Ninth Circuit Greenlights Muslim Hawaii Prisoner’s Challenge to Early-Served Ramadan Meals
by Douglas Ankney
On February 5, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment to Defendant Hawaii Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) officials accused by prisoner Dewitt Lamar Long of violating his First Amendment right to free exercise of his Muslim religion when they served his evening meal four hours before he break his daily fast at sundown during Ramadan.
Long was imprisoned at the high security Halawa Correctional Facility (HCF) in Aiea in 2017 when a guard named Sgt. Lee delivered his evening meals around 3:30 p.m. long before sundown arrived around 7:30 p.m. Since it was during the month of Ramadan, Long’s faith prohibited breaking his fast earlier; but by then “the food was often inedible and potentially unsafe, and, if eaten, exacerbated his stomach ulcers,” the Court later recalled.
In the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint he filed pro se in federal court for the District of Hawaii, Lee also asked “that staff reassess their policy and procedures, and be properly trained so as the religious rights of all are respected equally … as well as during Ramadan evening meals be served hot and or the microwave be made available.”
The district court granted summary judgment to Lee, citing LeMaire v. Maas, 12 F.3d 1444 (9th Cir. 1993), in which the Ninth Circuit held that unappetizing but nutritious “Nutraloaf” did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and that “food served cold, while unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional grievance.” The lower court also granted summary judgment to Defendant Security Chief Lyle Antonio on Long’s claim that a temporary transfer to a higher-security DCR prison was retaliatory. Summary judgment was also granted to another Defendant guard, kitchen chief Sgt. Sugai, whom Long claimed singled him out for smaller servings at mealtimes, many of which he was also forced to eat in his cell.
Long appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Long’s claims against Antonio—finding no evidence of retaliatory intent—and Sugai; his testimony was credited over Long’s, and the Court found no error in that. Turning to the First Amendment claim against Lee, the Court said it must first determine whether Long’s free exercise of his religion was “substantially burdened,” as held in Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2015).
Here, a sister circuit’s ruling in Makin v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 183 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 1999) was directly on point: A Muslim prisoner in punitive segregation and unable to eat his evening meal when delivered had to save crackers and dry food from lunch and breakfast in order to eat after sundown; “the prison’s actions infringed on the inmate’s right to free exercise of his religion,” the Court recalled, and defendants had not offered “any legitimate penological interests to justify that infringement,” as laid out in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
The Court explained that a “substantial burden exists when the state places substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs,” citing Jones v. Slade, 23 F.4th 1124 (9th Cir. 2022). Judicial notice was taken that “some food cannot safely sit at room temperature for four hours,” citing Food Facts: Serving Up Safe Buffets, F.D.A. (2017). Plus, the Court had “consistently held that the failure to provide food consistent with a prisoner’s sincerely held religious beliefs constitutes a substantial burden on a prisoner’s free exercise,” as recorded in Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2008). Clearly, delivery of Long’s evening meal at 3:30 p.m. during Ramadan substantially burdened free exercise of his religion, the Court continued, and the district court should have evaluated the factors laid out in Turner to determine whether the burden was justified.
Accordingly, summary judgment was vacated as to Lee and the case remanded. Before the Court, Long was represented by California attorneys Curt Cutting and Rebecca G. Powell of Horvitz & Levy LLP, Burbank, as well as Maxwell Lyster and Macy Merritt, Certified Law Students from Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law’s Ninth Circuit Appellate Advocacy Clinic in Malibu. See: Long v. Sugai, 91 F.4th 1331 (9th Cir. 2024).
Back at the district court, a confidential settlement was reached on October 4, 2024. PLN has requested documentation, since it’s unclear why the settlement terms were kept off the docket. It is possible that DCR simply wants to avoid bad publicity like that generated for the city of Honolulu, when it paid $35,000 in 2013 to settle Long’s claims that city cops beat him up during a traffic stop—while he was also awaiting sentencing for raping a 15-year-old. Charges from the traffic stop were eventually dropped.
Additional source: Honolulu Civil Beat
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