Sixth Circuit Revives Ohio Prisoner’s Retaliation Claim That Guards Got Him Kicked Out of Religious Group
by David M. Reutter
On December 13, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed dismissal of an Equal Protection Clause claim by Ohio prisoner Lyle Heyward that officials frustrated his attempts to celebrate Ramadan. However, dismissal was affirmed for companion claims that they also violated his First Amendment rights with retaliation, as well as his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.
While imprisoned at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution (AOCI), Heyward alleged that his sincerely held religious beliefs were overburdened when Defendant officials Heather Cooper, Cori Smith, P. Engles, Al-Hagg and Joanna Factor “knowingly and systematically allowed non-Muslims to prepare and serve food during Ramadan”—even though “[i]t is a sincerely held mandatory tenet belief of [his] that the food which is prepared, specifically during Ramadan, is to be both prepared and served by Muslims only,” as the Court recalled.
Moreover this happened while Defendants permitted “other AOCI faith groups” to congregate and partake of religiously significant foods—e.g., Christians receiving communion and congregating for prayer or retreats, or members of the Jewish faith receiving Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur meals. Because they allegedly “refused to allow” Muslims to congregate and “never provided Dates for the entirety of Ramadan,” Heyward filed grievances and claimed he was retaliated against three times as a result.
He then filed a civil rights complaint against numerous prison officials in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, which granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Heyward filed a timely appeal. Examining the merits of his case, the Sixth Circuit noted first that “RLUIPA doesn’t permit money damages claims against state prison officials in their individual capacities,” per Haight v. Thompson, 763 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2014).
The Court then found the prisoner’s requests for injunctive relief under RLUIPA were moot for at least two reasons. “First, he didn’t allege a present or future injury,” the Court said. Second, Heyward had transferred facilities, and his “requests were directed specifically at” AOCI officials “and were not targeted at [Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction] program[s] as a whole.”
As to his retaliation claims, the Court noted the first occurred after Heyward filed grievances alleging discriminatory treatment during Ramadan—specifically that he and others received insufficient calories, plus a claim involving allegedly false drug tests. The Court affirmed dismissal of those claims because they were conclusionary or failed to state a claim, respectively. The third retaliation claim involved removal from AOCI’s Cultural Awareness Inmate Group due to his grievances. On that claim the Court reversed dismissal, finding Heyward plausibly alleged that loss of his two-year membership in the group “would deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his First Amendment rights.”
Finally, the Court turned to Heyward’s Equal Protection Claim, saying it could “plausibly infer” from his allegations that Defendants Cooper, Smith, Davis and Factor “would likely have known” of Heyward’s complaints about dates and limits on congregational gathering. In reversing dismissal of this claim, the Court concluded that Heyward was treated differently than prisoners of other faiths and that this treatment burdened his religious exercise. The case was then remanded for further proceedings. Before the Court, Heyward was represented by attorney Samuel Weiss with Rights Behind Bars in Washington, D.C. See: Heyward v. Cooper, 88 F.4th 648 (6th Cir. 2023).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Heyward v. Cooper
| Year | 2023 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 88 F.4th 648 (6th Cir. 2023) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Appeals Court Edition | F.4th |