Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-14-04107/USCOURTS-ca6-14-04107-0/pdf.json

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

---

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0448n.06

Case No. 14-4107

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ANGELO ROBINSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WANZA JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

OPINION

Before: McKEAGUE and DONALD, Circuit Judges; and MATTICE, District Judge.*

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Angelo Robinson 

(“Robinson”) appeals from a district court order granting judgment on the pleadings to 

Defendant-Appellee Wanza Jackson (“Jackson”) regarding his claims against the Ohio 

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”). Robinson, a prisoner incarcerated at 

the London Correctional Institution (“LCI”), alleged that Jackson and other prison officials1

 

*The Honorable Harry S. Mattice, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by 

designation.

1Robinson initially filed his complaint against Jackson, the Religious Services Administrator for the ODRC, as well 

as George Crutchfield and Matthew Stricklin, in their respective roles as Warden and Chaplain of Warren 

Correctional Institution (“WCI”). At the time he filed his complaint, Robinson was incarcerated at WCI; however, 

 Case: 14-4107 Document: 19-1 Filed: 06/15/2015 Page: 1
Case No. 14-4107

Robinson v. Jackson

- 2 -

violated his statutory and constitutional rights when they refused to accommodate his requests 

for Halal meals. The district court found that Robinson’s constitutional and statutory rights had 

not been violated and granted Jackson’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. We AFFIRM.

I.

Robinson is a “devout Muslim who sincerely adheres to the Islamic faith.” Like others of 

his faith, Robinson believes he must follow the tenets of the Qur’an, including those regarding 

the food he eats, which is termed “Halal” in the religious text. Not all Muslims restrict their diets 

to Halal foods, but some believe that doing so is required by their religion. Under Halal rules as 

discussed in the complaint, Robinson may “only eat meat that has been slaughtered in 

accordance with Islamic law (i.e., by slitting the animal’s neck and allowing the blood to drain), 

and [must] refrain from eating pork, food containing alcohol, and any food contaminated with 

pork or alcohol.”

During his incarceration, Robinson asked several times to be provided with Halal meals. 

The request was “not approved” as “[t]he department provides a vegetarian meal” and Robinson

was in fact being provided vegetarian meals. As the vegetarian meals contain no meat or 

alcohol, the prison argued it was already serving Robinson meals that met Halal rules. 

After exhausting his administrative appeals, Robinson filed the present complaint in 

federal court. Robinson avers that the ODRC refuses to provide him Halal meals and that this 

refusal violates his statutory and constitutional rights because it 1) substantially burdens his 

sincerely-held religious beliefs in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 

Persons Act (“RLUIPA”); 2) prevents free exercise of his religion in violation of the First 

Amendment; and 3) constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

 

he has since been transferred to LCI. As a result of the transfer, Crutchfield and Stricklin were dismissed as 

defendants.

 Case: 14-4107 Document: 19-1 Filed: 06/15/2015 Page: 2
Case No. 14-4107

Robinson v. Jackson

- 3 -

Amendment given that the ODRC does provide Kosher meals to Jewish inmates. Jackson, 

named in her official capacity as Religious Services Administrator for the ODRC, filed a motion 

for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court granted on all three claims. Robinson 

appeals.

II.

A.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings. Kia Motors 

Am., Inc. v. Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc., 706 F.3d 733, 737 (6th Cir. 2013). In so 

doing, we analyze the district court’s decision using the same “review employed for a motion to 

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Tucker v. Middleburg-Legacy Place, 539 F.3d 545, 549-50 (6th 

Cir. 2008). Accordingly, a motion for judgment on the pleadings is appropriately granted “when 

no material issue of fact exists and the party making the motion is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Id. at 549 (quoting JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 582

(6th Cir. 2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We must take all of Robinson’s “wellpleaded material allegations as true” and may only grant the motion if Jackson is “nevertheless 

clearly entitled to judgment.” See id. (quoting JPMorgan, 510 F.3d at 581). However, we are 

not bound to accept Robinson’s legal allegations and conclusions as true if they are not 

supported by facts. See In re Darvocet, Darvon, & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., 756 F.3d 

917, 926 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)) (“The plausibility 

standard is met when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Thus, in order for his claims to survive, Robinson must present “more than a 

 Case: 14-4107 Document: 19-1 Filed: 06/15/2015 Page: 3
Case No. 14-4107

Robinson v. Jackson

- 4 -

sheer possibility” that Jackson infringed his rights. Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678) (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

B.

As a preliminary matter, Robinson argues that the district court erred because it 

“improperly relied on extrinsic evidence outside of the four corners of the pleadings without 

giving [him] proper notice.” Specifically, Robinson alleges that several of the district court’s 

findings—including that 1) the prison’s vegetarian meals were “per se Halal,” and 2) that Jewish 

and Muslim inmates are not similarly situated under a Fourth Amendment analysis—were based 

on information dehors the pleadings. After reviewing the record, we disagree.

We have held that a district court is entitled to evaluate a Rule 12(c) motion based not 

only on the pleadings but also on “matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record 

of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint[.]” Henry v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 

739 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Barany-Snyder v. Weiner, 539 F.3d 327, 332 (6th Cir.

2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court relied in part on Robinson’s 

own definition of Halal meals to determine that a vegetarian option would address his needs; that 

the court also relied on an exhibit attached to Robinson’s complaint and case law from this 

Circuit was not improper. See Henry, 739 F.3d at 912. Similarly, the district court relied on 

particulars from the record regarding the relative cost of Kosher meals and the number of Jewish 

and Muslim inmates, as well as information from the public record, in its Fourteenth Amendment 

analysis. The district court did not err by incorporating that information into its analysis. We 

therefore proceed to the merits of his case.

 Case: 14-4107 Document: 19-1 Filed: 06/15/2015 Page: 4
Case No. 14-4107

Robinson v. Jackson

- 5 -

C.

Robinson’s first claim is that Jackson violated his rights under the RLUIPA when she 

denied him Halal meals. Under the RLUIPA, 

No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious 

exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . 

even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, 

unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden 

on that person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental 

interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that 

compelling governmental interest.

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc–1(a); see also Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853, 860 (2015). Accordingly, “[i]f 

a plaintiff produces prima facie evidence to support a claim alleging a violation of [the 

RLUIPA], the government shall bear the burden of persuasion[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(b). 

Robinson notes that the legislative history accompanying the RLUIPA suggests a concern 

to protect a prisoner who is denied Halal meals during his incarceration. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 

544 U.S. 709, 716 n.5 (2005). However, by Robinson’s own definition, a meal containing no 

meat or alcohol qualifies as Halal. According to the defendants, the vegetarian meals provided 

to him by the prison meet this definition. Robinson has not alleged otherwise.2 

We have explicitly held that vegetarian meals are, in fact, Halal. Abdullah v. Fard, No. 

97-3935, 1999 WL 98529 at *1 (6th Cir. Jan. 28, 1999). In Abdullah, a Muslim man 

incarcerated in Ohio sued prison officials, alleging that they would not provide him Halal meat 

and that their failure to do so violated his right to equal protection. Id. The district court granted 

summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, we first considered Abdullah’s claim that the 

prison was serving him non-Halal meals, and rejected this argument: 

 

2As noted by the district court, Robinson alleged in his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order against WCI that 

“the food that is available is contaminated by uten[s]ils and gloves that touch non-Halal food.” Robinson did not 

renew this allegation in the complaint underlying the present appeal, nor does he repeat the contamination argument 

on appeal.

 Case: 14-4107 Document: 19-1 Filed: 06/15/2015 Page: 5
Case No. 14-4107

Robinson v. Jackson

- 6 -

Abdullah averred that a prohibition against non-Halal meat was 

fundamental to his religion. However, he can comply with this 

prohibition by eating vegetarian meals. Thus, Abdullah’s First 

Amendment claim fails because the disputed policy did not force 

him to violate his religion. 

Id. (citing Abdur-Rahman v. Mich. Dep’t Corrs., 65 F.3d 489, 491 (6th Cir. 1995). Other district 

courts in this Circuit have since applied the logic of Abdullah in the context of RLUIPA claims. 

See, e.g., Hudson v. Caruso, 748 F. Supp. 2d 721, 729-30 (W.D. Mich. 2010) (holding that 

providing a Muslim inmate vegetarian entrees without providing Halal meat entrees did not 

substantially burden free exercise); Cloyd v. Dulin, No. 3:12-CV-1088, 2012 WL 5995234, at *4 

(M.D. Tenn. Nov. 30, 2012) (citing Abdullah, 1999 WL 98529 at *1) (“Muslim prisoners do not 

have a right under the First Amendment or the RLUIPA to be provided [H]alal meat entrees; 

rather, a correctional facility need only provide Muslim prisoners with food that is not ‘haram’

(impermissible).”). Thus, as the district court found, Robinson is not being denied Halal meals; 

he therefore fails to state a claim as a matter of law under the RLUIPA. 

Robinson’s First Amendment claim suffers a similar fate for similar reasons. Under the 

First Amendment, inmates have the right to the free exercise of their religion. Cruz v. Bezo, 405 

U.S. 319, 322 (1972). However, like Abdullah, Robinson is receiving meals that do not violate 

his religion. And while he may prefer to be served “[H]alal meat entrees rather than vegetarian 

entrees and non-meat substitutes, his food preferences, as a prisoner, are limited.” Cloyd, 2012 

WL 5995234, at *4; see also Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981) (“The Constitution 

does not mandate comfortable prisons.”). Prisoners have a constitutional right to meals that meet 

their nutritional needs; indeed, they have a constitutional right to be served meals that do not 

violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs. Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F. 3d 282, 290 (6th Cir. 

2010). But there is no constitutional right for each prisoner to be served the specific foods he 

 Case: 14-4107 Document: 19-1 Filed: 06/15/2015 Page: 6
Case No. 14-4107

Robinson v. Jackson

- 7 -

desires—such as Halal meat—in prison. See Spies v. Voiovich, 173 F.3d 398, 406-07 (6th Cir. 

1999) (holding that providing a Buddhist prisoner with a vegetarian diet but not a vegan diet was 

constitutionally permissible, and “the fact that Plaintiffs dislike the alternate diet available does 

not render it unreasonable or legally deficient.”).

We therefore agree with the district court that Robinson has not presented “factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged” for the simple reason he alleges no specific misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. Without a plausible allegation that Jackson has violated Robinson’s free exercise of 

religion, Robinson fails to state a First Amendment claim as a matter of law. 

Robinson’s equal protection claim also fails on these grounds. Robinson argues that, 

because the ODRC provides Kosher meals to Jewish inmates but does not provide Halal meals to 

Muslim inmates, the department is discriminating against him and those of his faith in violation 

of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause provides that “[n]o state shall . . . 

deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. CONST. amend. 

XIV § 1. It is in essence “a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” 

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). Thus, to prevail on an equal 

protection claim, Robinson must demonstrate that the ODRC’s provision of Kosher, but not 

Halal, meals constitutes disparate treatment of similarly-situated individuals. See Abdullah, 

1999 WL 98529 at *2. He must further prove that the disparate treatment in question is the 

result of intentional and purposeful discrimination. Id. 

Again, the rationale of Abdullah is on point. In addition to making a First Amendment 

claim, Abdullah also alleged that the prison’s provision of Kosher meals to Jewish inmates 

violated the Equal Protection Clause. In light of the fact that the prison’s policy was “rationally 

 Case: 14-4107 Document: 19-1 Filed: 06/15/2015 Page: 7
Case No. 14-4107

Robinson v. Jackson

- 8 -

related to legitimate penological interests[,]” we found that “Abdullah’s equal protection claim 

lack[ed] merit, as he did not show that the policy was motivated by discriminatory intent.” Id. at 

*2 (citing Thompson v. Kentucky, 712 F.2d 1078, 1081-82 (6th Cir. 1983)). The same is true in 

the case at bar. As discussed supra, Robinson’s complaint fails to allege that he was, in fact, 

denied a diet consistent with Halal requirements. Assuming he had done so, we must also find

that Jewish and Muslim inmates are similarly-situated in context—an assertion he does not 

develop other than to plainly state that “Jewish inmates in ODRC custody receive Kosher 

meals.”3 Even assuming both of those elements are met, Robinson fails to allege that the ORDC 

is not providing Halal meals pursuant to intentional or purposeful discrimination. See Abdullah, 

1999 WL 98529 at *2; see also Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807, 815-16 (8th Cir. 

2008) (rejecting a Muslim prisoner’s equal protection claim on summary judgment because he 

had not presented evidence that prison officials had refused to provide Halal meals based on 

discriminatory intent). Therefore, Robinson fails to state a valid equal protection claim as a 

matter of law. The district court’s decision to grant judgment on the pleadings to Jackson was 

therefore not improper.

III.

Based on the foregoing analysis, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.

 

3The district court addresses this argument by stating that Jewish and Muslim inmates “are not similarly situated 

because they differ greatly in number.” As Robinson’s claims fail for other reasons, we do not reach this numerical

rationale for declaring two inmate populations “similarly-situated” for the purposes of a Fourteenth-Amendment 

analysis, but we note our concern regarding its merits.

 Case: 14-4107 Document: 19-1 Filed: 06/15/2015 Page: 8