Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-12085-RGS.
December 3, 2010
ORDER
BACKGROUND
On December 1, 2010, plaintiff Nathan Marquis LeBaron ("LeBaron"), a prisoner at MCI Norfolk and a frequent filer in this Court, filed a self-prepared Complaint under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA") against various prison officials and employees. LeBaron alleges that the defendants are impermissibly infringing on his free exercise of the Messianic Judaism faith. He alleges that, before a kosher diet was approved for him, he was served beans that contained rocks in them, causing him to break his tooth. He further contends that since he was allowed a kosher diet, he has experienced retaliation almost on a daily basis for six months, being moved around to different blocks at MCI Norfolk for no reason. He alleges that the kosher meals are too small and do not provide sufficient nutrition, and contends that the meals are not strictly kosher. He also challenges sanctions against him for possession of contraband items relating to the food issues.
RLUIPA states, in pertinent part:
No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . ., even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person —
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2). RLUIPA applies to states and state actors. Section 3 of RLUIPA provides judicial relief to institutionalized persons and applies to state-run facilities including prisons, and requires a higher standard of review than constitutional free exercise claims. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(b).
In addition to his complaints concerning the food at MCI Norfolk, LeBaron alleges that he is only allowed to study and pray at the block or in his cell, where there are constant disruptions, and that his request for a place to study was denied, along with his request for religious materials (considered contraband by the defendants). In the exhibits attached to the Complaint (Docket No. 2), there is a letter to LeBaron dated December 16, 2009 indicating that the Massachusetts Department of Correction does not recognize the Messianic Judaism as a religion and therefore would not approve requests for services or a special religious diet.
Along with the Complaint, LeBaron filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and Affidavit in Support (Docket No. 3), a Motion (Notice) for Hearing (Docket No. 4), a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 5), and a Motion for an Immediate PLRA Screening (Docket No. 6).
In LeBaron's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, he seeks an Order preventing the defendants from retaliating against him for exercising his protected speech in asserting free exercise of religion rights. He also seeks an Order enjoining his transfer to another prison, and enjoining the defendants from refusing to provide him kosher meals and a place to conduct worship and religious practices.
DISCUSSION
I. The Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
After review of LeBaron's financial disclosures and prison account statement, the court finds he lacks funds to pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action. Accordingly, his Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 5) is ALLOWED but the filing fee assessment is DEFERRED pending further review and manual calculation of LeBaron's filing fee obligations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The filing fee will be assessed upon further Order of the Court after a preliminary screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A.
II. The Motion for Immediate PLRA Screening
In LeBaron's prior litigation, he filed a Motion for Immediate PLRA Screening in an attempt to have expedited attention given to his case. See LeBaron v. Chomo, et al., C.A. 09-11896-WGY (Docket No. 3). Here, LeBaron also seeks expedited attention on the ground that he faces irreparable injury because his meals are too small and he is subjected to hunger on a daily basis.
Notwithstanding these allegations, the court finds that LeBaron has not presented a bona fide basis to direct that an expedited preliminary screening be conducted. The court's normal procedures in preliminary screening of prisoner cases is sufficient to address LeBaron's concerns. Accordingly, the Motion for an Immediate PLRA Screening (Docket No. 6) isDENIED. This matter will be preliminarily screened in due course.
III. The Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
This court cannot find, based on the record submitted by LeBaron, that he is entitled to temporary or preliminary injunctive relief under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on an ex parte basis at this time, or even on an expedited basis. LeBaron presents issues of fact and/or law that may be disputed, and therefore, this court requires that the defendants be given an full opportunity to respond to the allegations contained in LeBaron's pleadings before the grant of relief of this kind can be considered. Moreover, to the extent that LeBaron seeks an Order enjoining his transfer to another prison, this court will not interfere with the authority of the Department of Correction with respect to prisoner placement.
In short, this court cannot find that LeBaron has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or that the harm to him would outweigh the harm to the defendants or to the public. Accordingly, LeBaron's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice to renew after the defendants have filed a responsive pleading if this action is permitted to proceed, upon a renewed motion with good cause shown in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules regarding motion practice.
IV. The Motion for Hearing
LeBaron filed a pleading entitled "Notice of Hearing" (Docket No. 4) in which he purports to set up his motions for a hearing on December 10, 2010. The court construes this as a Motion for a Hearing and, in light of the above, DENIES the motion as moot. If and/or when this court determines that a hearing is required, the clerk will issue a hearing notice; LeBaron need not do so.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby Ordered that:
in forma pauperis ALLOWED DEFERRED DENIED DENIED DENIED
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed (Docket No. 5) is but the filing fee assessment under 28 U.S.C. § 19159(b) is pending further Order of the Court; 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Immediate PLRA Screening (Docket No. 6) is ; 3. Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 3) is without prejudice; and 4. Plaintiff's Motion for a Hearing on the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 4) is . SO ORDERED.