A California prisoner cited several reasons why the State should step in to verify that the food at Kern Valley State Prison is really kosher. He claimed the prison’s food vendors falsely advertised that their meals complied with his religion’s dietary laws. The district court found that the vendors “are private individuals acting in private capacities.” As such, it found no state action, no violation of official policy, and no valid constitutional claims, and it dismissed the prisoner’s case for “failure to cite a cognizable claim.”

Ninth Circuit Judges Bridget Shelton Bade, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and Senior Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder unanimously affirmed the ruling of United States Presiding District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the Eastern District of California on August 4. Thurston had agreed with the previous ruling of U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the Eastern District of California who ruled “vendors who merely contract with the state, do not act under color of state law…and the state does not supervise the vendors and cannot be liable for any deficiencies in their performance.”

Plaintiff Bryan Damon Patterson was convicted of two counts of second-degree robbery and one count of assault that included using a firearm in the commission of his crimes. After his incarceration at the Delano, California facility, he enrolled in the prison’s Kosher Dietary Program. He said his “religious practice is based on the sincere belief that the consumption of improper food items will contaminate his spiritual being, weaken his mind and body and effect (sic) his communion with a higher power.” He filed a civil action against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and several food vendors claiming the contracts between them violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against those of “the Hebrew denomination.”

He also said his Eighth Amendment rights were denied because not giving him access to kosher food was cruel and unusual punishment. He sought injunctions to stop CDCR from selling falsely advertised kosher items and/or allowing inmates to purchase directly from an independent kosher vendor. He asked the CDCR for “regulations assuring that vendors are in full compliance with Hebrew/Jewish dietary laws.”

Patterson claimed his First Amendment right to “freely practice religion” was denied when the CDCR refused to ensure that state contractors comply with religious dietary laws and by not providing kosher meal alternatives. In addition, he said the vendors failed to protect his First Amendment right to “freely exercise religious dietary practice by falsely advertising” their products as kosher. He said the vendors all offered 40 identical food items and asked that their contracts be reformed “to provide inmates of the Hebrew faith equal the “equal benefit of alternative foods or allow direct purchase from a certified kosher vendor.”

He also alleged the vendors violated the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against inmates who had requested kosher food because they were denied the equal benefit to food items that were offered to other religious groups, such as Muslims, who were given foods that comply with their religious beliefs. The plaintiff said the Religious Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was violated when CDCR failed to “ensure vendors comply with kosher standards.” This Act, passed in 2000, prohibits any government from imposing regulations that “impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person…”

Many observant Jewish people eat only kosher food, which limits what animals, fish, and birds may be consumed. In addition, these animals must be slaughtered in a specific way and may not be cooked in or eaten with any dairy products.

The Ninth Circuit found that the district court’s dismissal of Patterson’s claims was proper for several reasons. First, they wrote plaintiff’s First Amendment and RLUIPA rights were not violated because Patterson “failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that defendants’ actions placed a substantial burden on his religious exercise.” Precedent required that plaintiff would have to have been “coerced into acting contrary to (his) religious beliefs” or “intentionally (put under) significant pressure to abandon his religious beliefs.” Neither of these occurred.

The Court also found that Patterson’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause was properly dismissed because he “failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant intentionally discriminated against him on the basis of his religion.” His Eighth Amendment claim was also properly dismissed because Patterson “failed to allege facts sufficient to show deliberate indifference.”

Patterson also made a procedural error when he asked the district court to allow him to amend his complaints because courts do not allow new allegations to be raised for the first time on appeal. The Ninth Circuit thus agreed with Magistrate McAuliffe that the vendors do not act under state law so neither California nor the CDCR are liable for their alleged “deficiencies.”