Opinion ID: 168792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Background and Procedural H istory

Text: Plaintiff-Appellee Jimmy Searles, appearing pro se, 1 was incarcerated as a state prisoner at the Hutchinson Correctional Facility in Hutchinson, Kansas, at all tim es relevant to the acts that form the basis of his claims in this action. H e filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants denied him the use of Tefillin 2 and a meaningful religious observance of the Jewish festival of Sukkoth in 1999 and 2000, both in violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting, inter alia, qualified immunity due to lack of personal participation and requesting summary judgment on the merits of plaintiff’s claims (First Summary Judgment M otion). The district court denied the motion as to qualified immunity, finding that 1 Because plaintiff appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 & n.3 (10th Cir. 1991). 2 Tefillin are leather boxes with attached leather straps containing passages from the Torah that are used in Jewish prayer. -2- plaintiff adequately had alleged personal participation of each of the defendants. The court granted summary judgment on the merits of all of plaintiff’s claims except the denial of a “festive meal” of apples and honey, stating that “a factual issue remains concerning whether defendants provided apples as part of the plaintiff’s meal in celebration of Rosh Hoshana [sic].” Aplt. App. at 37-38. The court also noted the existence of a “larger issue,” namely, “the authorization for festive meals w hile in segregation,” and stated that defendants “offer no rationale for the policy of denying inmates festive meals while in segregation.” Id. at 38. On the record provided to us, it appears that the denial of the festive meal was not raised in the original complaint. Instead, it appears in “Count III” of plaintiff’s amended complaint, apparently in the allegation that defendants denied him a meaningful observance of Rosh Hashanah in 2000. Id. at 51. 3 Shortly after plaintiff filed his amended complaint, defendants filed a “supplemental” motion for summary judgment in which they argued that plaintiff failed to establish their personal participation in the denial of the festive meal because his claims were merely conclusory allegations unsupported by any facts (Second Summary Judgment M otion). The district court denied the motion, concluding that whether or not defendants provided plaintiff with a festive meal remained a disputed fact issue. The court also ruled that defendants’ citation to 3 The amended complaint was filed in M arch 2004, nearly five months after the district court ruled on the First Summary Judgment M otion. -3- § 20-105(IV)(A) of the Kansas Department of Internal M anagement Policy and Procedure, which apparently states that inmates in segregation shall be treated as nearly as possible like any other inmate in the general population of the institution or facility, 4 “does not settle the factual dispute at issue here.” Id. at 63. Defendants Bruce, DeChant, and Cummings (but not Green) (hereinafter, appellants) then filed a third motion for summary judgment, which was amended three times (Third Summary Judgment M otion). They argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established right to a favorable result from the grievance process. They based this argument on the factual assertions set forth in the final pretrial order, namely, that defendant Green denied the festive meal and appellants denied plaintiff’s grievances of that denial. The district court denied the motion, framing plaintiff’s claim against appellants as a violation of his constitutional right to have his religiously based dietary requirements accommodated rather than, as appellants had framed it, a violation of his right to a favorable result from the grievance process. Citing its earlier order denying the First Summary Judgment M otion, the court stated that plaintiff had alleged that he was denied a festive meal. The court concluded that, 4 Because we have not found a copy of this section in the appendices, we rely on the district court’s representation of its contents. -4- at the time of the alleged denial, there was a clearly established constitutional right to accommodation of religiously based dietary requirements, and reiterated its concern that appellants offered no rationale for a policy of denying festive meals to inmates in segregation. Id. at 141-42. Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration of that order, which the district court denied.