the diet, which he estimated

included only 840 of the 2,000 required daily calories. PCF responded that it would

contact WDOC about a Halal diet. Several months later, PCF advised Mr. Pratt that

WDOC had declined to authorize a special Halal diet, and WDOC internal procedures

did not include a Halal food diet for Muslim inmates; and that Mr. Pratt would

receive only the vegetarian meals. At some point after Mr. Pratt filed this lawsuit,

CCA moved him from PCF to its North Fork Correctional Facility (NFCF) in

Oklahoma. Mr. Pratt immediately alerted the court that NFCF officials were utilizing

the same “blanket practice” to deny him Halal meals, and that all CCA facilities

should be included as defendants in this suit. He attached a copy of his most recent

Appellate Case: 04-2413 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2005 Entry ID: 1867210 
-3-

request to NFCF for Halal meals, as well as a copy of NFCF’s response, which stated

that “no Halal or Kosher diet” was available.

Initially, we note the district court was required to consider the allegations not

only in Mr. Pratt’s pro se complaint, but also in his motion to amend, his response to

defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the attachments to those pleadings. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 10(c) (“A copy of any written instrument which is an exhibit to a pleading is

a part thereof for all purposes.”); Anthony v. Runyon, 76 F.3d 210, 214 (8th Cir.

1996) (district court erred in not considering new allegations in response to motion

to dismiss simply because they did not come in form of amended complaint).

Mr. Pratt’s complaint should not have been dismissed for failure to state a claim

unless it appeared beyond doubt that he could prove no set of facts to support a claim

which would entitle him to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).

We agree with the district court that Mr. Pratt’s claims for injunctive and

declaratory relief against the individual PCF officials were rendered moot by his

transfer to NFCF. However, his similar claims against CCA are not moot, because

Mr. Pratt remains in the custody and control of CCA as an NFCF inmate, and he

alleged that PCF officials were not acting on their own but were carrying out CCA

policy when they denied him Halal meals. Further, Mr. Pratt alleged in his motion

to amend that NFCF officials were operating under the same blanket practice; and in

response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, he attached correspondence from NFCF

advising him that a Halal diet was unavailable. See Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d

850, 856-57 (8th Cir. 1999) (inmate suing Missouri Department of Corrections

(MDOC) and various MDOC officials for denying him sign-language interpreter at

disciplinary hearings was entitled to injunction against MDOC despite his transfer to

new MDOC facility during course of lawsuit; inmate remained under control of

MDOC, which controlled both MDOC facilities and funding necessary to provide

sign language interpreter); Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 975-76

(8th Cir. 1993) (corporation acting under color of state law may be liable only if

Appellate Case: 04-2413 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/14/2005 Entry ID: 1867210 
-4-

policy, custom, or action by those who represent official policy inflicts injury

actionable under § 1983); Iron Cloud v. Sullivan, 984 F.2d 241, 243 (8th Cir. 1993)

(mootness test).

We also disagree with the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Pratt did not

satisfy the physical-injury requirement of section 1997e(e). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)

(no federal civil action may be brought by prisoner for mental or emotional injury

without prior showing of physical injury); Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720, 723 (8th

Cir. 2004) (§ 1997e(e) applies to all prisoner federal civil actions, including those

brought under First Amendment). He alleged in a grievance attached to his

complaint, as well as in response to the motion to dismiss, that his vegetarian meals

lacked adequate nutritional value and caused him to lose 30 pounds. See Mitchell v.

Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 534-36 (3d Cir. 2003) (§ 1997e(e) requires physical injury that

is less than significant but more than de minimis; reversing where inmate alleged

deprivation of food, drink, and sleep, because physical injuries could result from such

deprivation).

Finally, we note the magistrate judge commented below that Mr. Pratt’s

reliance on RFRA was misplaced, because RFRA was largely invalidated by the

Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 532-36 (1997). If on

remand the district court concludes that Mr. Pratt indeed cannot rely on RFRA in

these circumstances, we instruct the court to consider the RFRA claim under RFRA’s

successor statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

(RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. See Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979,

987-88 (8th Cir.) (Congress passed RLUIPA to re-institute some of protections of

RFRA), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 501 (2004); cf. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,

1115-16 (9th Cir.) (remanding to allow inmate to plead RLUIPA claim, where court

had dismissed RFRA claim based on Flores, and while appeal was pending, Congress

passed RLUIPA), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 810 (2003).

Appellate Case: 04-2413 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/14/2005 Entry ID: 1867210 
-5-

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2413 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/14/2005 Entry ID: 1867210