Summary
This document is a United States District Court order on remand addressing a pro se inmate's First Amendment free exercise claim against prison officials. The court evaluates whether denying the plaintiff a vegan diet aligned with his Hindu beliefs violated his constitutional rights under the Turner factors, concluding that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. The order also denies a motion to strike a defendant's declaration and briefly addresses qualified immunity.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Defendant Thomas personally participated in the denial of Blake's First Amendment free‑exercise claim.
- Whether the denial of Blake's vegan diet request violates the First Amendment free‑exercise clause.
- Whether Defendant Thomas is entitled to qualified immunity.
Holdings
- Summary judgment is granted on the first two elements.
- Summary judgment is denied on the third element and on qualified immunity because genuine issues of material fact exist.
Key quotations
“The Court’s prior order adopting Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation already found that Blake had a sincerely held belief that he must maintain a vegan diet as a Hindu adherent that believes in Ahimsa, and that Blake’s religious exercise was substantially burdened.” (at 13)
Factual background
Alfonso M. Blake, a Hindu inmate at Ely State Prison, requested a vegan diet consistent with his Ahimsa beliefs. The Nevada Department of Corrections offered him the Alternative Meatless Diet, which contained animal products, and denied his request for the Common Fare Menu, which is provided to Jewish and Muslim inmates. Blake filed grievances and lawsuits alleging violations of the First Amendment, RLUIPA, and Equal Protection.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim, dismissed First Amendment and Equal Protection claims as duplicative, and later denied Defendant's summary‑judgment motions after the Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment on Defendant Thomas's personal participation. The case returned to the district court for further analysis.