Jackson County Lawsuit

Case 2:24-cv-10787-GAD-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.
1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 1 of 32
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARVIN OWENS
Inmate No: 20232255
MDOC No: 767206
Plaintiff,
Case:
-v- Hon.
GARY SCHEUTTE, Jackson County

Sheriff, in his official capacity, only;
COMPLAINT FOR
ANTHONY STEWART, Captain DECLARATORY AND
Jackson County Sheriff’s Office, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Jackson County Jail, in both his official DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
and individual capacity,
MIKE COBURN, Lieutenant, Jackson

County Sheriff’s Office, Jackson County
Jail, in both his official and individual
capacity,
TIGGS CANTEEN SERVICES, INC.,

Michigan For profit corporation,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff, MARVIN OWENS, by and through his counsel, CAIR-MI LEGAL
FUND, by Amy V. Doukoure, files this Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive
relief against Jacson County Sheriff Officials, Gary Schuette, Anthony Stewart and
Mike Coburn and Tiggs Canteen Services, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), for
1
Case 2:24-cv-10787-GAD-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 03/28/24 Page 2 of 32
violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”)
42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc et. seq., 42 U.S.C. §1983 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, and
the Michigan Constitution Article I §4 and avers as follows:
NATURE of This Action

1. Muslims have for decades been accommodated by prisons and jails around
the country for the observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan by providing
them with meals before dawn and at sunset that contain sufficient calories to sustain
the Muslims as they observe the dawn-to-sunset fast.
2. Muslims housed in jails and prisons, just like those in the free world, eat a
morning meal-suhoor- before dawn to prepare for each day’s fast and an evening
meal -iftar- at sunset to break each day’s fast. Prisons and jails take a variety of
approaches to accommodating fasting Muslims, including through administratively
simple options like providing Muslims with nonperishable bagged meals that
detainees can eat in their cells when they so choose.
3. Jackson County Jail has a policy for accommodating fasting Muslims,
however, are lapse in their application of the policy which resulted in Mr. Owens not
receiving food on days he was fasting, obtaining his evening meal late causing him
to fast longer than necessary and permissible under mainstream Islamic theology,
and providing less food than is necessary nutritionally.

2
4. The diet provided by Jackson County Jail is a starvation diet imposed on Mr.
Owens, and it is imposed upon him because he takes his religion seriously and
adheres to mainstream Islamic teachings about Ramadan that instructs him and other
Muslims to refrain from eating and drinking between dawn and sunset during this
month-long religious obligation.
5. Jackson County Jail deprives Mr. Moore of appropriate and necessary life
sustaining accommodations despite repeated pleas from advocacy groups and Mr.
Moore’s mother, and they remain defiant even when their deficiencies have been
pointed out time and time again.
Jurisdiction and Venue
6. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and
28 U.S.C. §1343 over Plaintiff’s claims of violations of the First, Eight and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§2000 et. seq.,
and 42 U.S.C. 1983 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331.
7. Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are sought under 28
U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, 28 U.S.C. §1343, Rule 57 and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, by the general, legal, and equitable powers of this Court.
3
8. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 over
Plaintiff’s claims of violations of Michigan Law and Michigan’s Constitution Article
I Section 4.
9. Plaintiff’s claims for attorneys’ fees and costs are predicated upon 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1988 and 2000cc-2(d), which authorize the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to
prevailing parties, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and RLUIPA.
10.Jackson County Jail, where Plaintiff is detained, is an “institution” within the
meaning of 42 U.S.C. §200cc-1(a) and 42 U.S.C. §1997.
11.This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants
reside and conduct business in the County of Jackson, State of Michigan.
12.Venue is Proper under 42 U.S.C. §1391 as to all Defendants because
Defendants operate within the general geographical boundaries of the State of
Michigan, and the substantial part of the acts and omissions described herein
occurred within this District.
Parties
13. Plaintiff Marvin Owens is a 34-year old Muslim man detained in Jackson
County Jail (“JCC”) in Jackson, Michigan (Id No: 20232255;MDOC No: 767206).
He was and is at all relevant times a “person confined to an institution,” as defined
expressly within 42 U.S.C. §2000cc et. seq.
4
14.Defendant, Gary Schuette, is the Sheriff of Jackson County Sheriff’s Office
(“JCCO”). As Sheriff, Defendant Schuette’s responsibilities encompass all
functions associated with JCSO headquarters and JCC operations, including
ensuring compliance with federal and state laws, regulations, standards, and
guidelines and protecting the “health, safety and welfare of individuals in custody.”
JCC, where Plaintiff Owens is detained, was and is at all relevant times an
“institution” as the term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997.
JCC is located 212 W. Wesley Street, Jackson, Michigan, 49201. Defendant Schuette
was and is at all relevant times a decisionmaker and possesses the authority and
responsibility to formulate, establish, approve, and oversee the implementation of
all policies, programs and procedures concerning JCC, including all religious,
medical, healthcare, and other dietary accommodations and policies, which are
consistent with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. 1 Defendant
Schuette is also responsible for securing, executing, overseeing, managing, and
enforcing compliance of all procurement contracts JCSO executes, including JCC’s
“Inmate Food Service Contract” with TIGG’s Canteen Services, Inc. Defendant
Schuette is being sued in his official capacity, only.
1
See generally https://www.co.jackson.mi.us/172/Introduction---Sheriffs-Welcome (last accessed
03/27/2024)
5
15.Defendant Anthony Stewart is the Captain at JCC. Defendant Stewart is a
decisionmaker and possesses the authority and responsibility to formulate, establish,
approve, oversee, and manage all JCC services and operations including food service
and all religious, medical, healthcare, and other dietary accommodations and policies.
Defendant Stewart is also responsible for overseeing, managing, and enforcing
compliance of all procurement contracts JCC executes, including JCSO’s “Inmate
Food Service Contract” with TIGG’s Canteen Services, Inc. Defendant Stewart also
possesses the authority and responsibility to approve requests and accommodations
of JCC detainees that are required to meet their religious dietary requirements, as well
as order meals that not only satisfy those requirements, but that continue to meet or
exceed all federal and state laws, regulations, standards, and nutritional guidelines
while maintaining their individual medical, health and/or other dietary requirements.
Defendant Stewart possessed authority at all relevant times to approve Plaintiff
Owens’ religious accommodation requests and to resolve the issues that gave rise to
this action Defendant Stewart is the final step in the grievance and complaint process
for detainees at JCC. Defendant Stewart has ignored all grievances and complaints of
Plaintiff Owens related to JCC’s Ramadan Accommodations. Defendant Stewart
personally engaged in discriminatory conduct. As such, Defendant Stewart is being
sued in both his official and individual capacity.
6
16.Defendant Mike Coburn is the Lieutenant of Administration of JCC.
Defendant Coburn is a decisionmaker and possesses the authority and responsibility
of processing inmate requests, administering the grievance process, investigating
complaints brought by detainees, and resolving complaints at the lowest possible
level at the jail. Defendant Coburn also possesses the authority and responsibility to
approve requests and accommodations of JCC detainees that are required to meet
their religious dietary requirements, as well as order meals that not only satisfy those
requirements, but that continue to meet or exceed all federal and state laws,
regulations, standards, and nutritional guidelines while maintaining their individual
medical, health and/or other dietary requirements. Defendant Coburn possessed
authority at all relevant times to approve Plaintiff Owens’ religious accommodation
requests and to resolve the issues that gave rise to this action Defendant Coburn
personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiff Owens. Defendant
Coburn is being sued in both his official and personal capacity.
17.Defendant TIGG’s Canteen Services, Inc. (“TIGGS”) is a profit corporation
incorporated under the laws of the state of Michigan. Defendant TIGG’s
headquarters and principal office is located at 353 South Michigan Ave, Coldwater,
Michigan 49036. Defendant TIGG’s regularly and systematically conducts business
in the State of Michigan. JCSO awarded Defendant Trinity a multi-year “Inmate
Food Service” contract ensuring that all meals distributed to JCC detainees and
7
weekly menu cycles are reviewed and approved by a registered dietitian to ensure
they meet or exceed all federal and state laws, regulations, standards, and nutritional
guidelines as well as JCC and JCSO policies. Defendant TIGGS is also responsible
for preparing and distributing specialized meals to JCC detainees that meet their
individual religious, medical, health and/or other dietary needs. Defendant TIGGS
is a decisionmaker and possesses the authority and responsibility to formulate,
establish, approve, and oversee the implementation of all JCC policies and
procedures concerning food preparation and management services, including
specialized meals that are designed to meet individual religious, medical, health or
other dietary needs. Defendant TIGGS is responsible for all food preparation at JCC
and was at all times relevant responsible to ensure that Plaintiff Owens was provided
a nutritional and caloric intake that meets or exceeds federal and state laws,
regulations, standards, and guidelines on any given day.
Factual Background
18.Plaintiff Marvin Owens is a practitioner of the Muslim faith who, as part of
his sincerely held religious beliefs, observes a month of fasting during the Islamic
8
holy month of Ramadan. 2 Ramadan began for Muslims worldwide in 2024 on or
about March 10th or 11th and will end at sunset approximately on April 9th or 10th.
19.Owens began fasting at the beginning of Ramadan on March10, 2024 without
any accommodations from JCC. Owens was only able to obtain some form of
accommodations from JCC for Ramadan on March 13, 2024, after three full days of
fasting. For the first three days of Ramadan, Mr. Owens was not provided a pre-
dawn meal, nor was he provided a sunset meal by JCC.
20.In order to maintain his religious obligations of abstaining from food and
water during for the first three days of Ramadan, Mr. Owens relied upon food that
he had on had that had previously been purchased from the commissary. This
provided Mr. Owens with significantly deficient nutrition and caloric intake for those
three days.
21.Following March 13th, JCC provided Mr. Owens with a pre-dawn and sunset
meal. However, for several days between March 13 and March 26, 2024, sunset
meals were provided to Mr. Owens later than sunset by up to two or more hours.
2
Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, which is based on a lunar calendar. Muslims worldwide
are required to observe Ramadan as a month of fasting and spirituality. This annual observance is regarded as
one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Among other things, while fasting from dawn until sunset, Muslims refrain
from consuming food and drinking liquids. Muslims have a morning meal known as suhoor and cease eating
at or before dawn, the time of the Fajr prayer; and Muslims break their fast by eating the iftar meal at sunset,
the time of the Maghrib prayer. Because prayer and Ramadan mealtimes are based on the sun and vary each
day, Muslims rely upon prayer schedules to determine the exact time each day. Islamic prayer times for
Jackson County Michigan can be found at https://www.islamicﬁnder.org/ramadan-calendar/ (last accessed
03/27/2024).
9
22.In fact, on March 14th, the first day that Mr. Owens received both pre-dawn
and sunset meals, the time for Mr. Owens to break his fast was approximately
7:43pm, but Mr. Owens did not receive his sunset meal until well after 9:30 pm,
extending his fast nearly two full hours. JCC’s delinquency in providing Mr. Owens
with the sunset meal ensured that Mr. Owens was fasting longer than the time that
was not only prescribed Islamically, but also longer than the time that is permissible
under mainstream Islamic teachings.
23.Mainstream Islamic teachings prohibit a Muslim from extending their fast
beyond the moment of sunset, and require that an adherent Muslim hasten to break
their fast during Ramadan. Mr. Owens follows the beliefs of mainstream Islamic
teachings regarding the requirement to hasten to break one’s fast.
24.Additionally, when Mr. Owens was provided both his pre-dawn and sunset
meals, the meals provided by Defendants obtained very few calories, on average
between 1300 and 1900 calories total per day between both meals. This resulted in
prolonged and sustained food deprivation being imposed by jail officials on Mr.
Owens. The deficiency in Simmonds’ caloric intake and nutrition is severe and well
below the minimum caloric intake requirements necessary to not only sustain his
health, but to prevent the permanent and irreversible, life- threatening effects of
starvation.
10
25.And in fact, as would be expected, the detrimental effects of starvation have
set in—hunger pangs, pain, dizziness, faintness, fatigue, weight loss—to name just
a few.
26.Furthermore, Owens reports feeling stress, anxiety and other harms caused by
the toll of Defendant’s failure to provide timely and sufficient meals during this most
holy month for Muslims.
27.The extent of the harm on his body, malnutrition, muscle depletion, wasting
away of body tissues, damage to his organs, and impact to his mental, psychological,
physiological, and emotional health and well- being has yet to be seen.
28.The “Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020-2025” issued by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
estimates that Plaintiff Simmonds’ daily caloric intake requirements—calculated
based upon his age, sex, and physical activity levels—ranges from at minimum
2,600 to 2,800 per day. 3
29.To make matters worse, on several occasions Mr. Owens has been served food
that is inedible and inappropriate for human consumption including food that had
been left out, unwrapped and unprotected from the elements for great lengths of time,
food that had been mixed with liquids such as apple juice or apple sauce. Indeed, the
3
See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2020-2025
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, December 2020 at 140, available at:
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/resources/2020-2025-dietary-guidelines-online-materials
11
food served to Mr. Owens on one such occasion was so degraded that an officer of
JCC advised Mr. Owens that he couldn’t eat it and attempted to replace it with other
food, but was unable to do so due to having no food provisions at the facility where
Mr. Owens is housed.
30.Defendants Schuette, Stewart and Coburn, when questioned about the
Ramadan accommodations, menus, timing of food distribution, and caloric count of
food provided have responded as follows:
a. Acknowledged, without excuse that Mr. Owens was not being
accommodated for Ramadan until after March 13th;
b. Acknowledged, with excuse, that Mr. Owens was not provided his
sunset meal timely;
c. Provided no response to the quality or quantity of the food received by
Owens for his pre-dawn or sunset meal, but has instead indicated that
it is not their responsibility and laid blame squarely on the doorstep of
Defendant TIGGS;
31.When Defendant TIGGS has been notified of the deficiencies in the nutrition
and caloric content of the meals being provided to Mr. Owens, their response is either
abject silence, or a claim that they cannot meet to discuss the situation for at least
another week.
12
32.Defendants’ defiance and passing off of the blame amongst themselves for the
lack of appropriate accommodations and sufficient nutritious food for Mr. Owens
has only prolonged and exacerbated Mr. Owens’ plight and condition with no end in
sight.
JCC Can Provide Owens With Meals that Meet Caloric and Nutritional
Guidelines at Sunset and Before Dawn
33. JCC has contracted with TIGGS Canteen Services, Inc, to prepare service
and provide food service for detainees at JCC. Pursuant to that contract, TIGGS is
responsible for all “special diet” needs of detainees including all religious diets.
34.Upon information and belief, both TIGGs’ employees and JCC detention staff
are responsible for delivering meals from the kitchen area to the various JCC
facilities.4
35.As a result of the contract with TIGGS, JCC does not maintain food or food
stuffs at either jail location, nor do they prepare or maintain meals for detainees at
either facility.
36.During Ramadan, JCC staff have been responsible for distributing Ramadan
meals before dawn and at sunset to Mr. Owens.
4
JCC has two facilities that house detainees, one on Chater Road, called the Chanter Road Jail, and the one
that Mr. Owens is housed in on Wesley Street called the Wesley Street Jail.
13
37.Pursuant to JCC’s Policy Directive 900.7- Religious Diets- The food service
manager is required, to the extent possible to provide special diets for inmates in
compliance with the parameters of RLUIPA and the Religious Programs Policy and
are required to conform religious diets to the nutritional and caloric requirements for
non-religious diets.
38. Pursuant to the TIGGS’ contract, JCC has shared their duty as outlined in
their policy directive 90037 to Defendant TIGGs for the purpose of implementation
of the food service program.
39.According to TIGG’s Diet Manual, which contains a purported standard menu
for the observance of Ramadan, Muslims observing the Ramadan fast should be
provided with two meals a day totaling approximately 2,800 calories per day.
Exhibit A.
40. However, Mr. Owens is not receiving the majority of the items listed on the
purported standard Ramdan menu thereby ensuring that his caloric intake is well
below the required 2,600-2800 calories. For instance, for the sunset meal on March
26, 2024, Mr. Owens reports to have received one scoop of tuna, two pieces of white
bread, two 8 oz glasses of unsweetened apple juice and one cup of pasta salad.
Furthermore, Mr. Owens did not receive his sunset meal until nearly 8:30 a full forty
(40) minutes after the time prescribed for him to break his fast.
14
41.Missing from Mr. Owen’s evening meal on March 26th was two (2) slices of
bread, an additional 1.5 oz of tuna fish, 2 slices of cheese, 2 mustard packets, ½ cup
of pretzels or chips, fruit and 8 oz of milk. This is indicative of the amount and types
of food that Mr. Owens is being served each day for his sunset meal.
42. Based on what Mr. Owens reports receiving on March 26, his overall calorie
count for that date would be approximately 1,400 calories.
43.It is clear from TIGG’s Diet Manuel that Defendants have an appreciation and
firm understanding of their obligations related to providing nutritious and
sufficiently caloric diets for Muslims observing Ramadan, and further have the
knowledge and ability to provide those meals to Muslims.
44.Defendants can provide Plaintiff Owens with a daily caloric intake of 2,600
to 2,800 calories per day—his daily caloric intake requirements calculated based
upon his age, sex, and physical activity levels in accordance with the Dietary
Guidelines—because jail officials provide other detainees that amount of food,
across all the diets offered at the facility.
45.Defendants are capable of providing Plaintiff Owens and similarly situated
Muslim detainees two Ramadan meals daily, one at sunset and the other before dawn,
in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs because: (1) Defendants
have done the morning meal service before dawn a few times, allowing Plaintiff and
other Muslims to eat prior to beginning their daily fast, (2) Defendants have done
15
the evening meal service at sunset a few times, allowing Plaintiff and other Muslims
to end their fast at the time Islam directs them to, and (3) Defendants provide meals
at alternate times as the need arises in order to accommodate the court schedules of
individual detainees.
Owens Has Engaged in Defendants’ Grievance Process
46. On several occasions prior to the start of Ramadan, including at least three
occasions in the month of February, Owens made formal requests to be
accommodated for the month of Ramadan and the Ramadan fast to JCC officers and
staff. All of those requests went unheeded. Additionally, Owens’ family members
contacted the jail facilities to advise the Defendants of the tenants of Ramadan and
to ascertain whether or Mr. Owens was going to be able to obtain an accommodation
for Ramadan fasting.
47.On March 10, the first day of fasting for Ramadan, Mr. Owens again formally
requested an accommodation for Ramadan and attempted to file a grievance with
JCC staff and officers related to not having an accommodation in place.
48.On March 13, and several occasions after that, Mr. Owens complained to JCC
staff and officers about (1) the tardiness of the sunset meal (2) the lack of food,
calories and nutrition provided by Defendants for his sunset meal and (3) the quality
16
of the food he was provided. Defendants Colburn and Stewart acknowledge receipt
of these complaints despite the fact that Mr. Owens was never provided with the
grievance form from JCC officers and staff.
49.Copies of Mr. Owen’s requests for accommodations and copies of documents
related to Mr. Owens’ complaints related to the JCC’s Ramadan accommodations
have been requested pursuant to Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, however,
no responsive documents were produced despite email acknowledgements from
Defendants that documents indeed exist.
50. No emergency grievance process exists at the facility. So, Plaintiff completed
the only quasi-emergency option the Dekalb County offers, direct complaints to
officers and staff and request to the Sheriff through advocacy and family members.
51.At any rate, the facilities grievance policy states that all grievances must begin
with an officer, and then if not resolved, must be sent to a Shift Supervisor and then
to the Corrections Lieutenant and then finally to the Corrections Captain for final
disposition. No time frame exists within the policy for when any one of the
individuals outlined in the several steps of the process is required to respond. As
such, the grievance process itself is insufficient to address the nature of Plaintiff’s
complaint because it is unlikely to resolve itself by the end of the one-month
Ramadan period. As a result, the grievance process is unavailable or Simmonds has
17
sufficiently exhausted it. See generally Ramirez v. Collins, 595 U.S. , 21-5592, slip
op. at 6-10; Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643 (2016).
Count I
Violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(Discrimination on the Basis of Religion)
(Against Official Capacity Defendants Only)
52.Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing
paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
53.Defendants’ above-described conduct treats Plaintiff and other Muslim
detainees observing the Ramadan fast on less than equal terms with other religious
and non-religious detainees.
54.Defendants’ above-mentioned unlawful actions caused and continues to cause
Plaintiff and other Muslim detainees observing the Ramadan fast harm because it
forces him to choose daily between violating his core religious beliefs by fasting
during the month of Ramadan and foregoing his right to receive a menu that meets
minimum nutritional, health, and safety standards.
55.Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiff, and other fasting
Muslim detainees, of his right to be free from religious discrimination as secured by
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §
2000cc(a) et seq., by imposing and implementing a policy in a manner that
discriminates on the basis of religion.

18
56.Defendants have imposed onerous restrictions on Plaintiff that Defendants did
not impose on detainees of other faith backgrounds, including subjecting Plaintiff
and other Muslim detainees to scrutiny of their religious adherence as a condition of
eligibility for their inclusion on the religious diet list.
57.Defendants have imposed onerous restrictions on Plaintiff that Defendants did
not impose on detainees of other faith backgrounds.
58.Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a policy requiring
Plaintiff and other Muslim detainees observing the Ramadan fast to receive meals
that do not meet minimum nutritional or safety or medical standards during the
month of Ramadan.
59.Defendants have not established a dietary policy requiring detainees of other
faith backgrounds participating in the religious diet to receive meals that do not meet
minimum or safety or medical nutritional standards. Plaintiff is entitled to a
declaration that Defendants’ above- described conduct constitutes discrimination on
the basis of Plaintiff’s religion, is not justified by a compelling government interest,
and is in violation of RLUIPA.
60.Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of an injunction granting the relief described in
the Prayer for Relief below.
61.Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of an injunction enjoining Defendants from
denying Plaintiff a proper caloric and nutritional diet during Ramadan.

19
62.Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiff harm and Plaintiff is entitled to
injunctive and declaratory relief, in addition to all such other relief this Court deems
just and proper including damages, costs and attorneys’ fees in this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court grant declaratory relief
and injunctive relief barring Defendants from prohibiting Plaintiff and other fasting
Muslim detainees from receiving a balanced nutritional diet containing between
2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day, including during Ramadan. Plaintiff
further requests any other relief this Court deems just and proper including damages,
and costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Count II
Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution
(Free Exercise of Religion)
64.Defendants’ above-mentioned unlawful actions caused and continues to cause
Plaintiff harm because it forces him to choose on a daily basis between violating his
core religious beliefs by fasting during the month of Ramadan and foregoing his
right to receive a menu that meets minimum nutritional, health, and safety standards.
65.Defendants’ above-mentioned unlawful actions chill Plaintiff’s right to free
exercise of religion.
20
66.Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly required Muslim detainees to
receive meals that do not meet minimum caloric and nutritional standards during the
month of Ramadan.
faiths participating in the religious kosher diet to receive meals that do not meet
minimum nutritional standards.
68.The restrictions imposed on Plaintiff and other Muslim detainees observing
the Ramadan fast have imposed a substantial burden on their exercise of Islam.
69.Imposition of such a burden is not in furtherance of a compelling government
interest and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest,
compelling or otherwise.
70.Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendants’ above- described conduct
causes a substantial burden to the free exercise of Plaintiff’s religion, is not justified
by a compelling government interest, and is in violation of Plaintiff’s First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights to their free exercise of religion.
72. Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of an injunction
enjoining Defendants from denying Plaintiff and other Muslim detainees observing
the Ramadan fast a proper caloric and nutritional diet.

21
73. Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiff harm and Plaintiff is entitled to
injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to
all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’
fees in this action.
and injunctive relief prohibiting Plaintiff and other fasting Muslim detainees from
receiving a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on
any given day, including during Ramadan. Plaintiff further requests compensatory
and punitive damages against the Defendants sued in their individual capacity, plus
fees incurred in this action.
Count III
Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution
(Equal Protection)
75.Defendants’ above-described conduct treats these detainees on less than equal
terms with other religious and non-religious detainees, thereby creating a
denominational preference against Islam as a religion.
22
76.Defendants’ above-mentioned unlawful conduct caused and continues to
cause Plaintiff and other Muslim detainees observing the Ramadan fast harm
because it forces him to choose on a daily basis between violating his core religious
beliefs by fasting during the month of Ramadan and foregoing his right to receiving
a menu that meets minimum nutritional standards.
77.Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiff and other Muslim
detainees observing the Ramadan fast of his right to equal protection of the laws as
secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by
imposing and implementing a policy in a manner that discriminates on the basis of
religion.
78.Defendants have imposed onerous restrictions on Plaintiff that have not been
imposed on detainees of other faiths.
79.Defendants have arbitrarily and unjustly established a policy requiring
Muslim detainees to receive meals that do not meet minimum caloric and nutritional
standards during the month of Ramadan.
faiths participating in the religious kosher diet to receive meals that do not meet
minimum nutritional standards.
81.The restrictions imposed on Plaintiff is unconstitutional and have substantially
burdened their religious exercise.

23
82.The restrictions imposed on Plaintiff have imposed a substantial burden on
Plaintiff’s exercise of Islam.
83.Imposition of such a burden is not in furtherance of a compelling government
interest and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest,
compelling or otherwise.
84.Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendants’ above- described conduct
causes a substantial burden to the free exercise of Plaintiff’s religion, discriminates
against Plaintiff’s religion, is not justified by a compelling government interest, and
is in violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the
laws.
86.Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiff harm and Plaintiff is entitled to
injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to
fees in this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Requests this Honorable Court grant declaratory relief
and injunctive relief prohibiting Plaintiff and other fasting Muslim detainees from
receiving a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on
24
any given day, including during Ramadan. Plaintiff further compensatory and
punitive damages against the Defendants sued in their individual capacity, plus all
such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees
incurred in this action.
Count IV
Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution
(Cruel and Unusual Punishment)
88.Under the Eighth Amendment, those convicted of crimes have the right to be
free from cruel and unusual punishment. Under the Fourteenth Amendment,
detainees have at least the same rights as those convicted have under the Eighth
Amendment.
89.The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on Defendants to provide humane
conditions of confinement, including insuring, among other things, that detainees
receive adequate food. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).
90.Defendants, acting under color of state law, took Plaintiff into physical police
custody. In doing so, they established a special custodial relationship with Plaintiff,
giving rise to affirmative duties on their part to secure and ensure that Plaintiff would
25
be given adequate food and to secure for Plaintiff the constitutionally protected
rights identified above.
91.Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated Plaintiff’s above-stated
constitutionally protected rights by wrongfully denying them of adequate food.
92.Defendants, acting under color of law, owed Plaintiff the duty to provide
nutritious, well-balanced, and healthy meals that comport with government health
guidelines.
93.Defendants’ deprivation of a balanced nutritional diet containing between
2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day, including during Ramadan is objectively
sufficiently serious in that it failed to provide Plaintiff adequate food and a humane
condition of confinement.
94.Defendants failed to take adequate measures to ensure that Plaintiff was
receiving adequate food.
95.Defendants subjectively perceived, or should have subjectively perceived,
Plaintiff’s complaints regarding the inadequacy of food.
96.Defendants’ acts and omissions were sufficiently harmful to evidence a
substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff and other Muslim detainees observing
the Ramadan fast.
97.Defendants’ acts and omissions were sufficiently harmful to offend evolving
standards of decency in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

26
98.Defendant’ acts and omissions in depriving Plaintiff of a balanced nutritional
diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day, including during
Ramadan were such that they denied Plaintiff and other Muslim detainees the
minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.
99.Defendants’ actions while acting under color of state law, in denying Plaintiff
a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given
day, including during Ramadan, amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and
excessive force in violation of their constitutionally protected rights as stated above.
100. Defendants’ conduct as outlined above, was so grossly incompetent,
inadequate, or excessive so as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to
fundamental fairness and violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel
and unusual punishment.
101. Defendants, acting under the color of state law, authorized, tolerated,
ratified, permitted, or acquiesced in the creation of policies, practices, and customs,
establishing a de facto policy of depriving Plaintiff and other Muslim detainees
observing the holy fast during Ramadan with a balanced nutritional diet containing
between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day, including during Ramadan.
102. Defendants’ policies, customs and practices were conducted willfully
and with wanton disregard and with the spirit of gross negligence, were the direct
and deliberate cause of constitutional deprivations including Plaintiff’s rights to

27
liberty and due process and were the direct cause of Plaintiff’s cruel and unusual
punishment and excessive force.
103. As a direct and proximate result of these polices, practices and customs,
Defendants deprived Plaintiff of his constitutionally protected rights as described
above.
Plaintiff was forced to choose on a daily basis during the months of Ramadan
whether to adhere to their sincerely held religious beliefs or sacrifice their basic
nutritional needs.
Plaintiff and other fasting Muslim detainees suffered and will continue to suffer from
starvation, weight loss, severe hunger pangs, headaches, dizziness, among other
things.
106. As a result of their conduct described above, Defendants are also liable
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
107. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendants’ conduct described
above is a violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment.
108. Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of a permanent injunction granting the
relief described in the Prayer for Relief below.

28
109. Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of an injunction enjoining Defendants
from denying Plaintiff a proper caloric and nutritional diet on any given day,
including during Ramadan.
110. Defendants’ unlawful actions caused Plaintiff harm and Plaintiff is
entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, in
addition to all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and
attorneys’ fees in this action.
and injunctive relief barring Defendants from prohibiting Plaintiff and other fasting
Muslim detainees from receiving a balanced nutritional diet containing between
2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day, including during Ramadan, similar in
amount to the food provided to others at the DKC Jail. Plaintiff further requests
compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants sued in their individual
capacity, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs
and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in
his favor and against Defendants on each and every count in this Complaint, and
enter an Order awarding the following relief:

29
1. A declaratory judgment that:
a. Defendants’ Ramadan policies, practices, and customs violate
the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), and 42U.S.C. § 1983;
b. Defendants’ conduct and policy constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution;
c. Defendants’ denial of a balanced nutritional diet containing
between 2,600 and 2,800 calories to Simmonds and similarly situated
Muslim detainees on any given day, including during Ramadan,
constitutes a violation of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution and creates a chilling effect on Plaintiff’s free exercise of
religion;
d. Defendants’ denial of Plaintiff’s requests for a balanced
nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any
given day, including during Ramadan is a substantial burden to the free
exercise of Plaintiff’s religion and is not justified by a compelling
government interest;
30
e. Defendants’ conduct and policy treats Muslim detainees on less
than equal terms with other religious and non-religious detainees;
f. Defendants’ conduct and policy entails intrusive inquiry into
individual religiosity and adherence to the Defendants’
establishment of a preferred form of Islam;
2. An injunction that:
a. Enjoins Defendants from denying Plaintiff and other fasting Muslim
detainees a balanced nutritional diet containing between 2,600 and
2,800 calories on any given day, including during Ramadan, because
Defendants’ denial of the proper caloric and nutritional diet forces
Plaintiff, who have a religious basis for fasting during the month of
Ramadan, to choose, on a daily basis, between violating his core
religious beliefs and receiving a menu that meets minimum health and
nutritional standards;
b. Requires Defendants to remedy the constitutional and statutory
violations identified above, including, but not limited to, eliminating
any existing policy whereby Plaintiff and other Muslim detainees, and
others similarly situated, are denied a balanced nutritional diet
containing between 2,600 and 2,800 calories on any given day,
including during Ramadan;

31
3. An award of compensatory damages against the Defendants pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
4. An award of punitive damages against the Defendants sued in their individual
capacities only pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
5. An award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of all litigation, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1988; and,
6. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
NOW COMES Plaintiff, by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby
demand a jury trial of the above-referenced causes of action so triable.
Dated: March 27, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,
CAIR-MI LEGAL FUND
/s/Amy V. Doukoure
By: Amy V. Doukoure (P80461)
1905 S. Haggerty Road, Suite 5
Canton, MI 48188
(248) 559-2247
[email protected]
32
Case 2:24-cv-10787-GAD-APP ECF No. 1-1, PageID.33 Filed 03/28/24 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
Defendant Tigg's Canteen Purported Standard Ramadan Menu

DIET
MANUAL
Ramadan Diet
What is Ramadan?
Ramadan is an Islamic religious observance that take place during the nineth month of the Islamic Calendar
and is a period where prayer and fasting are stress. Of particular significance is the daytime fasting Every
day during the month of Ramadan, Muslims get up before dawn to eat (serve breakfast sack) and perform
their first prayer. Then the fast begins; it lasts until sunset (serve supper sack). Ramadan begins on the first
day at sunset and inmates will receive their normal meals that day. Fasting begins the next day so the first
breakfast sack meal is served before dawn on that day. Continue in this fashion until the last day which the
final evening sack meal is served. Regular meals for Muslims begin the next day.
Ramadan Meal Plan

Total calories: 2800 calories on average.
Meal on rising (breakfast sack)

2 Eggs
2 slices bread
1 oz. Peanut Butter
1/54th Coffeecake or Pastry
1 cup Cereal
1 Tbl. Margarine
1 cup Juice
1 cup or 2 ea. Fruit, Canned or Whole
1 cup Milk
Evening Meal (supper sack)
2 – 1.5 oz. Meat/Lunchmeat (no pork), (for meat-free facilities: ½ cup
Egg Salad, 2 oz. Peanut Butter, or 4 slices Cheese
4 slices Bread
2 slices Cheese
2 Mustard packets
1 cup Tossed Salad (2 Tbl Dressing), Vegetable Salad, Pasta Salad or Potato Salad
½ cup Pretzels, Potato Chips, or Corn Chips
1 cup Juice
1 cup Fruit or 2 ea Fresh
1 cup Milk
23

Jackson County Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jackson County Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:24-cv-10787-GAD-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.

1 Filed 03/28/24 Page 1 of 32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

GARY SCHEUTTE, Jackson County

MIKE COBURN, Lieutenant, Jackson

TIGGS CANTEEN SERVICES, INC.,

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff, MARVIN OWENS, by and through his counsel, CAIR-MI LEGAL

the Michigan Constitution Article I §4 and avers as follows:

NATURE of This Action

the Muslims as they observe the dawn-to-sunset fast.

approaches to accommodating fasting Muslims, including through administratively

detainees can eat in their cells when they so choose.

3. Jackson County Jail has a policy for accommodating fasting Muslims,

and providing less food than is necessary nutritionally.

month-long religious obligation.

pointed out time and time again.

Jurisdiction and Venue

and 42 U.S.C. 1983 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331.

8. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 over

Plaintiff’s claims of violations of Michigan Law and Michigan’s Constitution Article

prevailing parties, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and RLUIPA.

10.Jackson County Jail, where Plaintiff is detained, is an “institution” within the

meaning of 42 U.S.C. §200cc-1(a) and 42 U.S.C. §1997.

11.This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants

reside and conduct business in the County of Jackson, State of Michigan.

12.Venue is Proper under 42 U.S.C. §1391 as to all Defendants because

Defendants operate within the general geographical boundaries of the State of

occurred within this District.

He was and is at all relevant times a “person confined to an institution,” as defined

expressly within 42 U.S.C. §2000cc et. seq.

14.Defendant, Gary Schuette, is the Sheriff of Jackson County Sheriff’s Office

(“JCCO”). As Sheriff, Defendant Schuette’s responsibilities encompass all

functions associated with JCSO headquarters and JCC operations, including

“institution” as the term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997.

responsibility to formulate, establish, approve, and oversee the implementation of

Schuette is also responsible for securing, executing, overseeing, managing, and

enforcing compliance of all procurement contracts JCSO executes, including JCC’s

Schuette is being sued in his official capacity, only.

15.Defendant Anthony Stewart is the Captain at JCC. Defendant Stewart is a

decisionmaker and possesses the authority and responsibility to formulate, establish,

Defendant Stewart is also responsible for overseeing, managing, and enforcing

compliance of all procurement contracts JCC executes, including JCSO’s “Inmate

possesses the authority and responsibility to approve requests and accommodations

Defendant Stewart possessed authority at all relevant times to approve Plaintiff

Plaintiff Owens related to JCC’s Ramadan Accommodations. Defendant Stewart

personally engaged in discriminatory conduct. As such, Defendant Stewart is being

sued in both his official and individual capacity.

16.Defendant Mike Coburn is the Lieutenant of Administration of JCC.

Defendant Coburn is a decisionmaker and possesses the authority and responsibility

of processing inmate requests, administering the grievance process, investigating

complaints brought by detainees, and resolving complaints at the lowest possible

regulations, standards, and nutritional guidelines while maintaining their individual

medical, health and/or other dietary requirements. Defendant Coburn possessed

authority at all relevant times to approve Plaintiff Owens’ religious accommodation

personally engaged in discriminatory behavior against Plaintiff Owens. Defendant

Coburn is being sued in both his official and personal capacity.

17.Defendant TIGG’s Canteen Services, Inc. (“TIGGS”) is a profit corporation

incorporated under the laws of the state of Michigan. Defendant TIGG’s

Michigan 49036. Defendant TIGG’s regularly and systematically conducts business

in the State of Michigan. JCSO awarded Defendant Trinity a multi-year “Inmate

is a decisionmaker and possesses the authority and responsibility to formulate,

procedures concerning food preparation and management services, including

regulations, standards, and guidelines on any given day.