Ninth Circuit Reinstates Religious Exercise Claim from Arizona “Christian-Israelite” Prisoner Denied Passover Meal
In 2017, a prisoner describing himself as a “Christian-Israelite” was denied access to his Arizona prison’s Passover meal after the unit chaplain challenged his religious beliefs.
Michael Ray Fuqua was incarcerated at the Arizona State Prison Complex in Stafford when he requested “to be placed on the list to observe the upcoming Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread in order to follow my religious beliefs.” According to Fuqua, he is a Christian-Israelite, a “subset of the Christian Identity faith” who believe that Europeans descended from one of the 10 northern tribes of Israelites who were defeated by the Assyrians; the Southern Poverty Law Center, however, describes Christian Identity as an “antisemitic, racist theology.” Jeffrey Lind, the chaplain, responded by telling Fuqua (1) that he was unaware of the list to which Fuqua referred and (2) that he required documentation of the religion.
Fuqua responded to Lind by identifying the list as one given to the food contractor that named the recipients of the Passover meals. He also requested a meeting with the chaplain to discuss the documentation issue. After the meeting, Lind determined that Fuqua was “unable to articulate what his religious reasons for a Kosher for Passover diet were.” According to Fuqua, Lind became visibly upset during the meeting. The chaplain even raised his voice and told Fuqua that the Christian Identity’s teachings of descent from Israelite tribes were false. Lind commented on the latter statement at length in a response to a complaint filed by Fuqua, in which he said that Fuqua’s beliefs were unsupported by biblical Scripture and historical record.
Fuqua filed his suit in federal court for the District of Arizona when state prison officials confirmed his unit’s denial of his grievance. He claimed that the prison’s refusal to accommodate his request forced him to “starve for [eight] days” and caused him to lose 15 to 20 pounds, as well as spend up to $150 in commissary food purchases, including matzo labeled “not for Passover use.”
Fuqua was later transferred to another prison that did accommodate his dietary requests. In turn, the district court granted Lind’s request for summary judgment, in part because it agreed that Fuqua had failed to show how not getting the Passover accommodation substantially burdened his religious beliefs. The district court further found his injunctive claims were mooted by his transfer to a new unit that was accommodating to his request.
On November 1, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit partially reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgement on Fuqua’s claim. The appellate Court noted that Lind’s requirement that Fuqua show the validity of his faith could easily lead a rational trier of fact to believe that his denial of the prisoner’s request was “based on Lind’s own theological assessment of the correctness and internal doctrinal consistency of Fuqua’s belief system.” Unlike a denial for a “failure to follow a neutral and valid procedural rule for requesting accommodations,” the Court said, this was “suffic[ient] to establish a substantial burden,” shifting responsibility back to Defendant prison officials to demonstrate that they were justified by one of the factors set out in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
Additionally, the Court found that Lind could have provided a “good faith accommodation” with a meal plan that was already being given to adherents of another faith. Instead, Lind “acted with subjective antipathy towards Fuqua’s belief system,” the Court noted, reinstating the prisoner’s First Amendment Free Exercise and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause claims. Denial was affirmed of a companion claim that Fuqua made under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. ch. 21C § 2000cc et seq. Citing Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2014), the Court said that the RLUIPA offers only equitable relief, and Fuqua’s subsequent transfer to a more accommodating prison had already satisfied that. Before the Court, Fuqua was represented by attorney Daren G. Zhang with Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC in Washington, D.C. See: Fuqua v. Raak, 120 F.4th 1346 (9th Cir. 2024).
Meanwhile the Fifth Circuit denied another RLUIPA claim for lack of actual damages in Landor v. La. Dep’t of Corr. & Pub. Safety, 93 F.4th 259 (5th Cir. 2024), prompting a request for a petition for certiorari from the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) to consider an appeal. Back at the district court in his case then, Fuqua won a stay on November 24, 2024, while SCOTUS considers that request. PLN will continue to update developments as they are available. See: Fuqua v. Ryan, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 29513 (9th Cir.).
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
Fuqua v. Raak
| Year | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 120 F.4th 1346 (9th Cir. 2024) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |