IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION MAX MOUSSAZADEH, Plaintiff, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; Civil Action No. 3:07-cv-00574 BRAD LIVINGSTON, solely in his official JURY capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; and DAVID SWEETEN, solely in his official capacity as warden of the Eastham Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Defendants. PLAINTIFF MAX MOUSSAZADEH’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Eric Rassbach Anne W. Robinson (Attorney-In-Charge) Texas Bar No. 24013375 James C. Knapp Luke Goodrich Matthew T. Murchison Admitted Pro Hac Vice Admitted Pro Hac Vice THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LATHAM & WATKINS LLP LIBERTY 555 11th Street, N.W. 3000 K Street Suite 1000 Suite 220 Washington, D.C. 20004 Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: 202-637-2200 Telephone: 202-955-0095 Facsimile: 202-637-2201 Fax: 202-955-0090 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .........................................................................................................iii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 UNDISPUTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE .............................................................. 3 I. The Majority of Prison Systems Across the Country Provide Jewish Inmates Kosher Food. ....................................................................................................................................... 3 A. Prepackaged Kosher Meals................................................................................................. 4 B. Kosher Kitchens.................................................................................................................. 5 C. Federal “Common Fare” Program ...................................................................................... 6 D. In Other Jurisdictions, Jewish Inmates Receive a Kosher Diet Even If Transferred Among Units....................................................................................................................... 7 II. The Availability of Kosher Food at TDCJ.............................................................................. 7 A. TDCJ Denies Kosher Food to Moussazadeh ...................................................................... 8 B. TDCJ Adopts a “Jewish Dietary Policy”............................................................................ 9 C. TDCJ Provides Numerous Therapeutic and Other Special Meals.................................... 12 III. TDCJ Moves to Dismiss the Case as Moot, Maintaining That It Would Continue to Provide a Kosher Diet to Moussazadeh for the Foreseeable Future..................................... 13 IV. TDCJ Transfers Moussazadeh from the Stringfellow Unit, Once Again Denying Him Kosher Food.......................................................................................................................... 14 STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 14 ARGUMENT................................................................................................................................ 15 I. TDCJ’s Failure to Provide a Kosher Diet Constitutes a Substantial Burden on Moussazadeh’s Religious Exercise....................................................................................... 16 II. TDCJ’s Refusal to Provide a Kosher Diet to Moussazadeh Does Not Survive Strict Scrutiny................................................................................................................................. 17 A. Baranowski Does Not Relieve TDCJ of the Burden of Satisfying Strict Scrutiny........... 18 B. Denying Moussazadeh a Kosher Diet Does Not Further a Compelling Interest in Controlling Costs .............................................................................................................. 19 1. “Controlling Costs,” by Itself, Is Not a Compelling Governmental Interest................. 19 2. The Cost of Providing a Kosher Diet to Moussazadeh Is Minimal............................... 21 3. TDCJ Cannot Establish a Compelling Interest in Controlling Costs Where Most Prison Systems, Including TDCJ Itself, Provide Kosher Diets Under the Same Budgetary Restraints...................................................................................................... 24 C. Denying Moussazadeh a Kosher Diet Does Not Further a Compelling Interest in Prison Security.................................................................................................................. 28 D. Denying Moussazadeh a Kosher Diet Is Not the Least Restrictive Means to Further TDCJ’s Asserted Compelling Interests............................................................................. 33 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 42 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES A.A. ex rel. Betenbaugh v. Needville Independent School District, 611 F.3d 248 (5th Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................17, 28 Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 469 (2010).........................................38 Agrawal v. Briley, No. 02 C 6807, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16997 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2004).........................20 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986)...........................................................................................................15 Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................16, 17, 19 Beerheide v. Suthers, 286 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2002) ...............................................................................2, 21, 31 Boudreaux v. Swift Transportation Co., 402 F.3d 536 (5th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................15 Caruso v. Zenon, No. 95-MK-1578 (BNB), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45904 (D. Colo. July 25, 2005)......5, 30 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)...........................................................................................................27 Cottonwood Christian Center v. Cypress Redevelopment Agency, 218 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 2002) .............................................................................20 Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (C.D. Cal. 2003) .............................................................................20 Finley v. National Endowment for the Arts, 100 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 1996), rev’d on other grounds, 524 U.S. 569 (1998)....................20 Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, 170 F.3d 359 (3d Cir. 1999).........................................................................................26, 27 Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).....................................................................................................24, 29 iii Page(s) Greene v. Solano County Jail, 513 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................30 Jova v. Smith, 582 F.3d 410 (2d Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2111 (2010)...................................41 Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................40 Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) .............................................................................................15 Love v. Reed, 216 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................24 Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................................15 Mayfield v. TDCJ, 529 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................15, 16, 37 Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974)...........................................................................................................20 Merced v. Kasson, 577 F.3d 578 (5th Cir. 2009) .................................................................2, 17, 28, 29, 34, 40 Moussazadeh v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 364 F. App’x 110 (5th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................14 Murphy v. Missouri Department of Correctional, 372 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................29 O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 342 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................2 Odneal v. Pierce, 324 F. App’x 297 (5th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................16 Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989)..................................................................................................................26