Remand Ordered in Prisoner's Religious Rights Case

Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 2010 WL 1254350 (4/2/10) (Published) - The 10th reverses summary judgment in favor of Oklahoma prison officials because there was a genuine issue of material fact whether, in violation of RLUIPA, the prison had substantially burdened the plaintiff's Muslim religious beliefs by refusing to provide him with a halal diet that includes meats, but only offering non-pork and vegetarian meals . The question was not whether the restriction substantially burdened the religious exercise of any Muslim practitioner, but whether it substantially burdened the plaintiff's sincerely held religious beliefs. It didn't matter whether the halal meal was central to the plaintiff's religion and neither the court nor the prison was qualified to say the diets offered should satisfy the plaintiff's religious beliefs. The 10th announced that a substantial burden could be placed on religious exercise not only by requiring an activity the religion prohibits or preventing participation in religion-related conduct, but also by placing substantial pressure on an adherent not to engage in religion-related conduct. In this case, the prison effectively threatened the plaintiff with starvation if he chose to follow his religious beliefs. The prison's offer to allow the purchase or donation of religiously-acceptable meals is insufficient to meet the prison's duty, since that policy does not necessarily help an indigent prisoner, the prison had not approved any halal vendors to supply food and the Muslim community cannot be expected or required to provide food for prisoners. The case was remanded to determine if the prison had a compelling interest in its policy and whether the policy was the least restrictive means to serve the compelling interest.