[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Sept. 24, 2009
No. 08-15780 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00225-CV-4-MMP-WCS
MITCHELL O. LINEHAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES V. CROSBY,
In his individual capacity,
ALEX LAM, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 24, 2009)
Before CARNES, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mitchell O. Linehan, a Seventh-Day Adventist, appeals pro se from the
district court’s denial of his motion to alter or amend its judgment, which granted
in part, and denied in part, summary judgment on his Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) claims, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc.
On appeal, Linehan argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying
his motion to alter or amend the judgment on his RLUIPA claims because it failed
to address the time period when the Florida Department of Corrections (“DOC”)
had provided kosher meals to Jewish inmates, but not to Seventh-Day Adventist
inmates. He also contends that the DOC’s policy of not providing him with kosher
meals during the period when it provided Jewish inmates with kosher meals was
not the “least restrictive means in furtherance of a compelling governmental
interest.” Linehan does not directly argue that the DOC’s current policy of not
providing kosher meals to inmates is not the least restrictive means in furtherance
of a compelling governmental interest, but because Linehan proceeds pro se, we
will construe his appeal as including that argument. See Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
“We review the denial of a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule
59(e) for abuse of discretion.” Shuford v. Fidelity Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 508
2
F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2007). The district court construed Linehan’s Rule
59(e) motion to alter or amend as a motion for reconsideration. We also review the
denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. United States v. Simms,
385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004).
In order to establish a prima facie case under RLUIPA, “a plaintiff must
demonstrate 1) that he engaged in a religious exercise; and 2) that the religious
exercise was substantially burdened.” Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1276 (11th
Cir. 2007); 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case,
the burden then shifts to the government to “demonstrate that the challenged
government action ‘is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest’ and ‘is
the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.’”
Smith, 502 F.3d at 1276 (quoting 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc-1(a), 2000cc-2(b)).
Context matters in the application of the compelling governmental interest
standard. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 723, 125 S. Ct. 2113, 2123, 161 L.
Ed.2d 1020 (2005). The standard should be applied with “due deference to the
experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary
regulations and procedures to maintain good order, security and discipline,
consistent with consideration of costs and limited resources.” Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Linehan’s motion
3
to alter or amend its judgment. First, contrary to Linehan’s contention, the district
court did address the time period when the DOC had a kosher meal program but
denied Linehan participation because he was not Jewish. The district court granted
Linehan nominal damages for his exclusion from the kosher meal program during
that time period. Second, the DOC has a compelling governmental interest in
keeping costs down and preventing security risks. The DOC submitted affidavits
showing that its current policy of providing vegan and vegetarian meals instead of
kosher meals was the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling
governmental interests of keeping costs down and preventing security risks. See
Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 125-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that, where
kosher meals were not provided to a Jewish inmate, budgetary and security
concerns were a compelling governmental interest). Accordingly, upon review of
the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4