Opinion
22-3280-JWL-JPO
11-15-2022
ROYAL DOMINGO FLAGG, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN BELLINGER, ET AL., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JAMES P. O'HARA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Royal Domingo Flagg is a Kansas prisoner incarcerated at the Barton County Jail (BCJ) in Great Bend, Kansas. He commenced this pro se civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 27, 2022 and he proceeds in forma pauperis. The matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's complaint filed November 10, 2022 on the court-approved forms. In the complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants Barton County Sheriff Brian Bellinger, Sergeant Parks, Deputy Smith, Deputy Vonfeldt, Deputy Tripp, Deputy Kennon, and currently unidentified kitchen personnel at BCJ. (Doc. 6, p. 1-3.)
As the factual background for this complaint, Plaintiff, alleges that he requested kosher or halal meals because he is a Muslim. Id. at 2. Beginning on October 24, 2022, he was provided with a “meal ready to eat,” or “MRE,” three times per day that consisted of only a packet of chicken noodle soup. Id. at 2, 4-5. Sergeant Parks informed him that this would be provided to him as his kosher/halal diet and when Plaintiff asked if he would receive any additional food, Sergeant Parks responded, “‘No, that is all the calories the law says we have to provide you.'” Id. at 5.
Petitioner further alleges that the MREs made him sick, caused him to lose weight, and are nutritionally deficient. Id. at 4-6. He informed BCJ medical staff of the issues, but received no response. His requests to BCJ staff for additional kosher or halal food were denied, and he was told that he would receive no additional food unless he changed his religious-diet request. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on the following days, the following defendants provided him only the MRE and no other food: October 27, 2022, Deputy Vonfeldt and Deputy Kennon; October 28, 2022, Deputy Smith; October 29, 2022, Deputy Vonfeldt and Deputy Kennon; October 30, Deputy Vonfeldt, Deputy Tripp, and Deputy Kennon; and October 31, 2022, Deputy Tripp.
Plaintiff told Sergeant Parks, Deputy Smith, Deputy Kennon, Deputy Vonfeldt, and Deputy Tripp that the MREs were making him sick. Id. at 5. Sergeant Parks and Deputy Vonfeldt advised him that if he did not want the MREs, he could opt for a non-religious meal. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that he filed an administrative grievance and received a response stating that he will continue to receive only the three packets of soup daily. Id. at 8. When Plaintiff appealed, he again was informed that he had the option to abandon his religious-meal request. Id.
When Plaintiff's wife attempted to bring Plaintiff kosher food, Sheriff Bellinger told her that the MREs were sufficient and Plaintiff would receive no additional food unless he wanted to change his religious-diet request. Id. at 6. On October 28, 2022, when the Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America contacted Sheriff Bellinger about concerns regarding Plaintiff's diet, Sheriff Bellinger said that Plaintiff was refusing food and was on a food strike. Id. Plaintiff asserts that to date, he has not received a nutritionally adequate diet that complies with his religious beliefs. Id. at 3. He states that as of the date he completed the operative complaint, he was awaiting kosher food he was able to purchase through the BCJ canteen. Id. at 6.
As Count I of the complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he is continuing to be served MREs only, despite becoming ill and despite MREs failing to provide the nutrients necessary to sustain his health. Id. at 4. As Count II, Plaintiff asserts that the defendants are demonstrating deliberate indifference to his health by providing a nutritionally inadequate religious meal. Id. As Count III, Plaintiff asserts that the defendants are discriminating against him based on his religion by providing him only soup packets while other inmates, who have not requested the same religious diet, are given breads, dairy, vegetables, and fruit. Id. at 7. As relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an injunction ordering Defendants to provide him an adequate religious diet that includes bread and/or crackers, fruits and/or vegetables, and dairy, consistent with the “Kansas Certified Religious diet requirements.” Id. at 4, 8. He also asks the Court to award monetary damages for physical suffering and order Defendants to pay any legal fees. Id. at 8.
Considering the record currently before the Court, the Court concludes that the proper processing of Plaintiff's claims cannot be achieved without additional information from appropriate officials of the Barton County Jail. See Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978); see also Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991). The Court does not order service of process at this time but will screen the complaint after receipt of the report ordered herein and Plaintiff's response to that report.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
(1) The report required herein shall be filed no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order, unless the time is extended by the Court.
(2) Officials responsible for the operation of the Barton County Jail are directed to undertake a review of the subject matter of the complaint:
a. To ascertain the facts and circumstances; and
b. To determine whether other like complaints, whether pending in this court or elsewhere, are related to this complaint and should be considered together.
(3) Upon completion of the review, a written report shall be compiled. Copies of pertinent rules, regulations, official documents, and police reports shall be included in the written report.
(4) Authorization is granted to the officials of the Barton County Jail to interview all witnesses having knowledge of the facts, including Plaintiff.
(5) Discovery by Plaintiff shall not commence until the report has been filed and the Court has completed its screening of this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall enter the Sheriff of Barton County, Kansas as an interested party on the docket for the limited purpose of preparing and filing the Martinez report ordered herein. Upon the filing of that report, the interested party may move for termination from this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days following the issuance of the Martinez report to file a reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.