Preview
FILED
IN CLERKS OFFICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 21 202A
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
LWc W
CIERK OF LA FORTE CIRCUIT COURT
l
mam", a "4 Rom! T.
PlaintIfi',
V Cause No. {/JKO/- 24/0] 7' " 6 45
CHRISTINA REAGLE, et 01.,
Defendants.
VERIFIED MOTION FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Comes now, Plaintiff, in pro per, without a lawyer, pursuant to Federal Roles of Civil
Procedure 65 (a) and/or (b), to move the Court for an emergency temporary restraining order
("TRO") and/or preliminary injunction to order the Defendants, in their official capacities, to
provide me with a proper halal dietl consistent with my sincerely held religious beliefs. In
support, I provide the following:
I. There is a reasonable likelihood that I will prevail on the merits. This is so because, since
I have been imprisoned within the Indiana State Prison ("ISP"), the Defendants have
refiised to provide me with a religious diet consistent with Halal law, thus placing a
substantial burden on my religious practice, in violation of my secured rights under the
First and Fourteentli Amendments and the Religious Land Use a_nd Institutionalized
Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). Further, the Defendants have been (1) forcing me to consume
a haramz non-meat kosher diet, made up of unnatural soy-based protein substitutes, in
l
William v. Morton, 343 F.3d 212, 215 (3"' Cir. 2003) ("A Halal, or lawfiJl, diet includes fruits,
vegetables, seafood, and meat from herbivorous animals such as cows and chickens that are
'
properly slaughtered").
2
"Haram", is Arabic for "prohibited" or "unlawful".
1
place of halal meats, (2) forcing me to observe other religions' customs and holidays via
celebratory meals on Christmas, Passover, and Easter, rvhile refusing to provide me with
the Islamic celebratory meal after Ramadan, the 'Eid al-Fitr feast, and (3) forcing me to
observe religious practices of the House of Yaweh and/or Seventh-day Adventist, by not
providing me with food on Saturdays, and severely reducing the amount of food I
receive, to inadequate amounts, on Sundays, in violation of my secured rights under the
First Amendment and the RLUIPA. Additionally, allthewhile providing a proper religious
diet to Judaic-prisoners, consistent with their religious tenets and holidays, in violation of
my secured rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In
doing so, the Defendants have substantially burdened my religious exercise and have
J
treated and continue to treat me differently from similarly-situated udaicprisoners.
2. There is a substantial threat of irreparable harm if this injunction is not granted. I am
being denied a proper halal diet, thus the ability to exercise my sincerely held religious
beliefs. Moreover, I am being deprived of adequate nutrition because, I am forced to
picked through the haram non-meat kosher meals for food items safe and/or permissible
for me to consume. More, I am being forced to violate Halal law and conform to a haram
non-meat kosher diet, where I am either regularly forced to consume haram foods and
drinks (haram water from cross-contaminated faucets) or forced to go hungry.
Allthewhile, I am being forced to observe Judaic and Christian holidays and customs. All
because the Defendants have taken a stance to promote the religious dietary customs of
Judaism and not Islam. These acts and omissions by the Defendants amount to ongoing
violations of the RLUIPA and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. These ongoing
2
violations cannot be rectified by monetary damages. Thus, any remedy at for injuries
1law
would be inadequate.
3. The threatened injury to me outweighs any harrn the proposed injunction may cause the
Defendants. My need for this TRO and/or preliminary injunction is of a factual matterI
require a proper halal diet as part of the exercise of my sincerely held religious beliefs.
The Defendants are placing a substantial burden on my religious exercise and are forcing
me t_o betray my religion and conform to the religious beliefs and customs of Judaic-
prisoners. The relief that I seek is an order compelling the Defendants to perfonn their
preexisting duties under the RLUIPA and the United States Constitution. Indeed, the
Seventh Circuit has held that IDOC's refusal to provide me with a proper religious diet
(which requires halal meat and water) places a substantial burden on my religious
exercise, in violation of the RLUIPA. See Jones v. Carter. 915 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2019).
I am entitled to a religious diet consistent with my sincerely held religious beliefs.
Therefore, any supposed harm alleged by the Defendants would not only be conjecture,
conclusory, and argumentative, but contrary to clearly established law. id.
4. The grant of this TKO/preliminary injunction would not disserve the public interest. To
the contrary, the public interest is well served by protecting the constitutionally secured
rights of all of its membersincluding prisoners.
. My Verified Prisoner Complaint contemporaneously filed herewith and incorporated
herein by reference.
6. My memorandum of law in support of this Motion contemporaneously filed herewith and
incorporated herein by reference.
3
VERIFICATION3
I, the undersigned, an adult competent to testify and based on my own personal
knowledge, and information and belief, hereby affirm, under the penalties for perjury, that the
foregoing representations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
3-Izvzzamf adv-
Executed date
'
Plaintiff
For the reasons set forth above, l respectfully request the Court to gant this Motion, by
issuing a TRO and/or preliminary injunction thereby ordering the Defendants, in their official
capacities, and all other persons acting in concert with the Indiana Department of Correction, to
provide me with a proper halal diet4 consistent with my sincerely held religious beliefs, and all
other relief it deems just.
Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff, in pro per
c/o l Park Row
Michigan City, Indiana 46360
3
See Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 655 (7th Cir. 2004) ("By declaring under penalty of perjury
that [this document is] true [I] converted [this document], or rather those factual assertions in
[this document] that complied with the requirements for affidavits specified in the rule . . . into
an affidavit." (citation and quotation marks omitted) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)); Perez v. Byrd,
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118366, at *12 (S.D. Ind. 2022); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).
4
William, 343 F.3d at 215 ("A Halal, or lawful, diet includes fruits, vegetables, seafood, and
meat from herbivorous animals such as cows and chickens that are properly slaughtered").
4
CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICES
I hereby certify that the foregoing document was filed with the United States District
Court and served upon all parties of record by depositing the same into the custody of IDOC
stafi to be e-filed this 12'" day of March 2024.
Plaintifi'
5
Pursuant to Houston, the date I provided the foregoing docuntent to IDOC staff to mail to the
Court, is the date it shall be deemed tiled. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
5
Preview
FILED IN CLERKS OFFICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 21 202A NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION LWc W CIERK OF LA FORTE CIRCUIT COURT l mam", a "4 Rom! T. PlaintIfi', V Cause No. {/JKO/- 24/0] 7' " 6 45 CHRISTINA REAGLE, et 01., Defendants. VERIFIED MOTION FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Comes now, Plaintiff, in pro per, without a lawyer, pursuant to Federal Roles of Civil Procedure 65 (a) and/or (b), to move the Court for an emergency temporary restraining order ("TRO") and/or preliminary injunction to order the Defendants, in their official capacities, to provide me with a proper halal dietl consistent with my sincerely held religious beliefs. In support, I provide the following: I. There is a reasonable likelihood that I will prevail on the merits. This is so because, since I have been imprisoned within the Indiana State Prison ("ISP"), the Defendants have refiised to provide me with a religious diet consistent with Halal law, thus placing a substantial burden on my religious practice, in violation of my secured rights under the First and Fourteentli Amendments and the Religious Land Use a_nd Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). Further, the Defendants have been (1) forcing me to consume a haramz non-meat kosher diet, made up of unnatural soy-based protein substitutes, in l William v. Morton, 343 F.3d 212, 215 (3"' Cir. 2003) ("A Halal, or lawfiJl, diet includes fruits, vegetables, seafood, and meat from herbivorous animals such as cows and chickens that are ' properly slaughtered"). 2 "Haram", is Arabic for "prohibited" or "unlawful". 1 place of halal meats, (2) forcing me to observe other religions' customs and holidays via celebratory meals on Christmas, Passover, and Easter, rvhile refusing to provide me with the Islamic celebratory meal after Ramadan, the 'Eid al-Fitr feast, and (3) forcing me to observe religious practices of the House of Yaweh and/or Seventh-day Adventist, by not providing me with food on Saturdays, and severely reducing the amount of food I receive, to inadequate amounts, on Sundays, in violation of my secured rights under the First Amendment and the RLUIPA. Additionally, allthewhile providing a proper religious diet to Judaic-prisoners, consistent with their religious tenets and holidays, in violation of my secured rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the Defendants have substantially burdened my religious exercise and have J treated and continue to treat me differently from similarly-situated udaicprisoners. 2. There is a substantial threat of irreparable harm if this injunction is not granted. I am being denied a proper halal diet, thus the ability to exercise my sincerely held religious beliefs. Moreover, I am being deprived of adequate nutrition because, I am forced to picked through the haram non-meat kosher meals for food items safe and/or permissible for me to consume. More, I am being forced to violate Halal law and conform to a haram non-meat kosher diet, where I am either regularly forced to consume haram foods and drinks (haram water from cross-contaminated faucets) or forced to go hungry. Allthewhile, I am being forced to observe Judaic and Christian holidays and customs. All because the Defendants have taken a stance to promote the religious dietary customs of Judaism and not Islam. These acts and omissions by the Defendants amount to ongoing violations of the RLUIPA and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. These ongoing 2 violations cannot be rectified by monetary damages. Thus, any remedy at for injuries 1law would be inadequate. 3. The threatened injury to me outweighs any harrn the proposed injunction may cause the Defendants. My need for this TRO and/or preliminary injunction is of a factual matterI require a proper halal diet as part of the exercise of my sincerely held religious beliefs. The Defendants are placing a substantial burden on my religious exercise and are forcing me t_o betray my religion and conform to the religious beliefs and customs of Judaic- prisoners. The relief that I seek is an order compelling the Defendants to perfonn their preexisting duties under the RLUIPA and the United States Constitution. Indeed, the Seventh Circuit has held that IDOC's refusal to provide me with a proper religious diet (which requires halal meat and water) places a substantial burden on my religious exercise, in violation of the RLUIPA. See Jones v. Carter. 915 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2019). I am entitled to a religious diet consistent with my sincerely held religious beliefs. Therefore, any supposed harm alleged by the Defendants would not only be conjecture, conclusory, and argumentative, but contrary to clearly established law. id. 4. The grant of this TKO/preliminary injunction would not disserve the public interest. To the contrary, the public interest is well served by protecting the constitutionally secured rights of all of its membersincluding prisoners. . My Verified Prisoner Complaint contemporaneously filed herewith and incorporated herein by reference. 6. My memorandum of law in support of this Motion contemporaneously filed herewith and incorporated herein by reference. 3 VERIFICATION3 I, the undersigned, an adult competent to testify and based on my own personal knowledge, and information and belief, hereby affirm, under the penalties for perjury, that the foregoing representations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 3-Izvzzamf adv- Executed date ' Plaintiff For the reasons set forth above, l respectfully request the Court to gant this Motion, by issuing a TRO and/or preliminary injunction thereby ordering the Defendants, in their official capacities, and all other persons acting in concert with the Indiana Department of Correction, to provide me with a proper halal diet4 consistent with my sincerely held religious beliefs, and all other relief it deems just. Respectfully submitted, Plaintiff, in pro per c/o l Park Row Michigan City, Indiana 46360 3 See Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 655 (7th Cir. 2004) ("By declaring under penalty of perjury that [this document is] true [I] converted [this document], or rather those factual assertions in [this document] that complied with the requirements for affidavits specified in the rule . . . into an affidavit." (citation and quotation marks omitted) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)); Perez v. Byrd, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118366, at *12 (S.D. Ind. 2022); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). 4 William, 343 F.3d at 215 ("A Halal, or lawful, diet includes fruits, vegetables, seafood, and meat from herbivorous animals such as cows and chickens that are properly slaughtered"). 4 CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICES I hereby certify that the foregoing document was filed with the United States District Court and served upon all parties of record by depositing the same into the custody of IDOC stafi to be e-filed this 12'" day of March 2024. Plaintifi' 5 Pursuant to Houston, the date I provided the foregoing docuntent to IDOC staff to mail to the Court, is the date it shall be deemed tiled. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 5