Case: 13-14806 Date Filed: 10/22/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-14806
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-20991-JAL
ANDREW D. MARSHALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 22, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, FAY, and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-14806 Date Filed: 10/22/2014 Page: 2 of 3
We review de novo Andrew Marshall’s challenge on this appeal to the
district court’s summary judgment on his claim that the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“Bureau”) failed to honor his dietary requests in violation of the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. §2000bb-1. We affirm.
Marshall is a professed Buddhist and a Bureau inmate. RFRA prevents the
Bureau from substantially burdening Marshall’s exercise of religion except in the
least restrictive furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. Exercise of
religion includes dietary habits and restrictions. Once a prisoner satisfies his
burden of producing evidence that the Bureau is burdening his sincere exercise of
religion, the Bureau must persuade the court that it is doing so in the least
restrictive furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. Failing the Bureau’s
discharge of that ultimate burden of proof, the prisoner is entitled to relief.
Marshall failed to produce evidence that Buddhism required his dietary
demands. He failed to produce evidence that the Bureau substantially burdened his
exercise of religion, rather than his satisfaction of personal dietary preferences.
Consequently, the Bureau was not required to prove ultimately that its undisputed
dietary accommodations to Marshall served a compelling governmental interest in
the least restrictive manner. 1
1
Marshall’s Bivens claims under the First and Eighth Amendments, assuming he has
stated any (the district court assumed he had not), rise and fall with his RFRA claim. Separately
addressing them is unnecessary.
2
Case: 13-14806 Date Filed: 10/22/2014 Page: 3 of 3
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3