Opinion ID: 6536840
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The First Complaint

Text: After he was unable to convince Goose Creek to grant him access to halal meat or scented oils, Leahy filed a complaint in superior court in December 2014 4 for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages against John Conant, the Goose Creek superintendent, and James Duncan, the Department of Corrections' statewide Chaplaincy Coordinator (the officials). Leahy argued that they violated his rights under RLUIPA by placing a substantial burden on his religious exercise by denying his request for a halal meat diet and banning scented prayer oil, 5 and that the officials' actions also violated article I, sections 1 and 4 of the Alaska Constitution. 6 Goose Creek began serving halal/kosher meat meals at about the same time that Leahy filed his complaint. But Leahy objected to the quality and nutritional value of the meals. Leahy claimed that around the same time, Goose Creek introduced pork for the first time into its kitchen. Islamic law considers pork to be haram or unlawful; Leahy was concerned that his meals were being contaminated by their preparation in the same kitchen.