Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Holland Ramadan Punishment Decision

Holland Ramadan Punishment Decision

Ratings: (0)|Views: 195|Likes:
Published by asamahavv
Holland Ramadan Punishment Decision, 2nd Circuit
Holland Ramadan Punishment Decision, 2nd Circuit

More info:

Published by: asamahavv on Jul 15, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/14/2014

pdf

text

original

 
13
2694
pr
Holland
 
v.
 
Goord
UNITED
 
STATES
 
COURT
 
OF
 
APPEALS
1
FOR
 
THE
 
SECOND
 
CIRCUIT
2
August
 
Term
 
2013
3
(Argued:
 
April
 
10,
 
2014
 
Decided:
 
 July
 
10,
 
2014)
45
No.
 
13
2694
pr
6
_____________________________________
78
D
ARRYL
 
H
OLLAND
 ,
910
Plaintiff 
 Appellant
 ,
11
v
 ‐
12
G
LENN
 
S.
 
G
OORD
 ,
 
in
 
his
 
individual
 
capacity,
 
A
NTHONY
 
 J.
 
A
NNUCI
 ,
 
in
 
his
 
official
13
capacity
 
as
 
Acting
 
Commissioner
 
of
 
the
 
Department
 
of
 
Corrections
 
and
14
Community
 
Supervision,
 
A
NTHONY
 
F.
 
Z
ON
 ,
 
in
 
his
 
individual
 
capacity
 
and
 
official
15
capacity
 
as
 
Former
 
Superintendent,
 
Wende
 
Correctional
 
Facility,
 
T
HOMAS
16
S
CHOELLKOPF
 ,
 
in
 
his
 
individual
 
capacity
 
and
 
official
 
capacity
 
as
 
Hearing
 
Officer,
17
Wende
 
Correctional
 
Facility,
 
 J
OHN
 
B
ARBERA
 ,
 
in
 
his
 
individual
 
capacity
 
and
18
official
 
capacity
 
as
 
Correctional
 
Officer,
 
Wende
 
Correctional
 
Facility,
 
M
ARTIN
19
K
EARNEY
 ,
 
in
 
his
 
individual
 
capacity
 
and
 
official
 
capacity
 
as
 
Captain,
 
Wende
20
Correctional
 
Facility,
2122
Defendants
 Appellees
 ,
23
 J
AY
 
W
YNKOOP
 ,
 
in
 
his
 
individual
 
capacity
 
and
 
official
 
capacity
 
as
 
the
 
Watch
24
Commander
 
and/or
 
Keeplock
 
Review
 
Officer,
 
Wende
 
Correctional
 
Facility,
 
2526
Defendant
.
*
27
_____________________________________
28
*
 
Acting
 
Commissioner
 
Anthony
 
 J.
 
Annuci
 
has
 
 been
 
substituted
 
in
 
place
 
of
 
formerCommissioner
 
Brian
 
Fischer,
 
pursuant
 
to
 
Federal
 
Rule
 
of
 
Appellate
 
Procedure
 
43(c)(2).
 
TheClerk
 
of
 
the
 
Court
 
is
 
directed
 
to
 
amend
 
the
 
caption
 
to
 
reflect
 
the
 
alterations
 
set
 
out
 
above.
 
 
1
Before: J
ACOBS
 ,
 
C
ALABRESI
 ,
 
and
 
L
IVINGSTON
 ,
 
Circuit
 
 Judges
.
23
Appeal
 
from
 
the
 
 judgment
 
of
 
the
 
United
 
States
 
District
 
Court
 
for
 
the
 
Western
4
District
 
of
 
New
 
York
 
(Telesca,
 
 J.
),
 
granting
 
the
 
defendants’
 
motion
 
for
 
summary
5
 judgment
 
and
 
denying
 
the
 
plaintiff’s
 
cross
motion
 
for
 
summary
 
 judgment
 
as
 
to
 
the
6
plaintiff’s
 
free
 
exercise,
 
retaliation,
 
and
 
due
 
process
 
claims
 
 brought
 
pursuant
 
to
 
42
7
U.S.C.
 
§
 
1983,
 
and
 
his
 
claim
 
under
 
the
 
Religious
 
Land
 
Use
 
and
 
Institutionalized
8
Persons
 
Act
 
(“RLUIPA”),
 
42
 
U.S.C.
 
§
 
2000cc
 
et
 
seq.
 
Even
 
assuming
 
arguendo
 
that
 
the
9
substantial
 
 burden
 
requirement
 
remains
 
a
 
necessary
 
component
 
of
 
a
 
plaintiff’s
 
free
10
exercise
 
claim,
 
we
 
conclude
 
that
 
the
 
defendants’
 
conduct
 
placed
 
such
 
a
 
 burden
 
on
11
the
 
plaintiff’s
 
free
 
exercise
 
rights.
 
Accordingly,
 
we
 
vacate
 
the
 
district
 
court’s
 
grant
12
of
 
summary
 
 judgment
 
in
 
the
 
defendants’
 
favor,
 
 based
 
on
 
its
 
conclusion
 
that
 
the
13
 burden
 
imposed
 
here
 
was
 
de
 
minimis,
 
and
 
we
 
remand
 
the
 
plaintiff’s
 
§
 
1983
 
claim
 
for
14
damages
 
under
 
the
 
First
 
Amendment
 
for
 
further
 
consideration
 
of
 
this
 
claim.
 
15
Because
 
we
 
also
 
conclude
 
that
 
the
 
plaintiff’s
 
claim
 
for
 
damages
 
under
 
RLUIPA
 
is
16
 barred,
 
that
 
his
 
claims
 
for
 
injunctive
 
relief
 
under
 
RLUIPA
 
and
 
the
 
First
 
Amendment
17
are
 
moot,
 
and
 
that
 
he
 
has
 
failed
 
to
 
state
 
a
 
claim
 
for
 
either
 
a
 
denial
 
of
 
due
 
process
 
or
18
First
 
Amendment
 
retaliation,
 
we
 
affirm
 
the
 
grant
 
of
 
summary
 
 judgment
 
in
 
the
19
defendants’
 
favor
 
on
 
those
 
claims.
 
2021
V
ACATED
 
AND
 
R
EMANDED
 
IN
 
P
ART
 
AND
 
A
FFIRMED
 
IN
 
P
ART
.
 
22
 
23
 J
EFFREY
 
A.
 
W
ADSWORTH
 
(Candace
 
M.
 
Curran,
 
on
 
the
24
brief 
),
 
Harter
 
Secrest
 
&
 
Emery
 
LLP,
 
Rochester,
 
N.Y.,
25
 for
 
Plaintiff 
 Appellant
.
2627
K
ATE
 
H.
 
N
EPVEU
 ,
 
Assistant
 
Solicitor
 
General
28
(Barbara
 
D.
 
Underwood,
 
Solicitor
 
General,
 
and
29
Andrew
 
D.
 
Bing,
 
Deputy
 
Solicitor
 
General,
 
on
 
the
30
brief 
),
 
 for
 
Eric
 
T.
 
Schneiderman,
 
Attorney
 
General
 
of
31
the
 
State
 
of
 
New
 
York,
 
New
 
York,
 
N.Y.,
 
 for
32
Defendants
 Appellees
.
3334352
 
D
EBRA
 
A
NN
 
L
IVINGSTON
 ,
 
Circuit
 
 Judge
:
1
Plaintiff
Appellant
 
Darryl
 
Holland
 
(“Holland”),
 
an
 
inmate
 
and
 
practicing
2
Muslim,
 
asserts
 
that
 
defendant
 
prison
 
officials
 
Glenn
 
Goord,
 
Anthony
 
 J.
 
Annuci,
3
Anthony
 
F.
 
Zon,
 
Thomas
 
Schoellkopf,
 
 John
 
Barbera,
 
and
 
Martin
 
Kearney
4
(collectively,
 
“Appellees”)
1
 
unconstitutionally
 
 burdened
 
his
 
religious
 
exercise
 
when
5
they
 
ordered
 
him
 
to
 
provide
 
a
 
urine
 
sample
 
within
 
a
 
three
hour
 
window
 
 
the
 
time
6
limit
 
then
 
permitted
 
 by
 
prison
 
regulations
 
 
while
 
Holland
 
fasted
 
in
 
observance
 
of
7
Ramadan,
 
the
 
holy
 
month
 
during
 
which
 
Muslims
 
refrain
 
from
 
ingesting
 
food
 
and
8
drink
 
during
 
daylight
 
hours.
 
Though
 
Holland
 
cited
 
his
 
fast
 
to
 
explain
 
why
 
he
 
could
9
not
 
comply
 
with
 
the
 
order
 
or
 
drink
 
water
 
to
 
aid
 
his
 
compliance,
 
Appellees
 
did
 
not
10
permit
 
Holland
 
an
 
opportunity
 
to
 
provide
 
a
 
urine
 
sample
 
after
 
sunset
 
when
 
his
 
fast
11
had
 
ended.
 
Instead,
 
when
 
Holland
 
failed
 
timely
 
to
 
produce
 
a
 
sample,
 
he
 
was
12
ordered
 
confined
 
in
 
keeplock.
2
 
In
 
this
 
ensuing
 
lawsuit,
 
Holland
 
asserts
 
that
13
1
 
Holland
 
also
 
named
 
Lieutenant
 
 Jay
 
Wynkoop
 
in
 
his
 
second
 
amended
 
complaint,
 
 but
 
therecord
 
reflects
 
that
 
he
 
was
 
never
 
served,
 
is
 
not
 
represented
 
 by
 
counsel,
 
and
 
is
 
not
 
a
 
partyto
 
this
 
appeal.
 
2
 
“Keeplock
 
is
 
a
 
form
 
of
 
administrative
 
segregation
 
in
 
which
 
the
 
inmate
 
is
 
confined
 
to
 
hiscell,
 
deprived
 
of
 
participation
 
in
 
normal
 
prison
 
routine,
 
and
 
denied
 
contact
 
with
 
otherinmates.”
 
Peralta
 
v.
 
Vasquez
 ,
 
467
 
F.3d
 
98,
 
103
 
n.6
 
(2d
 
Cir.
 
2006)
 
(internal
 
quotation
 
marksomitted).
 
We
 
note
 
the
 
specifics
 
of
 
Holland’s
 
keeplock
 
status
 
 below.
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->