Banks v. Booher et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARVIN BANKS,
et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRADLEY BOOHER,
et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-cv-00474
(SAPORITO, J.)
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs Marvin Banks, Dale Arnold, and Carl L. Varner proceed
pro se in a fee-paid case challenging recent changes to the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (“DOC”) policies for observance of religious
meals. 	All 	parties 	have 	requested summary judgment 	on 	plaintiffs’
claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(“RLUIPA”) and the First Amendment. Because the record indicates that
the policy changes were reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests, and the current policy does not substantially burden plaintiffs’
religious 	exercise, 	the 	Court 	grants 	summary 	judgment 	to 	the
defendants.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Briefly summarized, the operative complaint (Doc. 14) alleges as
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 20

- 2 -
follows: Plaintiffs are of Native American descent and practice Native
American religious traditions, including the Green Corn Feast, held
annually in August or September. The Green Corn Feast traditionally
involves gathering “foods like corn, beans and squash,” fishing from a
river in accordance with sacred traditions, and hunting for “buffalo, deer,
turkey, moose, etc.,” to “provide . . . a great feast” to be eaten communally.
Celebration “in the wrong manner is to bring misfortune to the creator
and ancestors.” Plaintiffs allege that according to their religious belief,
the Green Corn Feast “must be celebrated with communal foods[. T]hese
foods include meat like buffalo, deer, [and] moose,” as well as fish, wild
rice, corn, beans, and squash.
Prior to January 2023, the DOC accommodated certain religious
groups by offering “Ceremonial Meals,” along with “time [and] space in
which to celebrate as a religious community.” For these meals, the DOC
allowed inmates to purchase religious foods from a supplemental menu.
Under this prior policy, the DOC “typically” supplied buffalo, turkey, corn,
beans, squash, fry bread, and fresh fruit, among other foods, for Native
American religious celebrations. In January 2023, the DOC eliminated
“Ceremonial Meals,” and began offering “Fellowship Meals.” Inmates
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 20

- 3 -
would select their meal from the prison menu and would no longer be
permitted 	to 	purchase 	supplemental 	items. 	Faith 	groups 	would 	be
permitted to eat together “and afterwards engage in [30] minutes of
fellowship” if communal gatherings were permitted in the prison at that
time. Plaintiffs refused to select a meal from the general menu, believing
that such a choice would “shame and disrespect their religion” because
“there is no other alternative to the Green Corn Feast.” Plaintiffs further
allege that they were not permitted to gather communally for 30 minutes
as contemplated by the policy.
Following a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs were permitted to proceed
on RLUIPA claims for injunctive relief and First Amendment claims for
injunctive and monetary relief against five defendants.
See (Doc. 37).
Plaintiffs 	have 	filed 	four 	different 	motions 	requesting 	summary
judgment (Docs. 51, 56, 71, 84), and defendants have also moved for
summary judgment (Doc. 62). Also before the Court are defendants’
“Notice of Suggestion of Mootness,” arguing that any claim for injunctive
relief must be dismissed based on a March 2025 update to the meal policy
(Doc. 48); plaintiff Banks’s motion to strike the Notice (Doc. 49); and
plaintiff Arnold’s renewed requests for appointment of counsel (Doc. 72)
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 20

- 4 -
and preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 76). These motions are all ripe for
resolution.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary
judgment should be granted only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is “material” only if it might affect the outcome
of the case.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A
dispute of material fact is “genuine” only if the evidence “is such that a
reasonable 	jury 	could 	return 	a 	verdict 	for 	the 	non-moving 	party.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. In deciding a summary judgment motion, all
inferences “should be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party, and where the non-moving party’s evidence contradicts the
movant’s, then the non-movant’s must be taken as true.”
Pastore v. Bell
Tel. Co. of Pa., 24 F.3d 508, 512 (3d Cir. 1994). The party seeking
summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the
district court of the basis for its motion,” and demonstrating the absence
of a genuine dispute of material fact.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986). If the movant makes such a showing, the non-movant
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 4 of 20

- 5 -
must set forth specific facts, supported by the record, demonstrating that
“the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to
the jury.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52.
In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court must first
determine if the moving party has made a
prima facie showing that it is
entitled to summary judgment.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
Celotex, 477 U.S.
at 331. Only once that prima facie showing has been made does the
burden shift to the nonmoving party to demonstrate the existence of a
genuine dispute of material fact.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
Celotex, 477
U.S. at 331. Both parties may cite to “particular parts of materials in the
record, 	including 	depositions, 	documents, 	electronically 	stored
information, 	affidavits 	or 	declarations, 	stipulations 	(including 	those
made for the purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory
answers or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).
III. 	MATERIAL FACTS
The summary judgment record1 contains the following material
1 	Plaintiffs’ various summary judgment filings do not respond
directly to defendants’ statement of material facts, and cite inconsistently
to supporting evidence, if at all.
See (Docs. 51, 57, 71, 72, 84). Any factual
allegations in these filings are not competent evidence at the summary
(continued on next page)
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 5 of 20

- 6 -
facts: The DOC recognizes approximately 40 different faith groups among
roughly 40,000 inmates in its custody. Until January 2023, the DOC
accommodated certain minority faith groups by offering Ceremonial
Meals, for which inmates could purchase religious foods from external
vendors to be prepared by the prison kitchen staff. Although inmates
from at least 29 different faith groups have requested these Ceremonial
Meals, they were only granted to three faith groups: Muslim, Jewish, and
Native American.
See (Doc. 64-1, ¶¶ 12, 20); (Doc. 64-2).
A. Green Corn Feast
It is undisputed that plaintiffs hold “Native American”2 religious
judgment stage unless supported by evidence in the record.
See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(c)(1). Nonetheless, in evaluating the parties’ motions, the Court
has reviewed and considered all the evidence the parties have submitted.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) (in addition to properly cited materials, the
court “may consider other materials in the record”). Where plaintiffs have
not presented competent evidence to demonstrate a genuine dispute of
material fact, defendants’ fact statements are deemed admitted.
See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); M.D. Pa. L.R. 56.1.
2 The Court acknowledges evidence of varied cultural and religious
traditions among different Native American tribes.
See,
e.g., (Doc. 53-4).
The plaintiffs refer to the Green Corn Feast as generally arising from a
“Native American” religious tradition, and the DOC classifies their
religious beliefs in the same manner.
See also (Doc. 73 at 3-4) (inmate
declarations attesting that “native foods [are] a sacred Sacrament . . .
held by all Native Nations”). Thus, for clarity, the Court refers to these
(continued on next page)
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 6 of 20

- 7 -
beliefs, which include observance of the ceremony they refer to as the
Green Corn Feast.3 Plaintiffs have presented evidence and argument
that traditionally, observance of the Green Corn Feast included corn,
beans, and squash (the “Three Sisters”), and “some meat.”4
See (Doc. 14-
1 at 1-4; Doc. 51 at 7; Doc. 64-24 at 23). However, the DOC entertained
additional requests for food that was not “required.” A DOC document
lists Native American inmates as having requested “Buffalo, Venison,
Salmon, Indian corn/maize, beans, squash, pumpkins, sunflowers, wild
rice, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, peanuts, avocados, papayas,
potatoes [and] fry bread.” (Doc. 64-3). A notice describing the 2015 Green
Corn Feast at an unspecified prison describes a meal of “buffalo &
chicken,” “mashed potatoes & gravy,” pinto beans, corn on the cob,
as Native American religious beliefs.
3 	This event is also referred to throughout the record as the
“Harvest Meal” or the “Green Corn Harvest.”
4 Most of plaintiffs’ evidence on this point speaks to a general
entitlement to a “feast” or “Native foods” (
see,
e.g., Doc. 1-1; Doc. 14-1 at
5-6; Doc. 57; Doc. 73), or to cultural or historical practices with no clear
connection to the Green Corn Feast.
See,
e.g., (Docs. 53-2, 53-3, 53-4).
Thus, while plaintiffs have demanded a wide variety of foods for the
Green Corn Feast throughout this case,
see (n. 7),
infra, they have not
provided evidence of a religious entitlement to all of these foods.
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 7 of 20

- 8 -
squash, 	fry 	bread, 	banana 	nut 	bread, 	fruit 	salad, 	and
“coffee/milk/water/juice.”
See (Doc. 53-7). Despite this ambiguity, it is
undisputed that the Ceremonial Meals policy satisfied plaintiffs’ religious
requirements.
B. Abandonment of Ceremonial Meals (January 2023-March 2025)
The Ceremonial Meals posed several challenges for the DOC. 	The
cost of the meals, and the quantity of food needed, would change based
on inmates who transferred, opted in or out, or attempted to change their
religious preference in advance of the meal. This created logistical issues
in providing accurate cost estimates to inmates, collecting payment, and
ensuring that the right amount of food was available. An inmate who was
indigent could only receive the ceremonial food if other inmates of the
faith group paid for their meal, which created tension within some faith
groups. In addition, prison staff had to identify appropriate vendors with
the relevant items in stock; obtain and securely store the items, which
were “often” stolen by inmate kitchen workers; prepare individual items
in kitchens designed for bulk cooking; and address complaints about the
foods or their preparation. In 2022, DOC Food Service employees spent
more than 7,000 hours “on the procurement, storage, preparation, and
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 8 of 20

- 9 -
serving” of Ceremonial Meals at 24 different facilities, including 1,223
hours 	for 	the 	Native 	American 	meal; 	Chaplaincy 	and 	Procurement
employees spent approximately 5,000 hours, including 430.5 hours on the
Native American meal.
See (Doc. 64-1, ¶¶ 18, 26-41).
Effective January 1, 2023, the DOC replaced its Ceremonial Meal
policy with a more restrictive policy of “Fellowship Meals.” Under this
policy, a faith group could choose any meal offered on the prison menu
that week, but it could not order items from outside the prison. The
groups were also permitted 30 minutes for “fellowship,” which could
include “prayers, reading of sacred texts, singing of religious songs, etc.”
(Doc. 64-6). The Native American inmates at SCI-Benner Township,
including all three 	plaintiffs5, 	refused the meal and the communal
gathering offered for the 2023 Green Corn Feast.
See (Doc. 64-18 at 15).
In December 2023, the policy was further amended to permit inmates to
purchase a single, shelf-stable item in addition to their meal choice from
the prison menu. The DOC’s list of suggested items for Native American
inmates consisted of various forms of jerky, and “the onus [was] on
5 In 2023, plaintiffs were all incarcerated at SCI-Benner Township,
but Banks has now been transferred to SCI-Fayette and Arnold to SCI-
Smithfield.
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 9 of 20

- 10 -
inmates to suggest [additional] vendors and items which [met] DOC
restrictions.”
See (Doc. 64-10).
C. Current Religious Meals Policy (March 2025-present)
In March 2025, the DOC issued an amended Religious Meals policy,
which is the policy now in force. Inmates are permitted their choice of
meal from the prison menu plus “up to three outside food items from one
licensed food establishment.” The outside food items must be “cooked
and/or prepared in ready-to-eat form that is prepared and/or provided by
a licensed food establishment[,] . . . 	delivered to the [DOC], and served
and/or 	distributed 	by 	the 	[DOC].” 	Alternatively, 	faith 	groups 	may
purchase “up to three shelf stable items.” Inmates are responsible for
identifying the relevant items, the vendor, the manner of delivery, and
the approximate cost.
See (Doc. 48-1). Faith groups may eat communally
if “operationally feasible,” and plaintiffs have not disputed that they are
able to meet communally under this new policy.
IV. 	DISCUSSION
A. RLUIPA
RLUIPA forbids the 	government 	from 	imposing “a substantial
burden” 	on 	a 	prisoner’s 	religious 	exercise 	unless 	the 	government
“demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person (1) is in
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 10 of 20

- 11 -
furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least
restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). A substantial burden under RLUIPA exists
where: (1) a follower is forced to choose between following the precepts of
his religion and forfeiting benefits otherwise generally available to other
inmates versus abandoning one of the precepts of his religion to receive
a benefit; or (2) the government puts substantial pressure on an adherent
to substantially modify his behavior to violate his beliefs.
Washington v.
Klem, 497 F.3d 272, 280 (3d Cir. 2007). Because RLUIPA can only provide
injunctive relief, the Court’s RLUIPA analysis is limited to the current
Religious Meals policy, which permits inmates to order three items from
outside sources.
Defendants 	are 	entitled 	to 	summary 	judgment 	on 	plaintiffs’
RLUIPA claim because plaintiffs have not shown that the current policy
imposes a substantial burden on their religious exercise. Plaintiffs have
claimed entitlement to at least 20 different foods for the Green Corn
Feast, a list that has continued to grow and change throughout this case,
and which far exceeds what they had previously accepted under the
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 11 of 20

- 12 -
original Ceremonial Meals policy.6 They appear to interpret the concept
of a religious “feast” as entitling them to any food or condition they
request that has cultural or historical significance, but that is not what
RLUIPA requires.7 Plaintiff Banks analogizes the deprivation of certain
“foods that are part of our identity” to “removing tortillas from Mexican
culture, or spaghetti from an Italian society.” (Doc. 51 at 8). Although
RLUIPA protects the exercise of an inmate’s religion, it would not entitle
an 	Italian 	inmate 	to 	spaghetti. 	Regardless, 	if 	the 	deprivation 	of 	a
6
See,
e.g., (Doc. 14, ¶¶ 13-18) (asserting entitlement to “meat like
buffalo, deer, [and] moose,” as well as fish, wild rice, corn, beans, and
squash”); (Doc. 49 at 2 (asserting that all foods “must be traditionally
hunted 	in 	a 	ceremonial/tradition[al] 	manner”)); 	(Doc. 	57 	at 	15
(demanding “a full food spread of traditional foods of buffalo, brown rice,
sweet 	potatoes, 	yams, 	beans, 	squash, 	fruit 	cup 	of 	strawberries,
blueberries, watermelon, Indian fry bread, corn on the cob, nut bread,
coffee, milk, sugar, juice, cold water, hot water” along with “turkey,
[potatoes], gravy, and cake”)); (Doc. 72 at 14 (demanding that the prison
supply “ketchup, mustard, salt-n-pepper” and ensure that the foods are
“traditional free range pure natural foods”)).
7
See,
e.g.,
Roten v. Klemm, No. 2:21-CV-0323, 2021 WL 5883160,
at *5-7 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2021) (“Asatru/Odinist” plaintiff demanded a
“Yule Feast” of 14 food items, but failed to establish how denial of these
items impeded his religious practice);
see also Kaufman v. McCaughtry,
419 F.3d 678, 681 (7th Cir. 2005) (not all aspects of a person’s “way of life”
are religious, “even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs”)
(citing
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16 (1972)).
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 12 of 20

- 13 -
particular food would burden plaintiffs’ religious practice, the current
policy permits the inmates to obtain that food.8 In his most recent filing,
plaintiff 	Arnold 	describes 	the 	October 	28, 	2025, 	Religious 	Meal 	as
“alright, but not what [he] was use[d] to.” (Doc. 84 at 1). On this record,
no reasonable juror could find that this policy imposes a substantial
burden on plaintiffs’ religious exercise.
To the extent plaintiffs object that they must now identify an
outside vendor of Native American foods from limited options,
see,
e.g.,
(Doc. 73 at 3-4), any difficulty in finding a vendor is not attributable to a
burden “impos[ed]” by the government. The new policy broadly permits
foods from any “licensed food establishment,” which can include any
“retail food facility” or “commercial food establishment” that is able to
8 For example, a meal that includes the traditional foods of corn,
beans, and squash would be available under the new policy, which allows
plaintiffs three “outside” foods in addition to their choice of meal from the
normal prison menu.
See (Doc. 64-24 at 23 (plaintiff Varner’s claim that
“wild game, Deer, Bison, Bear, or fish can be changed . . . [but] the Green
Corn Feast cannot be met” without beans, corn and squash);
see also Ali
v. Harry, No. 3:24-cv-1072-JKM (M.D. Pa. July 30, 2025) (Doc. 35)
(dismissing 	a 	Muslim 	plaintiff ’s 	injunctive 	relief 	claims 	for 	“Halal-
complaint” food as moot based on the new policy).
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 13 of 20

- 14 -
deliver the food.
See (Doc. 48-1 at 4).9 Having objected to the adequacy of
the food they were provided, plaintiffs are not entitled to relief from the
“burden” of choosing their own foods.
Even if plaintiffs had shown a substantial burden, defendants have
shown 	that 	the 	current 	policy 	is 	the 	“least 	restrictive 	option” 	to
accomplish the compelling government interest of cost containment. A
prison 	defendant 	can 	satisfy 	this 	standard 	by 	presenting 	“reports,
statistics, testimony, or affidavits concerning the estimated cost [of the]
accommodations,” showing that the savings cannot be achieved in a less
restrictive manner.
See Nunez v. Wolf, 117 F.4th 137, 155 (3d Cir. 2024);
see,
e.g.,
Banks v. Sec’y Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 601 F. App’x 101,
106-07 (3d Cir. 2015) (affirming summary judgment on a RLUIPA claim;
defendants’ “cost-containment rationale serve[d] as a valid reason for
rejecting . . . proposed alternatives” to a policy restricting Muslim feasts).
Defendants have done so here.
See,
e.g., (Doc. 64-1, ¶¶ 27-41; Docs. 64-2
through 64-4). The record cannot support the conclusion that the new
9 	Any asserted difficulty in finding a vendor under this basic
constraint would only support defendants’ argument that the Ceremonial
Meals policy (under which Food Service workers had to identify vendors
for a much broader array of foods) had become untenable.
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 14 of 20

- 15 -
policy violates plaintiffs’ rights under RLUIPA.
B. First Amendment
Plaintiffs also bring claims for monetary and injunctive relief under
the First Amendment. Because RLUIPA’s protection is broader than the
First Amendment’s,
see Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 361 (2015), summary
judgment on the RLUIPA claim forecloses prospective injunctive relief
under the First Amendment. However, the Court will consider whether
the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights were violated between January
2023, when the original Ceremonial Meals policy was abandoned, and
March 2025, when the newest Religious Meals policy came into force.
“Inmates 	clearly 	retain 	protections 	afforded 	by 	the 	First
Amendment . . . including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free
exercise of religion.”
O’Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987). Despite
the ambiguity over the scope of the Green Corn Feast, a jury could
reasonably 	infer 	that 	plaintiffs’ 	religious 	practice 	includes 	the
consumption of specific foods for the Green Corn Feast, and that forcing
them to eat from the prison menu constituted a limitation on their
religious exercise.
See Potts v. Holt, 617 F. App’x 148, 150 (3d Cir. 2015)
(“We have long held that prisoners generally are entitled to religiously
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 15 of 20

- 16 -
acceptable meals.”) (citations omitted).
However, 	a 	regulation 	limiting 	prisoners’ 	religious 	exercise 	is
constitutional 	if 	the 	record 	shows 	that 	it 	is 	“reasonably 	related 	to
legitimate penological interests.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).
Four factors bear on the question of whether a restriction is reasonable:
First, 	there 	must 	be 	a 	‘valid, 	rational 	connection’
between 	the 	prison 	regulation 	and 	the 	legitimate
governmental interest put forward to justify it,” and this
connection must not be “so remote as to render the policy
arbitrary or irrational.” Second, a court must consider
whether inmates retain alternative means of exercising
the circumscribed right. Third, a court must take into
account the costs that accommodating the right would
impose on other inmates, guards, and prison resources
generally. And fourth, a court must consider whether
there 	are 	alternatives 	to 	the 	regulation 	that 	“fully
accommodate[ ] the prisoner’s rights at
de minimis cost
to valid penological interests.”
Waterman v. Farmer, 183 F.3d 208, 213 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting
Turner,
482 U.S. at 89-90). By this standard, courts must afford substantial
deference to prison administrators, who bear a “significant responsibility
for 	defining 	the 	legitimate 	goals 	of 	a 	corrections 	system 	and 	for
determining the most appropriate means to accomplish them.”
Williams
v. Morton, 343 F.3d 212, 218 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting
Overton v. Bazzetta,
539 U.S. 126 (2003)).
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 16 of 20

- 17 -
Here, the record of this case shows that the policies in force between
January 2023 and March 2025, although possibly ill-advised, were not
arbitrary or irrational. They were connected to the legitimate interests of
a more efficient food service, limiting disputes and resentment among
inmates, and achieving consistency in religious accommodations10.
See,
e.g.,
Banks, 601 F. App’x at 106-07;
DeHart, 227 F.3d at 52.
Further, the record indicates that these plaintiffs had other means
of exercising the circumscribed right. For this factor, the question is not
whether plaintiffs had another way to engage in the Green Corn Feast
specifically, but whether they had “alternative means of exercising [their]
beliefs generally (
e.g., by prayer, worship, meditation, scripture study,
etc.).”
See DeHart, 227 F.3d at 54 (citing
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S.
401, 417-18 (1989)). The meal policies generally permitted plaintiffs to
gather communally for 30 minutes on the day of the meal, during which
they could engage in activities such as “prayers, reading of sacred texts,
10 	A constant theme of plaintiffs’ arguments is that the DOC
disfavors the Native American religion, but the record shows that the
Native American religion was one of only three faith groups to be granted
a Ceremonial Meal. Eliminating the Ceremonial Meal policy placed
Native American inmates in the same position as dozens of faith groups
that requested Ceremonial Meals and were refused.
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 17 of 20

- 18 -
singing of religious songs, etc.”
See (Doc. 64-6 at 2; Doc. 64-9 at 4). The
Court also takes judicial notice of the DOC’s full “Religious Activities”
policy, which permits a variety of other religious accommodations for
Native American inmates.11
For the 2023 Green Corn Feast, Chaplain Ammon Bailey, the
Native American religious advisor, advised defendant Henry Hansard
that the Native American inmates were “declining to participate . . .
altogether, 	both 	the 	meal 	and 	the 	ceremony.”12 	(Doc. 	64-18, 	¶ 	15).
Although plaintiffs allege that Hansard refused their communal time
11
	See 	DC-ADM 	819 	(“Religious 	Activities”), 	available 	at
http://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/cor/documents/about-
us/doc-policies/819-religious-activities.pdf 	(last 	accessed 	February 	24,
2026). Such accommodations include “primary religious gatherings” up
to once per week (
see § 1(A)(6) and Glossary); possession of a medicine
bag containing sage, sweetgrass, cedar, tobacco, and corn, as a religious
medallion (§ 3(A)(2)(f)); and additional sacred ceremonies, including the
Communal Smudging and Sacred Pipe Ceremony, with access to related
sacramental items (Attachment 3-C).
12 This hearsay statement can be considered at summary judgment
stage as evidence “capable of being admissible at trial,” because “nothing
suggests that [Hansard and Bailey] would be unavailable to testify.”
See
Fraternal Ord. of Police, Lodge 1 v. City of Camden, 842 F.3d 231, 239 (3d
Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Even if this statement were excluded, the
record 	lacks 	evidence 	that 	any 	defendant 	refused 	plaintiffs 	the 	30
minutes of communal time, so no reasonable jury could resolve that
factual issue in plaintiffs’ favor.
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 18 of 20

- 19 -
because they refused a meal from the prison menu, they present no
evidence 	for 	that 	allegation. 	Plaintiff 	Banks 	points 	to 	Hansard’s
“admission” 	that 	plaintiffs 	never 	directly 	“inferred 	or 	stated 	to
[Hansard]” that they were refusing the communal time (Doc. 51 at 3), but
it 	is 	undisputed 	that 	Hansard 	received 	Native 	American 	inmates’
religious requests through Chaplain Bailey (Doc. 64-18, ¶ 14). The fact
that plaintiffs did not talk directly to Hansard is not evidence that he
refused the accommodation.
Third, the Court must consider the costs of accommodating the
right to the “other inmates, guards, and prison resources generally.”
Although defendants’ evidence of cost is primarily directed to the full
Ceremonial 	Meals, 	plaintiffs’ 	religious 	exercise 	might 	have 	been
accommodated by certain “religiously acceptable” foods short of that
demand. Nonetheless, the evidence shows how even a less elaborate meal
would pose some of the same logistical issues and potentially foster
resentment among inmates. For the same reasons, the evidence shows
that 	there 	is 	no 	alternative 	policy 	that 	“fully 	accommodates 	the
prisoner[s’] rights at
de minimis cost.”
See,
e.g.,
Williams, 343 F.3d at
220-21 (discussing evidence that the costs associated with serving Halal
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 19 of 20

- 20 -
meat to Muslim prisoners “would have a marked effect on the prison
community”).
Because the relevant factors all suggest that any restrictions of
these plaintiffs’ religious rights were “reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests,”
Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90, defendants are entitled
to summary judgment on this claim.
V. 	CONCLUSION
While the Court understands plaintiffs’ frustration at the removal
of an accommodation they had previously enjoyed, it cannot grant the
relief they are seeking. The record of this case shows that the DOC’s
policy changes were reasonably related to legitimate purposes. The
current policy, although “not what [plaintiffs are] use[d] to,” allows them
to purchase their own religious foods and eat communally for the Green
Corn Feast. Because summary judgment is granted to the defendants,
the Court need not address their arguments regarding administrative
remedies, personal involvement, qualified immunity, and the availability
of compensatory damages. An appropriate order follows.
Dated: February 27, 2026
	s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States District Judge
Case 1:24-cv-00474-JFS-SA Document 85 Filed 02/27/26 Page 20 of 20