On May 22, 2018, two prisoners at the Anchorage Correctional Complex, both practicing Muslims, brought this lawsuit against the Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC), alleging that prison officials failed numerous times to accommodate their religious needs during Ramadan. According to the plaintiffs, during both the 2017 and 2018 Ramadan seasons they received only two bagged meals per day, which were smaller, less in number, and lower in calorie count than the legally required amount. In some instances these meals allegedly included sandwiches containing pork, which they did not eat because of their religious beliefs. They alleged that this “Ramadan Policy” violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Represented by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), they filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees.

Since Ramadan was still ongoing at the time the complaint was filed, the plaintiffs also moved for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction that would compel prison officials to provide them with nutritionally adequate and pork-free meals through the end of Ramadan on June 15. The case was initially assigned to District Judge John W. Sedwick, but was re-assigned to District Judge H. Russel Holland on May 23, 2018 after Judge Sedwick recused himself (Judge Sedwick did not give a reason in his recusal order). After a hearing, Judge Holland granted the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order after deciding that they were likely to succeed on their RLUIPA claims. 2018 WL 2392498. The court reserved the issue of a preliminary injunction for later adjudication after the parties briefed the issue. But on May 31, the defendants stipulated that they would comply with the TRO's provisions through the end of the month of Ramadan and any subsequent Ramadan that occurred during the litigation. The plaintiffs withdrew the motion for preliminary injunction as moot.

The DOC filed its answer to the complaint on June 26, 2018, largely denying the plaintiffs' pertinent factual allegations. In addition, the department also asserted several affirmative defenses: that the DOC official defendants in the suit were protected by qualified immunity, that the plaintiffs’ alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies made a lawsuit in federal court premature, and that the damages suffered by the plaintiffs were de minimis.

On July 6, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to further allege that officials at the prison prohibited Muslims from holding religious services or study groups, while allowing Christian prisoners to do the same. The DOC denied these allegations in its answer filed on July 20, 2018.

After the parties proceeded through discovery, the court ordered the case ready for trial by the end of August 2019. But on September 3, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement. They filed the agreement with the court on September 5, 2019 and the court filed approval the next day. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

The settlement provided that prisoners fasting during the month of Ramadan would receive meals consisting of 3,000 calories per day, and that they would be two hot meals between sunset and dawn. The defendants agreed to provide pork-free meals with labels indicating as much. And the settlement provided that Muslim prisoners would be permitted to congregate for daily prayers, weekly religious services, and Islamic study groups. The settlement also included that CAIR would provide a four-hour religious sensitivity training to staff statewide. The defendants agreed to pay $102,500 in damages and attorneys' fees. The settlement did not indicate an enforcement period, but that the court would retain jurisdiction over the injunction.

The case appears closed.

Alexander Walling - 07/30/2018
Chelsea Rinnig - 01/15/2020


compress summary