IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20297

ERIC DEMOND LOZANO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DEBORAH L. SHUBERT, Kitchen Captain, Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice; ROBERT D. HERRERA, Head Warden, Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice; PAUL B. WILDER, Assistant Warden, Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice; DAVID E. NICHOLS, Chaplain, Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice; AMY OLIVER, Grievance Coordinator, Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CV-1183

Before OWEN, WILLETT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On August 26, 2017, Texas prison officials temporarily evacuated Eric 

Demond Lozano from a state prison in Otey, Texas (Stringfellow Unit), to a 

state prison near Navasota, Texas (Pack Unit). Hurricane Harvey had just 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 23, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20297 Document: 00514968653 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2019
No. 18-20297

2

made landfall as Category 4 hurricane. Lozano—a Muslim—claims he 

received kosher meals at the Stringfellow Unit but not at the Pack Unit. 

Lozano brought a § 1983 suit against the defendants in their individual 

capacities, hoping to force them to pay $2,000 in nominal damages and 

$1,000,000 in punitive damages. He alleged Pack Unit officers violated the 

First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s 

Equal Protection Clause by refusing to provide him Kosher meals. The district 

court summarily dismissed Lozano’s complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A and denied him in forma pauperis (IFP) status on appeal. 

When a district court denies IFP status on appeal, a litigant has two 

options. He can simply appeal and pay the filing fee. FED. R. APP. P. 3(e). Or 

he can file an IFP motion in the court of appeals. FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5). 

Lozano chose option two. He appealed without paying, and asked for 

permission to proceed IFP. Accordingly, we ask whether the district court 

erred in concluding Lozano could not bring this appeal in good faith. Baugh v. 

Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 

First, Lozano’s free exercise claim fails. We have “already ruled 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). We have also recognized the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 

Persons Act does not create a cause of action against defendants sued in their 

individual capacities. DeMoss v. Crain, 636 F.3d 145, 151 (5th Cir. 2011).

Therefore, the dismissal of Lozano’s free exercise claim is affirmed.

Lozano’s second claim is more complicated. He argues that the 

defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause by feeding Jewish prisoners 

kosher food while refusing to serve him that same food or other halal food that 

was available. The district court dismissed this claim because it concluded the

 Case: 18-20297 Document: 00514968653 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2019
No. 18-20297

3

kosher food served to Jewish inmates had been “donated by third parties to the 

Jewish inmate evacuees.” 

“To establish an Equal Protection Clause violation, [a plaintiff] must 

prove purposeful discrimination resulting in a discriminatory effect among 

persons similarly situated.” Butts v. Martin, 877 F.3d 571, 590 (5th Cir. 2017). 

An equal protection claim also requires a state actor to be the source of the

challenged discrimination. See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 (“No State 

shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the 

laws.”). There is no discriminatory state action where prison officials act as 

mere conduits for a transfer from a third-party outside of the prison to an 

inmate within its walls. In that scenario, the State’s action is not 

discriminatory, and the discriminatory action is not done by the State. 

Consider an example. Sarah, who is not incarcerated, sends a letter 

addressed to her brother Stephen, a state prisoner. Prison officials operate an 

internal mail system that distributes her letter—and many others—to the 

intended addressee. No one thinks Stephen’s letter becomes the property of 

the prison once it passes behind its walls. And no one thinks it would be an 

equal protection violation for prison officials to duly deliver the letter to 

Stephen without cutting Sarah’s letter in half to give some other inmate an 

equal share. The State acts by distributing the mail, but Sarah discriminates 

by not sending letters to other prisoners.

The district court thought something similar was happening here. It 

read the pleadings as contending prison officials simply refused to divert meals 

earmarked for Jewish inmates to Muslim inmates like Lozano. That would not 

be a problem. 

But Lozano’s allegations in his brief on appeal suggest a different 

situation—one where prison officials either had permission to share those 

 Case: 18-20297 Document: 00514968653 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/23/2019
No. 18-20297

4

donations with non-Jewish inmates, or had other non-donated foods they 

refused to furnish Lozano. That would be a problem. Prison officials would be 

the source of discriminatory action if they refused to accept or distribute items 

otherwise available on equal terms. See, e.g., Kaufman v. Pugh, 733 F.3d 692, 

699–700 (7th Cir. 2013); Al-Amin v. Shear, 325 F. App’x 190, 193–94 (4th Cir. 

2009); Crocker v. Durkin, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1275 (D. Kan. 2001); Varsanyi 

v. Piazza, No. 3:CV-10-2072, 2015 WL 1643036, at *5, 8 (M.D. Penn. Apr. 9, 

2015); Jackon v. Ellis, No. 3:7-CV-67, 2009 WL 2579394, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 

18, 2009). 

It is possible that Lozano has pled or could plead an Equal Protection 

claim. He alleges (and submits declarations to prove) that TDCJ dedicated a 

portion of the Pack Unit kitchen to prepare and serve kosher meals during the 

hurricane evacuation. He alleges TDCJ refused to serve him non-donated 

halal foods from that kitchen. Lozano further alleges TDCJ bought kosher 

meals to supplement the donated kosher meals and then refused to serve those 

to him. Moreover, Lozano suggests (but does not clearly plead or argue) TDCJ 

officials assembled the list of inmates who would receive the donated kosher 

food, which in turn suggests TDCJ was responsible for denying Lozano kosher 

meals. Finally, he alleges that two of the defendants laughed when he asked 

for kosher foods, and one told him that he should have been a Jew rather than 

a Muslim. Lozano allegedly lost 14 pounds and incurred multiple visits to the 

infirmary because of the defendants’ actions. 

Even if the allegations in Lozano’s complaint do not state a claim under 

the Equal Protection Clause, however, the district court did not notify Lozano 

before it dismissed his claim with prejudice. It thus denied Lozano an

“adequate opportunity to cure the inadequacies in his pleading.” Alderson v. 

Concordia Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415, 423 (5th Cir. 2017). He was not 

 Case: 18-20297 Document: 00514968653 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/23/2019
No. 18-20297

5

given notice and an opportunity to amend his complaint, he was not given a 

questionnaire, and he was not afforded a Spears hearing. See id. “With the 

benefit of more specific allegations, [Lozano] may be able to state a claim” 

against one or more of the defendants for violating his right to equal protection. 

Id. at 423–24.

The district court erred by refusing to certify Lozano’s appeal for IFP 

status. At this stage, we need not decide whether the facts ultimately establish 

an equal protection violation. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. Lozano’s motion to 

proceed IFP is GRANTED. The dismissal with prejudice of Lozano’s free 

exercise claim is AFFIRMED. The dismissal with prejudice of his equal 

protection claim is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

 Case: 18-20297 Document: 00514968653 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/23/2019