Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03556/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03556-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J.

Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3556

___________

Anthony Pratt, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Corrections Corporation of America; *

Darren Swenson; Wangeler, Assistant * [UNPUBLISHED]

Warden; Jeff Berger; D. Engelbrecht; *

Barry Brace; Marcia Wellnitz; Patrick *

O’Malley, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 3, 2008

 Filed: March 7, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Pratt, an inmate formerly in Wisconsin state custody and housed at the

Prairie Correctional Facility (PCF) in Minnesota, appeals the district court’s1

 grant of

Appellate Case: 06-3556 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2008 Entry ID: 3410502
-2-

summary judgment to defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on his claims

regarding the denial of a prison diet containing Halal meat.

The district court originally dismissed Pratt’s claims, but this court remanded

for further proceedings. See Pratt v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 124 Fed. Appx. 465, 466-67

(8th Cir. 2005) (unpublished per curiam). Following the remand, Pratt filed an

amended complaint, alleging that the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and

various CCA-PCF officials violated his rights under the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act (RFRA), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

(RLUIPA), and the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Pratt alleged

the following. He practices the Islam religion, which requires adherance 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. PCF agreed to offer Pratt special vegetarian meals, but the vegetarian

diet was nutritionally inadequate; and further PCF breached a contract with him by

failing to provide Halal meat. Following defendants’ summary judgment motion and

Pratt’s response, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants.

After de novo review, see Anderson v. Larson, 327 F.3d 762, 767 (8th Cir.

2003), we find that the district court properly granted summary judgment for

defendants. First, Pratt’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are now moot,

as Pratt is in federal custody and is no longer subject to CCA policy. See Smith v.

Hundley, 190 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir. 1999) (inmate’s claims for declaratory and

injunctive relief are moot when he is transferred to another facility and is no longer

subject to alleged unlawful conditions). Second, we find that Pratt’s claims brought

under the First Amendment, RFRA, and RLUIPA all fail, because he did not show

that defendants placed a “substantial burden” on his ability to practice his religion by

failing to provide him with Halal meat. See Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-

3819, 2008 WL 28192, at **1, 4-5 & n.8 (8th Cir. Feb. 4, 2008) (prison’s meal plan

regulations did not substantially burden Muslim inmate’s free exercise rights where

Appellate Case: 06-3556 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2008 Entry ID: 3410502
-3-

inmate had access to only vegetarian entrees, and some of those entrees he had to pay

for himself). Third, the vegetarian diet did not violate Pratt’s Eighth Amendment

rights, as he did not rebut defendants’ evidence that the meals were nutritionally

adequate. See Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999) (Eighth Amendment

requires that inmates receive well-balanced meals containing sufficient nutritional

value to preserve health). Finally, defendants did not breach any contractual duty by

failing to provide a diet including Halal meat.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3556 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/07/2008 Entry ID: 3410502