United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-40568

Summary Calendar

____________

Eric Demond Lozano, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Bryan Collier, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice; David Goldstein, Rabbi; Darlene Trejo, Director, 

Laundry, Food & Supply; Douglas Sparkman, Assistant Director, 

Laundry, Food & Supply; Jamie L. Taylor, Major, Food Service, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:23-CV-68

______________________________

Before Willett, Duncan, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Eric Demond Lozano, Texas prisoner #1915276, is a Sunni Muslim of 

the Hanafi school of thought, one of the four main Sunni schools of Islamic 

jurisprudence. He alleges that various Texas state prison officials violated his 

rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 13, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-40568 Document: 60-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
No. 23-40568

2

(RLUIPA), the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, and the 

Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by denying him meals 

that comply with his religious precepts. The district court denied Lozano’s 

requested preliminary injunctive relief, and he now appeals. We largely 

affirm but vacate the district court’s judgment insofar as it failed to apply the 

correct burden-shifting framework under RLUIPA. 

I

As a Sunni Muslim, Lozano alleges that “his religious beliefs compel 

him to” follow a halal diet. This diet requires adherents to (1) eat meat, but 

only meat that was “blessed in the name of Allah when slaughtered”; 

(2) avoid pork, pork byproducts, monoglyceride, lecithin, or whey; (3) avoid 

fruits or vegetables treated with “pesticides or harmful ingredients”; and 

(4) avoid any foods that are cross contaminated with any prohibited foods. 

Before his most recent transfer, Lozano was housed in the 

Stringfellow Unit, where his halal dietary needs were accommodated by the 

prison’s kosher food program. But, Lozano alleges, in retaliation for a prior 

dietary-related lawsuit he filed, prison officials transferred him to the 

LeBlanc Unit, where he was placed in the main kitchen without any dietary 

accommodations. 

Following his transfer, Lozano filed suit in the Eastern District of 

Texas and sought various forms of injunctive relief, all of which aimed to 

restore his initial halal-compliant diet.1 Lozano additionally moved for 

appointment of counsel, averring that his case was complex and that his 

1 Lozano specifically requested an injunction directing the defendants to either 

(1) provide him with halal meals, (2) transfer him back to the Stringfellow Unit and the 

Kosher Kitchen Program, (3) provide him with a stipend of $230 a month to purchase halal 

meals from the commissary, or (4) provide him with the meals provided to similarly 

situated Jewish prisoners. 

Case: 23-40568 Document: 60-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
No. 23-40568

3

limited education and mental-health issues prevented him from properly 

litigating the case. In a brief order following the defendants’ motion to 

dismiss, the magistrate judge recommended that Lozano’s claims be 

dismissed and that his request for a TRO and an injunction be denied. The 

district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and 

additionally denied Lozano’s motion for appointment of counsel. Lozano 

timely appealed and argues that the district court erroneously denied his 

request for a preliminary injunction based on the defendants’ alleged 

violations of RLUIPA and the First Amendment.2

II

To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate 

(1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm, (3) that the 

equities tip in his favor, and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest. 

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Here, the district 

court denied Lozano’s motion for a preliminary injunction because he had 

“not demonstrated a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits 

of his claims.” We review a district court’s conclusions of law de novo and its 

ultimate decision for abuse of discretion. Bluefield Water Ass’n, Inc. v. City of 

Starkville, 577 F.3d 250, 252 (5th Cir. 2009). 

2 Lozano does not raise his Fourteenth Amendment or retaliation claims on appeal, 

so we will not address them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) 

(“Although we liberally construe the briefs of pro se appellants, we also require that 

arguments must be briefed to be preserved.” (quoting Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 

1026, 1028 (5th Cir. 1988))). And while Lozano’s brief can be generously construed to 

argue that the district court erred in denying his motion for appointment of counsel, we 

have no jurisdiction to address that issue in this interlocutory appeal. See Williams v. Catoe, 

946 F.3d 278, 279 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (“[A] motion for appointment of counsel is not 

immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.”). 

Case: 23-40568 Document: 60-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
No. 23-40568

4

III

Lozano first contends that the district court not only erred in denying 

his First Amendment claim on the merits but also failed to provide adequate 

“findings and conclusions that support its decision.” See Hernandez v. 

Lumpkin, 850 F. App’x 307, 308 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (“A district 

court must make sufficient findings of fact.” (internal quotations omitted)); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). We disagree. We have repeatedly held that “prisons 

need not respond to particularized religious dietary requests to comply with 

the First Amendment.” Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 122 (5th Cir. 2007) 

(citing Kahey v. Jones, 836 F.2d 948, 950 (5th Cir. 1988), and Udey v. Kastner, 

805 F.2d 1218, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986)). The magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, which the district court adopted in full, provides sufficient 

reasons for the denial, see Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. F.D.I.C., 992 F.2d 

545, 551 (5th Cir. 1993), and indeed cites our longstanding precedent on this 

issue. 

As for the RLUIPA claim, however, we agree with Lozano that the 

district court failed to apply the proper burden-shifting framework under 

Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015). Once a plaintiff has shown a substantial 

burden on the exercise of his religion, the defendant must then demonstrate 

that the imposition of that burden “(1) [was] in furtherance of a compelling 

government interest; and (2) [was] the least restrictive means of furthering 

that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (a); see Holt, 

574 U.S. at 362. The district court must conduct a fact-specific inquiry for 

both prongs. See Tucker v. Collier, 906 F.3d 295, 302 (5th Cir. 2018). The 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation did not analyze (or even 

address) Lozano’s RLUIPA claim under the Holt framework, and, despite 

Lozano’s objections, the district court likewise failed to make any findings or 

conclusions regarding Lozano’s RLUIPA claim. That was error. We will 

thus follow our normal practice of remanding the case for further findings of 

Case: 23-40568 Document: 60-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/13/2024
No. 23-40568

5

fact to support our review of Lozano’s RLUIPA claim. See, e.g., Hernandez, 

850 F. App’x at 308 (citing White v. Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209, 1210 n.1 (5th 

Cir. 1989)). 

IV

In sum, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment with respect to 

Lozano’s First Amendment claim, DISMISS Lozano’s appeal of the 

district court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel for lack of 

appellate jurisdiction, VACATE the district court’s judgment insofar as it 

dismissed Lozano’s RLUIPA claim, and REMAND for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Case: 23-40568 Document: 60-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/13/2024