LYLE M. HEYWARD v. HEATHER COOPER; CHRIS LAMBERT; JAMES HAVILAND, Warden; JOANNA FACTOR; C. FOSTER; CORI SMITH; ALLISON GIBSON; K. RIEHLE; C. ESTER; P. ENGLES; IMAM IBRAHIM S. ABDUL-RAHIM; B. GUISE; D. SZABADOS; M. LADESMA; J. CASEY; AMY MARBURGER; K. BASINGER; M. GIDDENS; I.L. COLLIER; MIKE DAVID; ALLYSA DAMSCHRODER; K. LUDWIG; K. MYERS; M. CHRISTEN, in their individual capacities; B. POTTS - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Karen Belcher on Dec 13, 2023

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Samuel Weiss, RIGHTS BEHIND BARS, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Adam Beckler, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees Davis, Haviland, Riehle, Foster, Factor, Smith, Gibson, Lambert, Ester, Engles, Guise, Szabados, Ladesma, Casey, Giddens, Collier, Ludwig, Myers, Christen and Potts.

Attorneys 3: ARGUED: Shaka S.J. Sadler, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees Damschroder and Cooper.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Samuel Weiss, RIGHTS BEHIND BARS, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Mindy Worly, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees Davis, Haviland, Riehle, Foster, Factor, Smith, Gibson, Lambert, Ester, Engles, Guise, Szabados, Ladesma, Casey, Giddens, Collier, Ludwig, Myers, Christen and Potts.

Attorneys 6: ON BRIEF: Kristin L. Wedell, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C., Cleveland, Ohio, Michelle A. Thomas, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C., Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan, for Appellees Damschroder and Cooper.

Judge(s): GILMAN, LARSEN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Proceeding pro se in district court, Lyle Heyward filed a complaint alleging that prison officials frustrated his attempts to celebrate Ramadan in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). He also alleges that officials retaliated against him for filing grievances in violation of the First Amendment. The district court dismissed Heyward’s claims. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Attachments: