A jury will decide whether Colorado Department of Corrections officials violated an incarcerated man’s rights by terminating his religious diet when he purchased multiple items that allegedly were in conflict with his meal plan.

On Aug. 3, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez agreed a jury could believe Ray Anthony Smith’s claims that prison officials violated his right to religious exercise. Although the government insisted Smith purchased food that was not compliant with his Islamic diet – or, alternatively, that employees made a mistake in thinking the food was not compliant – Martínez noted prisoners have a clearly established right to meals that conform to their beliefs.

Martínez also advocated for a “much-to-be-desired pretrial resolution” of the dispute, given that the lawsuit has been pending for three years and Smith, who is still incarcerated, is representing himself in court.

Smith requires a halal diet, meaning one where food is prepared in accordance with Islamic law. At the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility, Smith signed a religious diet participation agreement. The agreement committed Smith to not purchasing “any food items that are not permitted under my religious diet.”

In 2019, Smith made multiple purchases that were not marked “H” for halal. In response, Charlene Crockett, the food program administrator, terminated Smith’s halal diet for one year, as regulations permit.

Smith filed suit, alleging Crockett and other corrections department officials substantially burdened his religious exercise. In late 2021, Martínez permitted Smith’s claims to proceed. While he was limited in his ability to pursue monetary damages, Smith also sought corrected designations of certain canteen items as halal.

The government moved for summary judgment, which would allow Martínez to resolve the case in its favor without a trial. The defendants referenced prior court decisions that established prison officials may terminate a person’s religious diet if he violates the requirements of the meal program. 

“Smith was only authorized to purchase, possess or consume items marked with an ‘(H)’ or he would receive a diet violation,” argued the Colorado Attorney General’s Office.

That is not accurate, Smith countered. The agreement he signed indicated Smith would not consume food that violated his religious diet – not that he was barred from purchasing food based on its markings. He argued the food he purchased was incorrectly marked as non-halal, and submitted evidence showing the corrections department now labels the disputed items as compliant with an Islamic diet.

In January, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty analyzed the case and concluded the dispute boiled down to whether Smith violated his religious diet agreement. Because Smith had provided information suggesting the items did conform with Islamic law and the defendants claimed Crockett acted reasonably by relying on the markings of the food, he recommended allowing a jury to decide who was correct.

The defendants objected, now characterizing Crockett’s termination of Smith’s diet as a “mistake of fact” for which she had immunity. Martínez was unconvinced.

“In this case, if the jury finds the facts to be as Plaintiff represents, Defendant Crockett denied Plaintiff’s constitutional right to a religious diet by terminating the (diet plan) – whether by mistake or not,” he wrote.

At the same time, Martínez agreed a second prison employee, Carlos Lopez, had immunity for allegedly filing a false incident report that led to Smith’s medical diet also being terminated. Smith viewed Lopez’s actions as retaliation for his complaints about his halal diet.

No trial date is currently set.

The case is Smith v. Crocket et al.