Case 1:12-cv-22958-PAS Document 547 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2015 Page 1 of 9

UN ITED STA TE S DISTR ICT C O U R T

SO UTH ER N DISTRICT O F FLO R IDA
CA SE NO.12-22958-CIV-SElTZ/TURNOFF

UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA,

Plaintiff,
VS.

SECRETA RY ,FLO RIDA D EPAR TM EN T OF

CORRECTIONS,etal.,

Defendants.
/
O RD ER R E:C O N TEN TS O F INJUN C TIO N

OnApril30,2015,theCourtentereditsOrderonM otionsforSummaryJudgment(DE-

4981.lnthatorder,theCourtfoundthatPlaintiffwasentitledtoentryofapermanentinjunction
based on Defendants'violationsofRLUIPA. Subsequently,the Courtordered the partiesto

submitproposedinjunctivelanguage.Plaintiffsproposedlanguageincludedtermsfor

monitoringandenforcementoftheinjunction,towhichDefendantsobjected.Afteradditional
filingsand ahearing on July 15,2015,atwhich thepartidsstated thatthey believed thatthey
could work togetherto presentagreed monitoringand enforcementlanguagetothe Court,

Plaintifffiledtheparties'proposedlanguagewiththeCourt(DE-537j1onJuly24,2015.
1In afootnote,theUnited StatesindicatesthatDefendanttheFloridaDepartmentof

CorrectionsiscontestingtheCourt'sjurisdiction overitbecauseitwasallegedlynotproperly
served. First,the CourtnotesthattheFloridaDepartm entofCorrectionshasnotactually raised
thisissue w ith the Court. Second,and m ore im portantly,the Florida D epartm entofCorrections

haswaivedanyobjectiontopersonaljurisdiction.AttorneyJasonVailfiledanoticeof
appearance(DE-48jonbehalfof'defendants''onM ay24,2013.Noobjectiontoserviceorto
personaljurisdictionhaseverbeenraised.Further,theCourt'sOrderonM otionsforSummary
JudgmentgDE-498)clearlyappliestoSr efendants''andtheFloridaDepartmentofCorrections
didnotraiseanyobjectionsafterentryofthatorder.Consequently,boththatorderandthe
Court'sforthcominginjunction applytoboth Defendants,theSecretaryoftheFlorida

Case 1:12-cv-22958-PAS Document 547 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2015 Page 2 of 9

Becausethisinjunctioninvolvesprisonconditions,anytermsoftheinjunctionmustmeetthe
requirementsofthePrisonLitigationReform Ad IPLRAI.Thisorderaddresseswhetherthe
parties'proposed languagem eetsthese requirem ents.

UnderthePLRA,beforetheCourtcan issueaninjunction,theCourtmustensurethatthe

injunctivereliefsoughtcomplieswiththedictatesofthePLRA.UnderthePLRA,anyinjunctive
relief:

shallextend no furtherthan necessary to correcttheviolation oftheFederalrightofa

particularplaintifforplaintiffs.The courtshallnotgrantorapprove any prospectiverelief
unlessthe courtfindsthatsuch reliefisnarrowly drawn,extendsno furtherthan
necessary to correcttheviolation oftheFederalright,and istheleastintrusive means
necessaryto correcttheviolation oftheFederalright.The courtshallgivesubstantial

weighttoanyadverseimpactonpublicsafetyortheoperationofacriminaljustice
system caused by therelief.

18U.S.C.j3626(a)(1).TheEleventhCircuitintemretsthisprovisiontorequireadistrictcourt
tomakeparticularizedfndingsasto each elementoftheinjunctionandperform aneednarrowness-intrusivenessanalysisthatprovidesa separateexplmzation asto each element. Cason

v.Seckinger,231F.3d777,785(11thCir.2000).However,acourtneednotdothisaboutany
factsorfactorsnotin dispute. 1d.at785 n.8.
In discussing the requirementsofthePLRA,theSupreme Courthasexplained:
N arrow tailoring requiresa fit''betw een the rem edy'sendsand the m eanschosen to
accomplish thoseends. Thescopeoftheremedy mustbeproportionalto thescopeofthe
violation,and the ordermustextendno furtherthan necessary to remedy theviolation.

ThisCourthasrejectedremedialordersthaturmecessarilyreach outtoimproveprison
conditionsotherthan thosethatviolate the Constitution.Butthe precedents do not
suggestthatanarrow and otherwiseproperrem edy foraconstitutionalviolation isinvalid
sim ply because itw illhave collateraleffects.

Departm entofCorrectionsand the Florida D epartm entofCorrections.

Case 1:12-cv-22958-PAS Document 547 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2015 Page 3 of 9

Brownv.Plata,131S.Ct.1910,1939-40 (2011)(internalcitations,quotationmarks,and

bracketsomitted).
W hilethepartiesagreetom ostofthem onitoring and enfoxcem entterm softhe

injunction,zDefendantsobjecttothenecessityofincludingthesetermsintheinjunction.
Consequently,the Courtwillanalyzeeach oftheterm sunderthePLRA 'Sneed-narrownessintrusivenessstandard.
PoliciesandProcedures
Thepm iesproposed language includesa detinition oftskosherdiet,''an auditing
procedure,and atrainingprocedure forthechaplainsadm inisteringtheReligiousDietPlan

(RDP).TheCourtfindsthateachoftheseprovisionsisnecessary.A definitionoflkosherdiet''

isnecessarytoavoidanyclaimsthattheinjunction,requiringserviceofakosherdiet,isvague.
Further,given Defendants'continualrefusalto acknowledge thatthey arerequired by law to
provideakosherdietto thoseprisonerswith asincerereligiousbeliefrequiringthem to keep
kosher,auditing proceduresarenecessary.Trainingproceduresare also necessaryto ensurethat
prison personnelare unifonuly applying the rules and procedures ofthe RDP acrossthe State's
sixty-plus prison institutions.

A1loftheseterm sarenarrowlydrawn to achievethegoalofproviding kosherdietsand

continuing to m aintain thestandardsnecessary forproviding kosherfood.Further,theseterm s

aretheleastintrusivemeansofachievingthegoalsoftheinjunctionbecausethesetel'msadopt
policiesalreadyputin place by Defendants. Thedefinition ofa Slkosherdiet''utilizesthe

2Thepartiesdonotagreeonthelanguagetobeusedintheinjunction thatwouldgive

Plaintiffaccessto prison facilities,persorm el,and prisoners. The partieslanguage also differsas

to accessto Defendants'recordsrelated totheReligiousDietPlan.

Case 1:12-cv-22958-PAS Document 547 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2015 Page 4 of 9

certifying authority already used by Defendants. Theauditing policy wasdeveloped andputin

placebyDefendantspriortotheCourt'srequestforthepartiestoprovideinjunctivelanguage.
TheDefendantsalso began developingthechaplain training policy priorto the Court'sorder.
Further,the D efendants have leew ay to change these proceduresw ithoutfirstobtaining Court

approval.Thus,theCourttindsthattheparties'proposed policiesand procedureslanguage

m eetsthe requirem ents ofthe PLR A.

M onitoring andAccountability
The parties propose m onthly reports and quarterly reports. The m onthly reports would

contain thetotalnum berofprisonerserlrolled in theRDP on the 15th dayofthepriormonth and

abreakdown ofthatnumberby facility. Thequarterly reportwould contain thenum berof
prisonerswho violatedtheRDP,thebasisoftheviolations,thenum berofviolationsduring the
quarter,and the disposition ofeach violation.ln addition,thequarterly reportwould also include

thefollowinginformationregardingthenoticesofviolation:(a)thenameoftheprisonerswho

wereissuedanotice;(b)whetherthedispositionwasbasedonwritten noticeonlyorwhethera
fact-to-faceinterview wasscheduled;and(c)theresultofeachnotice.
The Courtfindsthatboth them onthly and quarterlyreportsarenecessary.The
inform ationrequired bythereportswillhelp theCourtand PlaintiffensurethatDefendants

complywiththeCourt'sinjunction.GivenDefendants'continuedinsistencethattheyarenot
obligatedto comply with RLUIPA and theCourt'spowerto enforceitsorders,such m onitoring
isnecessary to ensure thatD efendants continue to com ply w ith R LUIPA . Further,the Court
findsthatthese reporting provisions are nanowly tailored. A 1lofthe infonnation requested is

relevanttocompliancewithspecifcallyenjoinedactivities.Thereportingprovisionsarethe
4

Case 1:12-cv-22958-PAS Document 547 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2015 Page 5 of 9

leastintrusivemeansofachievingthegoalsoftheinjunction.Defendantswillbeself-reporting,
farlessintrusivethan having athird-party orPlaintiffconductm onthly on-sitevisitsorhaving
Plaintiffserve regulardiscovery requests.
The parties also propose that,each quarter,the United Statesshallidentify five

institutionsforwhich DefendantsshallprovidecopiesoftheDepartmentofCorrections'form
17C5-325. Form DC5-325 istheform usedto provideprisonersnoticeofa violation oftheRDP.

TheForm hasfiveparts:(1)thereasonfortheviolation;(2)aspacefortheprisonerto explain

hisviolationandwhyheshouldremainintheprogram;(3)anexplanationofthetypeofreview

thechaplainhasdone;(4)thedisposition oftheviolation;and(5)aspaceforthechaplain's
notes.A copy oftheform isattached hereto asExhibitA.
The Courtfindsthatprovidingthe17C5-325form sisnecessaryto allow thePlaintiffto

monitorcompliancewith theCourt'sinjunction,specificallytheprovisionsoftheinjunction
which prohibitthe use ofthe ten percentrule and prohibitDefendantsfrom suspending or

removing prisonersw ithoutfirstproviding an opportunity foraprisonerto contestthesuspension

orrem oval.Theprovision isnanowly drawn becauseitonly requiresrecordsrelated to alleged
violationsoftheRDP and how theviolationswereaddressed by Defendants. Theprovision is
notintrusivebecauseitusesrecordsalreadykeptby Defendantsand each quarterDefendants
need onlyprovidetherecordsforthe fivechosen institutions. Consequently,theparties'
proposed accountabilityand monitoring provisionsm eettherequirem entsofthePLRA.
Access to lnspectFacilities
The partiescould notagree on the language ofthistenn. Plaintiffhasproposed the

following language:

Case 1:12-cv-22958-PAS Document 547 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2015 Page 6 of 9

DefendantsshallprovidetheUnited Statesreasonableaccessto personnel, prisoners,and

facilitiesaspertinentto the United States'assessmentofDefendants'compliancewith

thisInjunction.Reasonableaccesswillbepxovidedto attorneys,experts,orotherJustice
Departmentpersolmel.TheDefendantsshall,tmtilthetermination ofthislnjunction,
retain and provide theUnited Stateswith reasonable accesstodocum entsrelevantto the

issuesinthiscase(includingprisonerrequeststojointheRDP,responsesthereto,records
ofprisonerviolationsrelated to theRDP,and docum entsshow ingthe costofRDP

meals).
Defendantsproposethefollowing;
The Partiesshallhave accesstoinfonnation relevantto compliancewith the Court's

injunctionsconcerningprovisionofthekosherdiet,enforcementofthe$t10percent''rule,
and provision ofa pre-suspension opportunity to contesta suspension pursuantto the
discovery provisionsofthe RulesofCivilProcedure. However,the Courtanticipatesthat
thePartieswillresolveany inform ationalinquirieswithoutresorttothediscovery rules.

Thesetwo pxovisionsdiffersignificantly.Defendants'proposed languagedoesnotinclude

accessto personnel,facilities,orprisoners.lnstead,Defendantspropose givingPlaintiffaccess
onlyto certain records. M ore than record accessisnecessary in thiscase.
Given thenatureofproviding akosherdiet,which includesproperpreparation ofthe
food,accessto the facilitiesisnecessaryto ensurecompliancewith the Court'sorders.Accessto
prisonersand personnelisalsonecessary in thiscase.The record inthiscaseisfullofprisoner
lettersalleging non-com pliance w ith both the RDP and Courtorders and alleging thatprisoners
have suffered retaliation forpartaking in the RDP. In orderto ensure thatD efendantsare

complying with Courtorders,Plaintiffmusthavereasonableaccessto prisonersand personnelto

investigatetheprisoners'claimsand enslzrethatpersonnelarecomplying with theCourt'sorders.
Thus,accessto personnel,prisoners,and facilities isnecessary.3
3Atthe July 15, 2015 hearing,allparties indicated thatthey did notthink thata neutral
m onitorwasnecessary.Defendantsnow seem to indicatethatno on-sitemonitoring isnecessary

becausetheywillpolicethemselvesthroughtheirowninternalauditingprocess.Quitesimply,
given D efendants'refusalto recognize theirlegalobligation to provide kosherm eals,to rely only

Case 1:12-cv-22958-PAS Document 547 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2015 Page 7 of 9

Plaintiffsproposedlanguage,however,may be slightly overbroad asto facilities. Thus,

the Courtw illlim itfacility accessto the food prepazation areas,m ealserving areas,and dining

areas. Giving Plaintiffaccesstofacilitiesto inspectthe foodpreparation areasand ensurethat

proceduresarefollowed isnarrowlytailored andextendsnofurtherthan necessat'y.Further,such
aprovision isnotoverly intrusivebecauseitdoesnotrequireconstantm onitoring ortheregular
presence ofa non-party. G iving Plaintiffaccessto the m ealserving and dining areasisnecessary
given the num erousprisonercom plaints aboutthe lack ofproperkosherproceduresin the
serving ofthe m eals and problem s in the dining areas. Further,such a provision isnotoverly

intrusivebecause itdoesnotrequire constantm onitoring,the presence of anon-party monitor,

and doesnotextend to non-food related areasofthe Defendants'facilities.Consequently,access
to food preparation,serving,and dining areasm eetsthe need-naaow ness-intrusivenesstestofthe
PLR A .

Accesstopersolm eland prisonersto accesscompliancewith Coul'tordersisnarrowly

drawn to allow Plaintiffto gatherinform ation abouttraining,com pliance,and treatm entof

prisonerswho choosetopartakein theRDP. Such aprovision isnotoverly intrusive because it

doesnotrequire theconstantpresenceofancm-party oraparty. Consequently,accessto
persozmeland prisonersm eetstheneed-nazrowness-intrusivenessrequirem entsofthePLRA.
Finally,both sidesagreethatPlaintiffshould haveaccesstorecordsrelated to theRDP.
Such accessisnecessary to ensurethatDefendantscontinuetocom ply with the Court'sorders.
A ccessto recordsrelated to the RDP isa narrowly tailored provision because itonly provides

on Defendants'own selfm onitoring asthesoleform ofon-sitem onitoring oftheRDP wouldbe

unreasonable.

Case 1:12-cv-22958-PAS Document 547 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2015 Page 8 of 9

accesstotherelevantrecords-thoserelatingtothesubjectofthislitigation.Becauseitonly
providesaccessto lim ited recordsand doesnotrequirethattherecordsbeproduced in any
pm icularway,thisprovision isnotintrusive. Consequently,therecordsaccessprovision m eets
the requirem entsofthe PLR A.
O ther Term s

ThepartiesproposethatPlaintiffgiveDefendantsthirty(30)daysnoticetocureany

allegedviolationoftheinjunction.Iftheviolationisnotcuredwithinthattime,Plaintiffmay
initiatea courtproceedingto addressthe violation.Thepartieshaveagreed to thisprovision and,
given thatitisnon-substantiveand isnotafonn ofprospectiverelief,itneednotm eetthe
requirem ents ofthe PLR A . Finally,the partiesw ish to include language stating thatthe

modification andterminationoftheinjunction aregovemedbythetennsofthePLRA and

FederalRule ofCivilProcedure60. Thisterm issimply a statementofexisting1aw and therefore
doesnotneed to m eetthe need-narrow ness-intrusivenessrequirem entsofthe PLR A.
Accordingly,itis
OR DER ED that:

1.Theparties'jointproposedlanguagemeetstherequirementsofthePLRA.TheCourt

willutilizethejointproposedlanguageinitsfinalinjunction.
2. The Courtw illutilize a narrow erversion ofPlaintiff s accessto facilities,personnel,
and prisonerslanguage which w illcom ply w ith the PLRA .

3.TheCourtwillenteraseparateinjunction.

DONE andORDERED inMiami,Florida,this /W

dayofAugust, 015.

PA TR IC A A .SEI
UN ITED STA TES D IS

cc:

A 1lCounselofRecord

CT JU D GE

Case 1:12-cv-22958-PAS Document 547 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2015 Page 9 of 9

ALORIDA HEPAA/ MENTDF-CIJRRECTIDNN'

R ELIGIOUS DIET PROGM M
N O TICE O F V IO LA TIO N

((l
-(..q(..

IN M ATE NAM E:
DC#:

FAC ILITY :
H O USING UN IT :
NOTICE DATE:

RELIGION OFRECORD (OT23):

PleasebeadvisedthatyouareinviolationoftheReligiousDietProgram (;$1tDP'')forthefollowingreason:
lthasbeendeterminedthatyouhavepurchase; possessedaorconsumedfoodproductsorattemptedtopurchase,possess
orconsumefoodproductsthatarenotconsistentwith orthatspecitkally violatethe skndardsoftheCFO diet.(See
attached.)
You havebeen foundto beunableto managethereligiotlsdietin amannerconsistentwith institutionalsafety orsecurity.

Youhavebeenfoundtohavebartered,stolen,orimproperlym ssessedfoodfrom theCFO meals.(Seeattached.)

Youare being considered forstspension 9om theRDP. lfyou are interested in continuingyourparticipation in the RDP you

mustcompletethisfrom andretum ittotheChaplainwithintive(5)daysofthek'NoticeDate''listedabove.TheChaplainwill

consideranyresponseyou providebeforeasuspensionorremovaldecision ismade.
PART A:FACTS FO R CO NSIDEM TION
Pleaseexplain IN DETAIL why you violatedtheRDP program,and whyyoushouldbeallowedtoremain intheprogram :

(Addt'z/l/tp?'
lt
W sheetsfnecessary)
PART B:CH APLAINCY REW EW
Ihavereviewed theinformation aboveandhavedeterm ined thattheabovenmned inm ateshallcometoan interview to

furtherexplaintheviolation.(Intelview noteswilllx madeonPM D:ChaplaincyNotes.)

lhavereviewed theinfonnation aboveand havedetennined thatnointerview isnecessary.'
Thedism sitionnoted below is
supportedby theinformation supplied in PM A,PM D and any additionalinformation attached hereto.
Inmatedidnotretum theform orforward any explanationfortheviolation.
lnmatefailedtorespondto thecall-out.
Chaplain

Date

PART C:DISPOSITION
Aflercompletingmy review,Ihavedeterminedthefollowingdism si
tion totheviolation:

Counseling only;no suspension.

1kViolation:Susm ndedfor30days.
2ndviolation:Suspended for120days.

3rdViolationorSubjqpent:Suspendedftyplp(J)year.
PART D:CHAPLAINCY NOTES %orlzsebyC/ltzlflncyOnlyl

Chaplain

(7C5-325(Revised7/28/15)

Date

R ktb't# A