No. 18-9649

Boaz Pleasant-Bey v. Tennessee Department of Corrections, et al.

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-06-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights cruel-and-unusual-punishment due-process free-exercise halal-diet prison religious-freedom rluipa substantial-burden
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess Punishment
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether RLUIPA prohibits the Defendants from placing a substantial burden upon Petitioner's religious exercise

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented 1.) Whether RLUIPA prohibits the Defendants from placing a substantial burden upon Petitioner’s a religious exercise by inedible foods on the Halal Menu that cannot-be . —..—.-~ eaten by most inmates, and if so, did the 6" Circuit Court of Appeals err in holding that they did not substantially burden his religious exercise by doing so? 2.) Whether RLUIPA prohibits the Defendants from placing a substantial burden upon Petitioner’s religious exercise of fasting during the Holy Month of Ramadan by failing to timely deliver presunrise meals on time, and if so, did the Defendants place a substantial burden upon Petitioner’s religious exercise by untimely delivering his pre-sunrise breakfast meals on 5 different days during the Ramadan fast while the prison was on lockdown and by ending Ramadan feeding a day early, and if so, did it also violate the 1" Amendment Free Exercise Clause and the 8" Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment? 3.) Whether the Plaintiff's argument in his complaint and at summary judgment, that the Defendants placed a substantial burden upon his religious exercise by in violation of RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (a)-(b)) by barring him from purchasing Islamic Prayer Oil from an Islamic vendor as traditionally done by Muslims for over 1,400 years was prejudicial to the Defendants, and if not, did the 6" Circuit err in holding that this was a new argument on appeal when the District Court addressed it as a separate issue in its order and saw no prejudice towards the Defendants after the claim was raised during summary judgment? 4.) Whether the Fed. R. of Evid. Rule permits the statement made by Chaplain Weidner to be admissible hearsay, and if so should his statement and the statement of inmate Womack be admitted into evidence pertaining to the issue of Union Supply Direct representative confirming that the Prayer Oil sold is blessed by a Catholic Priest? : 3 .

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-15
Waiver of right of respondents Tennessee Department of Correcections, et al. to respond filed.
2019-05-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 15, 2019)

Attorneys

Boaz Pleasant-Bey
Boaz Pleasant-Bey — Petitioner
Boaz Pleasant-Bey — Petitioner
Tennessee Department of Correcections, et al.
Eric FullerTennessee Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Eric FullerTennessee Attorney General's Office, Respondent