Muslim New York Prisoner’s Free Exercise of Religion Claim Reinstated
by David M. Reutter
On May 15, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed summary judgment on a New York prisoner’s First Amendment free exercise claim while also affirming a jury’s verdict finding continuous lighting in his cell did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Chamma K. Brandon filed his pro se civil rights suit in federal court for the Southern District of New York, bringing two claims against state Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS) officials over events while he was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. The first claim alleged that he was denied a special meal in celebration of Eid al-Adha, to which he was entitled under the First Amendment because it was necessary for the free exercise of his Muslim religious faith. The second claim accused DOCCS of violating his Eighth Amendment guarantee of freedom from cruel and unusual punishment by keeping his housing block lighted constantly.
In the first claim, Brandon recalled that Sing Sing officials said too many prisoners were signed up for the Eid-al-Adha event so the meal was offered in cell to encourage takers to withdraw and allow the event to occur. Brandon was one of those who voluntarily withdrew from the Eid al-Adha celebration in exchange for having the meal for the event brought to his cell. But the meal was not delivered after a prison employee ordered the meals destroyed as unauthorized. Brandon alleged this violated of his First Amendment rights, but the district court granted Defendant DOCCS officials summary judgment on the claim in 2021, concluding that they had a legitimate penological interest in denying the in-cell meal and that Brandon had alternative means of exercising his right by attending the event.
However, the Second Circuit did not agree. Brandon claimed that the whole reason for offering the meal in his cell to begin with was because there were too many prisoners signed up to receive it in the dining hall so that was not legitimately an “alternative means” of exercising his religious rights. The appellate Court said this created a disputed material fact for a jury to decide, so summary judgment on this claim was reversed.
The second claim had proceeded to a five-day jury trial at the district court in September 2021, when a verdict was returned for Defendants. But jurors never heard Brandon’s expert testimony from Dr. Steven Lockley, who would have explained the extremely negative effects of 24/7 lighting on his health. The district court excluded this testimony because it wasn’t offered during discovery, and it refused to reopen discovery because of prejudice and additional expense that Defendants would suffer as a result. On appeal, Brandon argued that this also was an error. But the Second Circuit disagreed, affirming the judgment entered after the jury verdict. Before the Court, Brandon was represented pro bono by attorney Alessandra DeBlasio in Manhattan. See: Brandon v. Royce, 102 F.4th 47 (2nd Cir. 2024).
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