MITCHELL v. SPENCER et al

Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
LADARIUS B. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv1922-LC-HTC
SERGEANT SPENCER, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Ladarius B. Mitchell, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the
Defendants violated the First Amendment by not providing him a religious meal
during Ramadan. 	Doc. 7. 	The Court previously advised Mitchell of the legal
standards applicable to his claims and gave him an opportunity to amend his
complaint to state a claim. 	Nevertheless, the undersigned concludes the amended
complaint still fails to state a claim. Thus, this case should be dismissed under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).
I. 	BACKGROUND
Mitchell sues two employees at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution: (1)
Sergeant Spencer, and (2) Officer Summers. His complaint contains the following
factual allegations, which are accepted as true for purposes of this Order.
Case 3:25-cv-01922-LC-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 8

Page 2 of 8
Case No. 3:25cv1922-LC-HTC
Mitchell “signed up for Ramadhan” on January 23, 2025, and was approved
by Chaplain J. Ferguson on January 29, 2025. On March 8, 2025, between 7:30 and
8:30 	p.m. 	in 	F-dormitory 	wing 	3, 	Officer 	Summers 	“refused 	[Mitchell] 	the
opportunity to practice and participate in [his] religion Ramadhan meal” when he
came to Mitchell’s cell “during the feeding of evening meal and placed a regular tray
on [his] flap.” Mitchell informed Summers he was Muslim and participating in the
Ramadan meal. He showed Summers “proof of a[n] approved request” by Chaplain
J. Ferguson and explained to Summers, “By me accepting the regular meal will
violate the means of Ramadhan and participate in my religion Ramadhan meal,
which is the (Shariah) (Islamic Laws).”
Mitchell also explained to Summers he was supposed “to get a bag with 2
bolony sandwich, 2 cookies, carrots, and a beverage.” 	He further explained to
Summers “what Ramadhan consist of … bath before meal, to make all [] prayers,
fasting until sunset.” 	Mitchell told him accepting a regular meal would break his
fast for Ramadan. 	Summers left the regular meal on Mitchell’s flap and “went to
get Sgt. Spencer.” Mitchell explained to Spencer what he had already explained to
Summers. He showed Spencer his approved request and “explained to Sgt. Spencer
we had problems about missing items out [his] Ramadhan bag in the pass [sic].”
Spencer and Summers took the regular tray and “left to check with the OIC.”
Case 3:25-cv-01922-LC-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 8

Page 3 of 8
Case No. 3:25cv1922-LC-HTC
Spencer came back and told Mitchell his OIC informed him Mitchell “was on
the list for Ramadhan.” Later, Lieutenant Loveless approved Mitchell’s grievance,
stating she had to counsel “with her staff about their (professionalism) and ensuring
correct inmates got the correct meal.” Right after Spencer and Summers left, Officer
Livingston “tried forcing the regular meal” on Mitchell by giving him “the option to
take it or don’t eat at all.” Mitchell refused the meal “and never ate.” “Even after
Sgt. Spencer and Officer Summers were aware [he] was on the Ramadhan list they
still fail to make sure [his] Ramadhan meal was giving to [him] after having facts
from their OIC … which is in violation of [his] 1st Amendment Right.”
Based on the foregoing, Mitchell alleges: (1) Summers violated the First
Amendment by “denying [his] religious Ramadhan meal; and (2) Spencer violated
the First Amendment by denying Mitchell’s right to practice his “religion right as
[his] religion sees fit, by not making sure [he] received [his] Ramadhan meal.”
Mitchell seeks damages as relief.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Because Mitchell is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and seeking
relief from government employees, the Court must dismiss his complaint, or any
portion thereof, if it determines it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 	See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b). 	To state a
Case 3:25-cv-01922-LC-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 8

Page 4 of 8
Case No. 3:25cv1922-LC-HTC
claim, Mitchell must plead factual content that allows the Court to draw the
reasonable inference the Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 	The Court must liberally construe pro se
allegations, 	Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), but conclusory
allegations and legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not entitled to a
presumption of truth. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681; Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286
(1986).
III. 	DISCUSSION
When the Court reviewed Mitchell’s initial complaint, the Court issued a
detailed order advising Mitchell that he failed to state a First Amendment claim
against the Defendants because “being denied a single religious meal” does not
“substantially burden” the practice of his chosen religion. Doc. 5. Nonetheless, the
Court gave Michell an opportunity to amend the complaint before recommending it
be dismissed.1 Although Mitchell has provided some additional facts in the amended
complaint,2 the crux of his First Amendment claim continues to be based on being
denied a single religious meal and continues to fail as a matter of law.
1 See Brennan v. Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr., 626 F. App’x 939, 945-46 (11th Cir. 2015) (“A pro
se litigant must be given at least one opportunity to amend his complaint before the court dismisses
the action with prejudice if it appears that a more carefully drafted pleading would state a claim
upon which relief could be granted.”).
2 In the Court’s initial amend order, the Court also advised Mitchell that he cannot pursue a claim
related to an alleged retaliatory disciplinary report. Mitchell omitted facts related to this claim in
the amended complaint. Doc. 5.
Case 3:25-cv-01922-LC-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/18/25 Page 4 of 8

Page 5 of 8
Case No. 3:25cv1922-LC-HTC
“To state a claim under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, a
plaintiff must plead facts showing a ‘substantial burden’ on a sincerely held religious
belief.” Robbins v. Robertson, 782 F. App’x 794, 801 (11th Cir. 2019). To establish
a “substantial burden” on his practice of religion, a plaintiff must show “he was
coerced to perform conduct that his religion forbids or prevented from performing
conduct that his religion requires.” Wilkinson v. GEO Grp., Inc., 617 F. App’x 915,
917-18 (11th Cir. 2015).
As 	the 	Court 	previously 	told 	Mitchell, 	Mitchell’s 	allegations 	do 	not
demonstrate that being denied a single religious meal substantially burdened the
practice of his religion. Mitchell claims the incident with the Defendants occurred
during the month of Ramadan. “Muslims are obligated to fast during the daylight
hours” during Ramadan. Cummings v. Dep’t of Corr., 757 F.3d 1228, 1230 n.4 (11th
Cir. 2014). 	Although Mitchell alleges the Defendants failed to provide him a
religious meal to eat following his fast on March 8, there is no indication Defendants
denied him religious meals during the rest of Ramadan, or that Defendants burdened
his religious practice in any other way.
In 	other 	words, 	while 	denying 	a 	prisoner 	a 	religious 	meal 	can
unconstitutionally burden a prisoner’s right to exercise their faith, see Edwards v.
Cornelius, 2012 WL 2087413, *5 (M.D. Fla. June 8, 2012), this isolated incident,
even if true, did not place a substantial burden on Mitchell’s religious exercise. See
Case 3:25-cv-01922-LC-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/18/25 Page 5 of 8

Page 6 of 8
Case No. 3:25cv1922-LC-HTC
Hoever v. Belleis, 703 F. App’x 908, 912 (11th Cir. 2017) (“[A] substantial burden
occurs if the conduct complained of completely prevents the individual from
engaging in religiously mandated activity, or requires participation in an activity
prohibited by religion and, at a minimum, must have something more than an
incidental effect on religious exercise.”) (cleaned up and citation omitted); Midrash
Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[A]
‘substantial 	burden’ 	must 	place 	more 	than 	an 	inconvenience 	on 	religious
exercise[.]”). 	Even if being denied a single meal were a substantial burden on
Mitchell’s religious practice, it is not clear the Defendants were responsible for
Mitchell’s lack of a Ramadan meal on the evening of March 8, as Mitchell states it
was Officer Livingston—who is not a party to this action—who gave Mitchell the
ultimatum to eat the regular meal or go without.
Accordingly, Mitchell has failed to state a First Amendment claim. 	See
Rodriguez v. Bryson, 2019 WL 13193452, at *15 (M.D. Ga. July 10, 2019), report
and recommendation adopted as modified, 2019 WL 13193451 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 6,
2019) (finding inmate’s claim that he was served non-Halal meat on two occasions
during Ramadan “constituted a mere inconvenience on religious exercise, as
opposed to a substantial burden”); Pasco v. Ward, 2023 WL 6373893, at *10 (M.D.
Ga. July 14, 2023) (explaining that when plaintiff failed to receive Ramadan meals
Case 3:25-cv-01922-LC-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/18/25 Page 6 of 8

Page 7 of 8
Case No. 3:25cv1922-LC-HTC
“on some occasions,” he “did not suffer more than a temporary or insubstantial
burden on his First Amendment rights”).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
In its October 15 Order, the Court advised Mitchell of the legal standards
applicable to his claims and gave him an opportunity to file an amended complaint
to state a viable claim. Doc. 5. Mitchell still failed to state a claim in his amended
complaint—namely, Mitchell failed to show he suffered a substantial burden on the
practice of his religion when he missed a single Ramadan meal.
Because Mitchell failed to cure the deficiencies identified in his original
complaint, this case should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). See Brennan v. Comm’r,
Ala. Dep’t of Corr., 626 F. App’x 939, 945-46 (11th Cir. 2015) (“A pro se litigant
must be given at least one opportunity to amend his complaint before the court
dismisses the action with prejudice if it appears that a more carefully drafted
pleading would state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	This case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for Mitchell’s failure to
state a claim.
2. 	The clerk be ordered to close the file.
Case 3:25-cv-01922-LC-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/18/25 Page 7 of 8

Page 8 of 8
Case No. 3:25cv1922-LC-HTC
At Pensacola, Florida, this 18 th day of November, 2025.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any different
deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only
and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon all
other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.
Case 3:25-cv-01922-LC-HTC Document 8 Filed 11/18/25 Page 8 of 8