Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Issue 1: Showing Prison's refusal to offer halal meats at least 4 days…

- - - - In the search bar search "RLUIPA" and select the first one that appears, which is Statute 2000cc. "Protection of Land use as religious exercise
        
        From the complaint, I know the statute is cited 2000cc et seq, which infers there is more than just the landing page I selected. So, next I look to the Chapter 21C to see what other provisions are listed and discover there are several, including 2000cc-1: Protection of Religious Exercise of Institutionalized Persons.
        
        Finally, I noticed 42 USC 2000cc-1 best describes the issue of this case.
- - - - This returns 30 cases that have cited to that statute within my jurisdiction. Next, I will search within using search of "diet"
        
        Finally, to find cases relevant to "diet" in the search within box, I entered "diet" (narrowed to 20 cases)
        
        To get closer to this specific issue, I used the Notes of Decisions Topics Filter and selected "substantial burden generally" to reduce the cases that did not deal specifically with my issue. (narrowed to 7 cases)
  - - - Relevancy: This case deals with a separate issue: whether or not RLUIPA is constitutional in a given context This does not support our case.
      - Why did I get here? I noticed this case was cited in many other cases and the rule in other cases looked helpful for the defense side. However, upon getting to the case I realized this is not the same issue, as it dealt with whether or not the statute was constitutional when applied in a specific context.
  - - - This case does not have the same fact pattern, but it clearly lays out the arguments for why the plaintiff was substantially burdened. Also, it supports Issue 2 well, as it identifies arguments the defendants made that do not work, but also arguments they should make.
    - - Relevancy: relates specifically to our issue of muslim inmate requesting a religious diet. Key: Case only relates to substantial burden
      - Validity: There is a yellow flag indicating the case has been distinguished.
        
        Looking deeper: I paid attention to 1) the depth of discussion and 2) the headnotes of that discussion. Since I am using case for Headnote 3-6 (substantial burden), I care about cases that are in my jurisdiction dealing with issue.
        
        KEY: Muhammad v. Wheeler (District Court in 8th Circuit) declined to follow, and depth was 3 bars, relating to headnotes 3,4,5. This is worth reading the case and looking deeper.
        
        I found a total of 4 out of 10 cases that are within 8th circuit. It turns out, the rule has been modified by a supreme Court case (Holt v. Hobbs).
- - - - Relevant Headnotes to Issue 1: 4(keynumber 92K1306), 5, 6(310K154)
      - Select headnote 6 because it best relates the Substantial burden with similar facts of our issue (halal meat)
        
        Reviewing the case opinion under headnote 6, I find my first binding authority (Love v. Reed 216 F.3d 682)
        
        This case does not support our issue under RULIPA, as it deals with first amendment issues.
        
        Second case found: Unpublished 9th Circuit Opinion: Watkins v. Shabazz
      - Using headnote 6, I can see that 56 cases are cited to it. (I will search through those cases for more).
        
        Filter by depth of issue (3+ bars) and specify headnote topic to 6 (Narrows to 4 cases)
        
        2 of these cases are in our jurisdiction
        
        Jihad v. Fabian District Court of Minnesota
        
        This case is helpful because the facts are similar to our case and it goes into detail to both issues.
        
        Gladson v. Iowa dept. of Corrections 8th Circuit Court Iowa
    - - Filters: Eigth Circuit, District Courts, reported = narrow to 15 cases
        
        Narrow further by Prison headnote-->6 and 9 "diet and meals" = narrowed to 8
        
        New Case: Muhammad v. Wheeler
        
        This case, although only denies P and D motion for SJ, is a great case to demonstrate arguments to make on both sides. Since it is within the circuit at the district level, it cites further binding authority to look into (ex. Holt v. Hobs)
        
        Unsupportive case: Sisney v. Raisch
        
        This case was not very supportive because it did appeared to address commerce clause arguments
        
        Why did I get here? I did not have enough filters when looking in the keynote. I then filtered further to include only cases citing the statute.
        
        New Case: Van Wyhe v. Reisch
        
        ONLY section 3 "surviving RLUIPA Claims" is applicable (includes headnotes 22,23,24)
        
        Key: Cites to Gladson, Petal
    - - Here, I am looking to see what cases Petal cited to. In detail, I am looking for cases addressing why a claim is not substantial burden.
        
        Looked through discussion depth 2. Scanned headnotes
        
        Case 1: Murphy v. Missouri Dept. Corrections
        
        While this case is binding and cited often with other cases, the facts are not as analogous to our case as the others.