NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 09a0563n .06 07-2081 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT PH ILLIP BER RY MA N, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t, v. JEN NI FERGRAN HO L M , G ov er nor , etal ., Defend ant s-Appe llees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE U NITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COUR T FOR T HE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: DAUGHT REY, GILMAN, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. MA RT HA

C RA IG DA UG HT RE Y , Circ u itJu d ge . Pet itione r Phillip Berr y ma n ap pea ls the d is tr ict c our

t’ s g ra nt of s ummary

j udg ment i n fav or

of th e d e fendants i n thi s a cti on broug h t u n d er

the Rel ig iou s L and U se and I nst it uti onal iz ed Persons Act ( RLU IPA or the Act ), Pub. L. No. 106- 274, 114 St at. 803 (2 000) , 42 U. S.C

. §§ 2000 cc -1 throug h 2000c c- 5, and und er 42 U.S.C. § 198 3 for violation o f B erry ma n’s rig hts und er t he First Amen dm ent ’s Free Ex erci se Cl ause and t he Ei g ht A mendment’ s p ro tecti o n agai nstcr uel and unusu al puni shment

. Ber ry man, an inmat e i n t h e c ust ody of the M ic hig an D epar tment of Cor re cti ons (M DO C) , s ued G ov er nor Je nni fer Granhol m and offici als of both MD OC and it s S t

. L o u is Co rr e c t io n a l F a c il it y in t h e ir i n d ivi d u a l a n d o f

f ic ia l c a p a c it ie s , se e k in g i n ju n ct ive re li ef and moneta ry d a m a ges, bas ed on his cl aim that his r ig ht t o pract ic e J udai sm was07- 2081

Berrym an v. Gran holm

The M ic hig an g ov er nor and sev eral hig h- ra nki ng M DO C o f f ici als w ere g ra nted 1 summary

j u d g me n te a r l y

i n t h e p ro c e e d i n g s , b a s e d o n t h e d i s t r i ctc o u rt ’ s d e t e r mi n a t i on that they pl ay ed no par

t i n the dec is ion to re mov e Ber ry man f ro m the pri son’ s K osher M eal Prog ra m. The record al so shows that Ber ry man had a c o- pla int iff ori g ina ll y named i n the compl ain t, but t his i ndi v idu al did not appeal and is no l ong er a pa rty to thi s l it ig ati on.

- 2 - i nfr i nged w he n he w as t em po rar i l y rem ov ed from t he p r i s on ’ s K os he r M ea l P rog ram . 1 Noting thatthis claim w as the g rav am en o f the com plaint , the district court an alyz ed o nly the a ll eg ed RLU IPA v iol ati on and deter mined thatbec ause the p lai nti ff ’s su spens ion from the program w as tem pora ry , it did notconstitu te a “sub stan tial burde n” on Be rry ma n’s ri g hts under

the Act

. On a p p e a l, Berry ma n claims th at th e district court erred in g rantin g sum ma ry judgme nt to the de fend ant s, base d principa ll y u pon his arg um entthatthe evidence est abl is hed t he ex is tenc e of a g enui ne is sue of mat er ial fact suffici ent t o tak e hi s R LUI PA and c onst it uti onal cl aims to tr ial

. W e di sag re e. The di str ict c our

t’ s g ra nt o f

s u mmary

j udg ment t o the defendants on t he R LUI PA c la im wa s p ro p e r b e c a u s e B e rry m a n ca n n o tre c e ive e it h e r m o n e t a ry d a m a ge s o r i n ju n ct ive relief und er the Act . Furtherm ore, his con stitutio nal claim s mustfail be c a u s e the y are w it hout meri t. W e the re fore affirm the d is tr ict c our t’ s j udg ment but for re asons di fferent from thos e reli ed upon by the dis tr ict j udg e.07- 2081

Berrym an v. Gran holm

- 3 -

I. FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND Berry ma n w as a pa rtic ipan t in the Ko sher Meal Program a t the St. Lo uis Cor re cti onal F aci li ty , t he M ic hig an pri son in w hic h he w as inc arcerated w hen t he ev ents g iv ing r is e to thi s l it ig ati on oc cur re d

. I n M a y 2005, h e recei v ed a “n oti ce of inte nt t o cond uct an adm inistrative he aring” f rom Darlene Lan ce, th e prison facility ’s man ager. This h e a ri n g wa s o rd e re d t o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r B e rrym a n h a d vi o l a t e d P o li cy Di re ct ive 05.03. 150, parag ra ph W W , w hic h s tates that“ [a] pr is oner approv ed to eat from a reli g iou s menu s hal l hav e tha t app ro v al re sc ind ed i f s/he eats , o r h a s in hi s/h er pos ses si on, a ny food it em thatv iol ates a t eneto f h is/ h e r desi g nated re li g ion .” The no ti ce form furth er enumerated spec ificnon- kos her foods t hat B er ry man had purchas ed from t he pr is o n st ore, includin g ma caron i and chee se, Squee z e Pizz a Sau ce, chili, chicken noo dle sou p, Digby ’s All Stars cand y , Fire Balls candy, and Chick-o-Sticks. In t he ini ti a l a d m in ist ra ti ve h e a rin g , Be rr y man co ntended thatthe pol icy did not forbi d hi m from merel y

order ing non-k osher

food items

. In suppor

t of thi s c ontent ion , he submi tted an a f

f idav itfrom ano ther

pr is oner named Tr uitte, in w hic h Tru itte av er re d tha t he had w heel ed Ber ry man, i n hi s w heel chai r, to the s tore, w here Ber ry man si g ned for the food that he had ord e red. The aff ida v itst ated further thatTrui tte had t hen w heel ed Berry ma n ba ck to his cel l, wh e re B erry ma n gav e T ruitte th e no n-kosh er food items. Hea ri ng Officer

J. Kel ly co ncl uded t hat b ecaus e no ev ide nce est abl is hed t hat B er ry man07- 2081

Berrym an v. Gran holm

- 4 - actu ally ate or pe rsona lly

posse ssed n on-ko sher food , he did not violate the ex press lan g uag e of the pr is on r ule si mply by order ing food thathe tur ned ov er to an other i nmate. Fo llo wing th is i n i t ia l h e a rin g, p ris o n of f ici a ls re que st e d an ad d it io n a l h e a rin g, cla im in g th a t th e f irs t he a rin g was no t sup p o rt e d b y MDO C p o lic y. Atth e se co n d he a rin g, Hearing Of

f icer B. Pee t det ermin ed th at th e prior h earing had interpret ed p rison policy in error becau se Berryma n n o to n ly o rdered and posse ssed th e no n-kosh er food but also v iol ated pr is on r ule s t hat prohi bit ed hi m from g iv ing any personal proper

ty to another inm ate . As a result, the hea ring of f icer rescinded B erry ma n’s app rov al for participa tion in the K osher

M eal Prog ra m but ind ic ated that Ber ry man woul d be per mitt ed to reappl y for the p ro g ra m 60 day s after his su spens ion i f the order of re mov al w as his first, or after one y ear i f his w as a s econd or subs eq uent re mov al. H ow ev er , Be rr y man di d notreappl y

for kos her meal s a t t he end of his resc is si on p e ri od. In t he di str ict c our t, he offered as an ex cus e for his failu re to seek re admis si on to the Kosh er M eal Prog ra m the fact th at “ [he] never should have been taken o f f in t he f irst pla ce” a nd th at a requestfor adm ission “w ould v ali date the remov al. ” That, he arg ued woul d be “a l ie, ” becau se itwo u ld req uire hi m to admitto v iol ati on of a t enet of Judai sm. Ber ry man su bseq uentl y i nv oked the p ri son’ s g ri ev ance procedu re s, w hic h he suc ceede d i n ex haust ing before f il ing his sui t i n federa l cour t. The defendants su bmitted a respon se to B er ry m a n ’s di str ict c our t c omplai nt an d mov ed for summar y j udg ment on mu l t i p l e g ro u n d s . Th e d i s t r i c t j u d g e g ra n t e d t h e d e fe n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n , h o l d i ng that07- 2081

Berrym an v. Gran holm

- 5 - Berry ma n’s suspe nsion f rom th e Kosh er Meal Program d id n ot sub stan tially burde n his re ligio u s e xerc ise an d , m o re o ver, th a t t h e su sp e n sio n f u rt h e re d a co m p e lli n g g ov er nmental int erestby

the lea st re str icti v e means. A d d it io nal ly , t he di str ict c our t c oncl uded t hat pla int iff’s req uest for inj unct iv e re li ef was re ndered moot by hi s t ra nsfer to an other pr is on and t hat defendants w ere ent it led to q ual ified i mmunity on d amag es becau se the c lai med ri g ht was not c lea rl y

es tabl is hed. Ber ry man then ti melya p p e a led the deci si on of the dis tr ict c our

t. II. D ISC US SION A . St and ard o f Rev iew “Th is Court rev iew s a district court’s g rant of sum ma ry judgme nt de novo.” Mick ey v. Zei d le r To o l a n d

D ie Co. , 516 F.3d 51 6, 52 1 (6th Cir. 200 8). Sum ma ry judgmen t is proper i n i nst ances w here the record s hows “ that there i s n o g enui ne i ss u e as to any ma terial fact and that the mo v ant is ent itled to judgme nt as a m atte r of law .” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56 ( c )

. “ In d ec i di ng a n ap pe al o f a g ran t of s um ma r y j ud g me nt , w e v i ew

t he e v iden ce and draw all rea sona ble inferen ces in favor of

. . . the no n-mo v ing party .” Mick ey, 516 F .3d a t 5 2 1 (cit in g Sin g field

v. Ak ro n Metr o. Hous. Aut

h. , 389 F.3d 55 5, 56 0 (6th Cir. 200 4)). T he cent ral issue is “w het her the e v iden ce prese nts a suf f icient disagreem entt o require submi ss ion to a j ur

y or w hether i t i s so one- si ded that one par ty must prev ail as a matt er of law .” Anderson v. Liberty Lo bby, Inc. , 477 U .S. 242, 251- 52 ( 1986)

.07- 2081

Berrym an v. Gran holm

- 6 - B. T he RL UI PA

C laim The Reli g iou s L and U se and I nst it uti onal iz ed Persons Act prohi bit s a st ate from impos ing su bst anti al and unj ust ified burdens on the rel ig iou s li ber ty of state pri soners. It prov ide s i n per

ti nent par

t: No gov ernm entshall impo se a substan tial burd en o n the relig ious exercise of a perso n resi din g i n or co nfined t o an ins ti tuti on, a s d efined i n s ect ion 1997 o f t h is ti tl e, ev en i f the burden resul ts from a r ule of g eneral appl ic abi li ty , unl ess the g ov er nment de monstra te s that impos it ion of the burden on that person – (1 ) is i n furt herance of a compel li ng g ov er nmental i nterest ; and (2 ) is the lea st re str icti v e means of further ing that compell ing g ov er nmental int erest

. 42 U .S.C . § 2000c c- 1. The Actappl ies to any penal i nst it u ti o n tha t recei v es federal fin a n cia l a ssis tanc e. See id. I t defin es “reli g iou s e x erci se” to inc lud e “ any ex erci se of relig ion, whethe r or no t com pelled b y , or ce ntral to, a sy stem o f religious belief .” 42 U.S. C. § 20 00cc-5 (7)(A). Add itiona lly , it prov ides th at “[a] p erson may assert a v iolation of this chap ter as a claim or defense in a judicial procee ding and obta in app ropriate relief against a gov ernm ent .” 42 U.S.C. § 20 00cc-2 (a). In th is case, Be rry ma n sou ght declarat o ry re lief , injunct iv e relief , and mon eta ry dam ages. As to the request for declara tiv e an d injun ctiv e relief , the district court correctly hel d that becau se Ber ry man had been transfer re d from the St. Loui s facil ity , t he c lai m had become moot. See Cardina l v. Metrish , 5 6 4 F .3 d 7 9 4 , 7 9 8 -9 9 ( 6 th Cir. 20 0 9 ) (ci ti n g Ken su07- 2081

Berrym an v. Gran holm

- 7 - v. Hai gh , 87 F.3d 172 , 175 (6th Ci r. 199 6)) (prisoner’s claim fo r injunct iv e and declarat ory re li ef mooted by

hi s t ra nsfer to ne w

faci li ty ). M oreov er , we hav e recently h e ld that “beca use RLUIP A’s ‘appro priate relief ’ language do es no t clearly and une quiv ocally indicat e tha t the w aiver extends to mon eta ry dam age s, the Eleventh Am end me nt ba rs pla int iff’s c lai m for monet ar y reli ef” unde r the A ct. Car din al , 564 F.3d at 801. It foll ows t hat Ber ry man ca nnot sus tai n hi s R LUI PA c lai m and t hat i t was proper ly di smi ss ed by

the dis tr ict c our

t. C. T he Co nst it ut io nal C laim s The di str ict c our

t i nter preted B er ry man’s co mplai nt as rais ing cl aims onl y under RLUIPA b ecau se the “leg al claims” section of the com plaintdid notmen tion 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83. But Berry ma n cited § 198 3 an d raised various const itution al provisi ons e lsew here in his co mplai nt, and he has pursued thos e cl aims on appeal

. Among them are al leg ati ons that (1 ) he has been deni ed his Fi rs t Amendment ri g ht to the free ex erci se of rel ig ion , ( 2) he was rem oved f rom the ko sher me al program in retaliat ion for p rior exercises o f his First Amendment ri g ht t o f re edom of speech, ( 3) hi s remov al from the prog ra m has ex acer bated his ca ncer

and that the d efendants’ del ibe ra te i ndi fference to t his c o n d it ion co nst it utes cr uel and usual puni shmenti n v iol ati on of the Ei g hth A mendment, and (4 ) Jew is h pr is on guards are pe rmitte d to rece iv e kosh er food ev en if t hey eat no n-kosh er food , w hich cons ti tutes a v iol ati on of Ber ry man’s r ig ht to e qua l protecti on unde r the F our teent h Amendment.07- 2081

Berrym an v. Gran holm

- 8 - The mag is trate j udg e address ed eac h of thes e c lai ms and dete rmi ned t hat, w it h the ex cept ion of the all eg ed v iol ati on of Berr y man’s rig ht t o free ex erci se of rel ig ion , non e had meri t. W e c oncl ude t hat n one of the pla int iff’s a ll eg ati ons can be s ust ain ed. The retal iat ion cl aim fails bec ause, as the mag is trate judg e pointed out, Ber ry man did not esta blish a cau sal conn ection between th e incide nts th at he ident if ied as th e ba sis for retali a ti o n –s u ch thi ng s a s h is co mplai nts to pr is on offici als thatpr is oners a t t he St

. Loui s facil ity w ere forced to pay for post ag e or had been deni ed coffee at breakfast – and his remov al from the kosher meal prog ra m. The E ig hth A mendment c lai m fail s s impl y for lac k o f ev ide nce, i. e. , proof that the d efendants knew abouth is ca ncer

or thatthe nonkos her food, in fact , exacer bated his co ndi ti on. The eq ual protecti on c lai m fail s b ecaus e, as the mag is trate j udg e found, pr is on g uards and pr is oners a re not si mil ar ly si tuate d. As for Ber ry man’s co ntent ion thathi s Fi rs t Amend ment r ig ht t o the free ex erci se of relig ion w as v iolate d by his remo v al f rom th e kosh er me al program, th at claim must ov ercome the deferenti al sta ndard s et by the Supreme C our

t i n Tur ner v. Saf ley, 482 U .S. 78 ( 1987)

. In Tur

ner , the Court held “w hen a prison regulation i m p in ges on inm ate s’ cons ti tuti onal r ig hts , t he reg ula ti o n i s v ali d i f it is reason abl y rela ted t o l eg it imat e pen ological interests, ” a deferen tial stan dard required beca use o f the “inordin ate ly

dif f icult under tak ing ” of pri son admini strati on, a tas k “ that re q uires ex per ti se, pl ann in g, and t he c o m m it m e n to f

re s o u rc e s , a ll o f

wh ic h a re p e c u li a rl y wi t h in t h e p ro vin c e o f t h e le gi s la t ive and ex ecut iv e bran ches o f g overnme nt.” Id. at 89, 8 5.07- 2081

Berrym an v. Gran holm

- 9 - W hen ev alu ati ng the re asona ble ness of a chal len g ed reg ula ti on, we c onsi der the four facto rs outl ine d i n Tur ner : “F irst, there mustbe a v ali d, rati onal co nnect ion between t he pr is on re g ula ti on and the l eg it imat e g ov er nmental i nterestput forw ard to ju sti fy it .” If not, the regulatio n is u ncon stitutio nal, and t he oth er facto rs do notmat ter. Unl ik e the first factor , t he remaini ng factors are cons ide ra ti ons that must be bal anced toge ther : (2) “w hether there are al ter nati v e means of ex erci si ng the ri g ht that remai n open to pri son inmat es” ; (3) “the impact ac commodati on of the ass erted cons ti tuti onal rig ht w il l hav e on g uards and ot her i nmates , and on th e al lo c a t io n o f

prison resou rces generally ”; and (4) w het her the re are “ready al ter nati v es” av ail abl e “ that fully ac commodate the pr is oner ’s r ig hts at de minim is cost to v alid pe nolo gical intere sts.” Spie s v. Voino vich , 17 3 F. 3 d 39 8 , 4 0 3 (6t h Cir. 19 9 9 ) (qu o ti n g Tur ner , 482 U.S. at 89 -9 1) (interna l citations rem oved). W e c oncl ude t hat B er ry man’sremov al from the Kosh er meal prog ra m pass es muster und er the d eferen tial Tur ner st andard. Ber ry man hi msel f co ncede d tha t he had ordered and s ig ned for the n on- kos her food and t hat h e had hel d i t i n hi s la p . Ev en ac cept ing Berry ma n’s cont e n t io n t h a the ha d orde red the food for a non -Jew ish inma te an d his argume n t tha t he was fu lf illing , rathe r than violating, his relig ious be liefs, the defend ant s’ det ermin ation thathe had violated t he prison rules w as no t unrea sona ble. Prison o f f icials hav e a l eg it imat e penol og ic al int erestnot onl y i n c o n tr o lli n g t he c ostof the k osher meal p ro g ra m a n d e n s u r i n g t h a t o n l y t h o s e w i t h s i n c e re b e l i e fs p a rt i c i p a t e i n t h e prog ra m, but als o in maintai nin g di sc ipl ine w it hin the pr is on. See R uss ell v. Wilk ins on , 79 F. App’ x

175, 177 ( 6th Ci r. 2003) (c oncl udi ng that, in li g ht of a pri soner ’s “ obv iou s a cti ons in not o bser v ing07- 2081

Berrym an v. Gran holm

- 10 - the k osher

food req uirements ou ts ide meal s,” the pr is on had a l eg it imat e penol og ic al intere st in remo v ing the prisone r from the pro gram b e c a u s e o f t he n eed to ma intain dis ci pli ne i n the faci li ty ). On ba lance , the othe r Tur ner facto rs also w eigh in fa v or of the de fend ant s. Ber ry man may

not hav e had any a lt e rnati v e w ay of maint ain ing a k osher di et ap art from par ti ci pati on i n the ko sher meal progra m , b u t the impact on the a ll ocat ion of pr is on resou rces (becau se of the expense required to mainta in the Koshe r mea l program ) would be w eig hty i f

p risoners p arti ci pati ng i n the prog ra m w ere abl e to order and eat w hatev er food they

w ant e d wit h o ut s uffer ing any co nseq uence s. The mag is trate j udg e not ed th at “modi ficat ion of the reg ula ti on [p ro hib it ing Kos her meal prog ra m par

ti ci pants from order ing nonko sher

foods] is a ready

al ter nati v e tha t woul d al low the pr is oner

to cont inu e ea ting koshe r me als.” But tha t obse rv ation fails to accou nt for the fact th at a cou rt should require suc h “ re ady

al ternati v es” onl y

w hen t hey

co me at a “ de mi nimi s c ostto v ali d penol og ic al intere sts.” Tur

ner , 482 U.S. at 91 (“[ I]f an inmat e clai mant can pointto an al ter nati v e tha t fully ac commodate s t he pr is oner ’s r ig hts at de m inimis cost to v alid pe nolo gical intere sts, a cou rt may consid er tha t as evidence th at th e regulation doe s not sat isf y the rea sona ble re lat ion shi p s tandard.” ). There w as no s uch show ing i n thi s c ase. III . CO NC LU SION For the rea sons se t outabo v e, w e AFFIRM th e d is t ri c tcourt’s grantof summ ary judgme nt to the de fend ant s.07- 2081

Berrym an v. Gran holm

- 11 -