2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-12-2007 

# T r a vi l lion v . C offee P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-1873

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" T r a vi l l ion v . C offe e " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 449. h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/449NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 06- 1873
J AM AR L
. T RA VI L L I ON, A ppel l ant

v. T E R E S A C O F F E E , H e a d D ire c to r o f O p e ra tio n s o f

A ir M a rt in t h e A. C. J
. ; ARAM ARK CORRECT I ONA L S ERVI CES , I NC.

A l l eghenyC ount yJ ai l O per at i on

O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. N o. 04- cv- 00911) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D avi d S. C er cone
Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y3, 2007
B efor e: B A R R Y , C H A G A R E S and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed Sept ember 12, 2007)

____________ O P I N I O N

____________2

P ER CURI AM P l ai nti ff Jam ar L
. T ravi l l i on app eal s pro se fr om an or derof t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he W es t er n D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant i ng s um m ar yj udgm enti n favorof d e f e n d a n t A ra m a rk C o rr e c tio n a l S e rv ic e s , In c . 

### We w ill af firm
. In hi s ci vil ri gh t s com plai nt, T ravi l l i on al l eges that A ram ark C orr ect i on al S ervi ces, I nc. ( her ei naft er“A r amar k”) , a companyhe cont ends over s ees food pr epar at ion and
c o m m iss a ryn e e d s f

o r th e A lleg h e n y C o u n ty Ja il, v io late d th e F irst, F o u rte e n th , an d E ig h th A m endment s w hen A r amar k s er ved veget ar i an m eal s t o al l of t he i nm at es att he j ai l dur i ng L enti n 2004. T r avi l l i on, a Pr ot es t ant , al l eges t hatt he pr ovi s i on of m eat l es s m eal s for ced h im to p ra c tice a re lig io u s te n e t o f C a th o licism
. H e f

u rth e r co n ten d s th a t in o rd e r to a v o id t he pr act i ce of

C at hol i ci s m , he w as for ced t o “hungers t r i ke” on s even di ffe r entday s i n 2004. F o r h is p e rc e iv e d in

ju ry, T ra v illio n s e e k s $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 in d a m a g e s . 

### A ram arkd idn o t an sw er T rav illio n ’s co m p lain t . Wh enT rav illio nsub sequ en tly
m ove d for

ade faul t judgm e nt

at the di r e c t i on of the Di s tr i c t Court , Ar am ark fi l e d am ot i on to dismis s o r, in the a lt er

nati ve, for summ ar

y ju dg m ent. In that

m otion, Aram ar

k con te nd ed that Tr avi l l i on ha d fa i l e d t o pr ope r l y s e rve Ar am ark. The Di s tr i c t Court de ni e d the m ot i on for de faul t and e nt e r e d s umm ary judgm e nt i n Ar am ark’ s favor i n a c c or dan ce w ith the M ag istrate Ju d g e’s R ep o rt an dR eco mm en d atio n . T rav illio n ’s tim ely ap p eal f o llo w ed
.T r avi l l i on al so n am ed T ere sa C offe e, an A r amar k empl oy ee, i n hi s compl ai nt , but 1 C offe e w as di s m i s s ed fr om t hi s act i on i n A pr i l 2005 beca us e s ervi ce w as noteff ectuat ed upon her as r equi r ed byFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 4( m )
. A l t hough nots peci fi ed byt he D i s t r i ct C our t , s uch di s m i s s al s ar e ordi nar i l y w i t hout pr ej udi ce. B eca us e C offe e w as never s er ved w i t h t he C om pl ai nt , s he di d notbecome a par t yt o t hi s cas e, and t her efor e t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or derent er i ng s um m ar y j udgm ent i n favor of A r amar k i s fi nal and appeal abl e. See U .S . v . S tu d iv a n t, 5 2 9 F .2 d 6 7 3 , 6 7 4 n .2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 6 ). 3 W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. 1 A s a pr el i m i nar ym at t er , w e obs er ve t hat th e D i s t r i ctC our tr efus ed t o gr ant T r avi l l i on’ s m ot i on fora def aul tj udgm entbeca us e A r amar k had notbeen pr oper l ys er ved
w ith th e c o m p lain t. T h e D istric t C o u rt th e n p ro c e e d e d to e n ter su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in A r amar k’ s favor
. A s pr oper se r vi ce i s a pr er equi s i t e t o per s onal j ur i s di ct i on, t he D i s t r i ct C our ts houl d nothave e nt er ed s um m ar yj udgm entundert hes e ci r cu m stan ce s. See G r and E nt er t ai nm entG r oup, L T D v. St ar M edi a Sal es , I nc. , 988 F. 2d 476, 492 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( “A d istric t co u rt’s p o w e r to a ss e rt i n p e rs o n a m aut hor i t yoverpar t i es defe ndanti s depende ntnot
o n lyo n c o m p lian c e w ith d u e p ro c e ss b u t a lso o n c o m p lian c e w ith th e tec h n ica lit ies o f R u le 4
. ”). H o w ev er, th is error is of n o m o m en t here b e c a u s e , as e x p lai n ed b elow , T rav il li o n ’s act i on coul d have been pr oper l y di s m i s s ed under28 U
. S. C
. § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) , pr i ort o s er vi ce
o f p roc ess. S ee 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). I n or der t o es t abl i s h a sec t i on 1983 ci vi l r i ght s cl ai m , a cl ai m antm us ts how : “( 1) t hat t he conduct compl ai ned of w as comm i t t ed by a per s on act i ng undercol orof s t at e l aw ; and ( 2) t hatt he conduc tdepr i v ed a per s on of r i ght s , pr i vi l eges , ori m m uni t i es s ecur ed byt he C ons t i tut i on orl aw s of t he U ni t ed St at es . ” R obb v. C i t y of Phi l adel phi a, 733 F. 2d 286, 290-4

91 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( ci t i ng Par r at tv. T ay l or , 451 U
. S. 527, 535 ( 1981) )
. A l t hough t he D i s t r i ct C our tfai l ed t o es t abl i s h w het herornotA r amar k w as a s t at e ac t or , w e w i l l as s um e, w i t hout deci di ng, forpurpos es of t hi s appea l , t hat A r amar k w as act i ng under col or of st at e l aw w hen i ts er ved veget ar i an m eal s at t he A l l egheny C ounty J ai l
. T he quest i on t hen bec om es w het her A r ama rk’s act i ons depr i ved Tra vi l l i on of a r i ght , pr i vi l ege ori m m uni t ys ecur ed byt he C ons t i tut i on. For t he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e concl ude t hatA r amar k’ s act i ons di d notdepr i ve T ra v illio n o f

a n yc o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. I. E st ab l i shm en t C l au se C la im T ra v ill i on al l eges t hat A ram ark vi olat ed the E st abli shm ent C l ause of t he F i rs t A m endment of t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on bys er vi ng al l of t he i nm at es att he A l l egheny C o u n tyJa il v e g e tar ian m e a ls d u rin g th e 2 0 0 4 L e n t se a so n . T h is c o n ten tio n is w ith o u t m e rit. U nderL em o n v . K ur t zman, 403 U
. S. 602, 612- 13 ( 1971) , an ac t i on chal l enged unde rt he E stab li sh m e n t C la u se is u n co n sti tuti o n al i f (1 ) i t l ac k s a se cu lar pu rpo se, (2) it s p ri m ary eff ectei t heradvanc es ori nhi bi t s r el i gi on, or( 3) fos t er s an exc es s i ve ent angl ement of gover nm entw i t h r el i gi on. See al s o M odr ovi ch v. A l l eghenyC ount y , Penns y l vani a, 385 F. 3d 397, 401 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( di s cus s i ng t he Lem on t es t )
. H er e, A r amar k’ s acti o n s had t he
sec u lar pu rpo se o f f

ee d ing the in m ates. T h e se rvice o f thes e m ea ls did n o t hav e the p ri m ary eff ectof adva nci ng C at hol i ci s m ori nhi bi t i ng ot herr el i gi ons , nordi d i tfos t ert he exc es s i ve ent angl ement of governm entw i t h r el i gi on. A s t he D i s t r i ct C our t obs er ved, t he eat i ng of a
v eg etarian rep ast i s n o t i n h er e n tly link ed to a re li g iou s p rac ti ce . V eg etarian m ea ls are5

r egul ar l yeat en by m any di ffe r entpeopl e on an e ver y daybas i s , r egar dl es s of t hei rr el i gi on. II. E q u a l P r o te c tio n C la im T r avi l l i on’ s equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m i s l i kew i s e w i t houtm er i t . T he Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e of t h e F our t eenth A m endment comm ands t hats i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed per s ons be t r eat ed al i ke. See C i t yof C l ebur ne v. C l ebur ne Li vi ng C t r . , 473 U
. S. 432, 439 ( 1985) ( ci t i ng Pl y l er
v. D oe , 457 U
. S. 202, 216 ( 1982) )
. A n equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m can be br oughtbya “c l as s of
o n e,” a p lai n ti ff

all eg ing that h e h as b ee n “inten ti o n a llytr ea ted d iffe ren tl yfro m o thers
s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed and thatt h ere is no r at i onal bas i s fort he di ffe r ence i n t r eatm ent . ” See V i l l age of

W i l l ow br ook v. O l ech, 528 U
. S
. 5 6 2 , 5 6 4 (2000) ( percur i am). T her e w as no i m pr operdi ffe r ent i al t r eatm enther e becaus e, as not ed above, al l of t he pr i s oner s w er e s er ved veget ar i an meal s dur i ng L ent , i r r es pect i ve of t hei r r el i gi on. Fur t her , T r avi l l i on’ s compl ai nt does notal l ege thathi s Pr ot est an t f ait h requi r ed hi m t o eatcer t ai n t ypes of m eal s , ort hat A ra m a rk re f

u se d to a c c o m m o d a te h is re lig io u s d ieta ryn e e d s, w h ile s im u ltan e o u sly
a c c o m m o d a tin g th e d ie ta ry re q u ir e m e n ts o f o th e r s im ila rl ys itu a te d in m a te s . III . E ig h th A m e n d m e n t C la im T ra v ill io n a lso c o m p la in s th a t A ra m a rk ’s a c tio n s v io late d th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. H ow ever , beca us e Tra vi l l i on w as a pr e- t r i al det ai nee at t he t i m e of t he ac t i ons he compl ai ns of, t he Ei ght h A m endment does notappl yt o hi m . I ns t ead, T r avi l l i on i s el i gi bl e forpr ot ect i on
u n d e r th e D u e P ro c e ss c lau se . A s d isc u ss e d a b o v e , T ra v ill io n c laim s h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts
wer e v i o l a t e d whe n h e was s e r v e d v e g e t a r i a n me a l s o n e i g h td a y s d u r i n g Le n ti n 2 0 0 4 andT ravi l l i on al s o appea l s fr om a number of ot heror der s , i ncl udi ng an or derdeny i ng a 2 m o tio n f o r d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t, a m o tio n to c o m p e l d isc o v e ry , an d a m o tio n u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le of C i vil P rocedu re 56(f)
. W e are s at i sfi ed thatt he D i st ri ctC ou rtproperl y re so lved these m o tio n s . ch o se to “h u n g er stri k e” o n th o se o cc asio n s. T rav il li o n ’s claim o f a co n sti tuti o n al i n jury pr emi s ed on hi s ow n r efus al t o eatanyt hi ng w hen he w as s er ved a s m al l num berof vege t ar i an
m ea ls i s n o t w o rt h yo f se ri o u s co n side rati o n an d m erit s d ism issal un d er 

### 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B )
. See D eut s ch v. U ni t ed St at es , 67 F. 3d 1080, 1087 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( cour tm ay foc u s o n w h ether act i on i s fr i vol ous i n t he s ens e t hati ti s of l i t t l e orno w ei ght , val ue or im p o rta n c e , n o t w o rth yo f se rio u s c o n sid e ra tio n , o r triv ial). F u rth e r, T r a v ill io n a p p e a rs to cont end t hatA r amar k i s s om ehow r es pons i bl e for cer t ai n al l eged r et al i at or yact i ons t aken by p ri so n empl oy ees ( w ho ar e notpar t i es t o t hi s act i on) aft erT r avi l l i on compl ai ned aboutt he veget ar i an meal s . A r amar k i s cl ear l yn o t li ab le f o rt he ac t i ons of pr i s on s t aff w ho ar e not A ra m a rk e m p lo y e e s . For t hes e re as ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or der
. T o t he ext entT r avi l l i on 2
a t t e mp t s t o r a i s e a n yi s s u e s f o rt h e f i r s tt i me o n a p p e a l , we d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s t h e m.