[00:00:01] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, may it please the Court Adela Lallari for the appellant Mr. Harris.

[00:00:06] Speaker 00:
I would like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal if possible.

[00:00:08] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, Mr. Harris is a devout Buddhist, but the California Department of Corrections fails to provide a Buddhist-compliant diet in violation of this Court's precedent.

[00:00:17] Speaker 00:
Mr. Harris thus had to resort to second-rate measures to accommodate his religion by enrolling in the Religious Meat Alternative Program, or RMAP, the prison's halal diet.

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
But after 16 years in this program, the prison expelled Mr. Harris for buying non-halal food items from the canteen, even though these were necessary for his health.

[00:00:36] Speaker 00:
The decision below should be reversed for two reasons.

[00:00:39] Speaker 00:
First, the prison substantially burdened Mr. Harris' religious exercise by both failing to provide him with a Buddhist diet and then also kicking him off the prison diet that is the most consistent with his religion.

[00:00:49] Speaker 00:
And second, appellees do not advance any compelling government interest to justify this expulsion.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
Can I ask a preliminary question about jurisdiction?

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
Yes, your honor.

[00:00:59] Speaker 02:
Because as I dug through the record, and this is not a fault of your client, your client was told Richie's responsible for this.

[00:01:09] Speaker 02:
He amended the complaint and added Richie.

[00:01:11] Speaker 02:
Now they're, and I want to hear from the other side, now they're saying, well, Richie doesn't have anything to do with it and can't provide relief.

[00:01:22] Speaker 02:
I'm afraid that might be true.

[00:01:23] Speaker 02:
And if that's true, should we just remand that?

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
I mean, first of all, I want to hear whether you think relief is available here.

[00:01:33] Speaker 02:
If it's not, should we just remand this for a chance to amend the complaint?

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I think Mr. Ritchie is a proper defendant.

[00:01:42] Speaker 00:
He is part of the religious oversight unit in Sacramento.

[00:01:45] Speaker 02:
Well, but as I understand it, Ritchie is only responsible, well, I don't know if I should say only, but he's responsible for sort of tracking non-compliant orders.

[00:01:56] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:01:57] Speaker 00:
And also letting the prison know when those orders, when they're non-compliant.

[00:02:01] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:02:01] Speaker 02:
But as I read through this, it seems like that is a relevant inquiry

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
I mean, I think there's some problems with what has happened here on the merits, but even if you get into the problems on the merits, I don't, I mean, at most you can enjoin him from telling the prison, you know, when he was non-compliant, but that doesn't seem to be the relief you're asking.

[00:02:23] Speaker 02:
You're asking for a, for him to be placed back on the program.

[00:02:29] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:02:29] Speaker 00:
So we're asking to be placed back on to create a formal exemption for him so that he can stay in the RMAP diet without being violated.

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
But Richie can't do that.

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
I think he might be, since he is in the religious oversight program, that's responsible for administrating these religious diets.

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
And so if he had a formal... Could he recommend that he be placed back on the RMAP?

[00:02:55] Speaker 00:
Exactly.

[00:02:56] Speaker 00:
He could ask that he... And he is, again,

[00:02:58] Speaker 00:
higher up than all the prison officials that they ask us to ask Mr. Harris to sue.

[00:03:03] Speaker 00:
So I think that there is proper relief here.

[00:03:06] Speaker 00:
And if there isn't, I agree with you that, at the very least, there should be a remand to allow Mr. Harris to amend his complaint to add the new defendants that they now want us to put on, even though, in initial, in responding to the first preliminary injunction, they said, and they represented to Mr. Harris, who was pro se, that Mr. Ritchie was a proper defendant.

[00:03:24] Speaker 00:
So going back to the two sort of reasons for why the district court should be reversed.

[00:03:31] Speaker 00:
First, the prison substantially burdened Mr. Harris's religious exercise.

[00:03:35] Speaker 00:
And then again, second, appellees do not advance any compelling government interest.

[00:03:39] Speaker 00:
um... on the first point your honor mister harris has officially demonstrated a substantial burden meanwhile uh... because and the substantial burden here is obvious mister harris is not provided the buddhist compliant diet no one disputes that not uh... not appellees and the ninth circuit but you're not the interesting thing about this is you're not asking you're not asking them to provide a buddhist compliant diet per se you're saying you want the closest thing

[00:04:05] Speaker 02:
that they offer to a Buddhist compliant diet, as I understand it.

[00:04:10] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:04:13] Speaker 02:
And then he's not complying.

[00:04:17] Speaker 02:
Does the prison have an ability to take them off based on noncompliance, take prisoners off of their diet based on noncompliance?

[00:04:26] Speaker 00:
Depending on the prisoner.

[00:04:27] Speaker 00:
If a prisoner is Muslim, for example, and feels obligated to comply with halal rules all the time, I think that's a sufficient reason to kick him off.

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
Here they offered Mr. Harris, the prison officials did, the RMAP diet as a religious accommodation.

[00:04:40] Speaker 00:
It was Carol Hyman who told him that you should join the RMAP diet because it is, quote, the closest to your spiritual needs.

[00:04:46] Speaker 00:
Mr. Harris did that.

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
But of course, Mr. Harris is not Muslim.

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:
He does not feel compelled to follow all the halal rules all the time.

[00:04:53] Speaker 00:
And he shouldn't be punished for that.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
And even most religions have sinners and backsliders.

[00:05:00] Speaker 00:
And all religious diets have a hardship exception.

[00:05:03] Speaker 00:
If, for example, you're facing

[00:05:05] Speaker 00:
health issues, which Mr. Harris was on multiple occasions, and he was trying to find the cheapest way for himself to get food because he was feeling faint, he was feeling dizzy, and he's pre-diabetic and has these conditions.

[00:05:16] Speaker 02:
So your point, I guess, would be that the prison could take any prisoner off for non-compliance, but it's got to be an individualized inquiry, and that individualized inquiry didn't happen here.

[00:05:28] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:05:29] Speaker 03:
And would you say that that's essentially a question of sincerity?

[00:05:33] Speaker 00:
Yes, I think that would be a question of sincerity.

[00:05:36] Speaker 00:
But of course, appellees do not challenge Mr. Harris's sincere religious beliefs here.

[00:05:40] Speaker 00:
And the district court, their argumentation, I think, went to sincerity.

[00:05:44] Speaker 00:
And if Mr. Harris is required by law to be given a Buddhist diet, I think the greater includes the lesser in this case.

[00:05:51] Speaker 00:
He should at the very least be in a diet that is the most consistent.

[00:05:55] Speaker 00:
I think that's administratively feasible.

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
Given the government's arguments, and I'll be interested to hear what counsel has to say on that.

[00:06:03] Speaker 03:
seem to be holding Mr. Harris's willingness to compromise against him here.

[00:06:09] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:06:10] Speaker 03:
And if we were to remand, the case is still pending in the district court, right?

[00:06:15] Speaker 03:
And given the arguments that have been made on appeal, would it be appropriate to pursue in the district court at this point the broader relief of saying, let's just go with a straight Buddhist diet?

[00:06:32] Speaker 00:
I think it would be appropriate to do that, Your Honor.

[00:06:36] Speaker 00:
Mr. Harris did not ask for that relief specifically, so I would leave it up to him.

[00:06:41] Speaker 03:
That would be a natural response to the arguments being made by the state.

[00:06:46] Speaker 00:
Correct, I think so.

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
Can I ask you about the slippery slope problem here?

[00:06:51] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:06:52] Speaker 03:
Which is fairly familiar, but the arguments you're making lead toward a religious

[00:06:59] Speaker 03:
right for an individually tailored diet.

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
And this can draw sarcastic comments like the church of the steak and lobster dinner, where somebody claims a religious right of that sort.

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
What comfort can you give us about that?

[00:07:17] Speaker 00:
I think two things that the prison can do.

[00:07:19] Speaker 00:
First, they can challenge the sincerity of that person's religious diet if what they're asking for is lobster and steak.

[00:07:26] Speaker 00:
You might question, well, is that a religious and a sincere religious motivation?

[00:07:31] Speaker 00:
And second, you can advance a compelling government interest to say that the prison cannot afford

[00:07:36] Speaker 00:
to be able to provide a tailored diet of this kind.

[00:07:39] Speaker 00:
Of course, they have not done that.

[00:07:40] Speaker 00:
And here, I think the cost is minimal for the prison.

[00:07:43] Speaker 00:
The RMAP diet as an administrative apparatus already exists.

[00:07:48] Speaker 00:
It's one extra diet provided to one extra prisoner that they did for 16 years without any administrative chaos.

[00:07:55] Speaker 03:
Can I ask you just to help straighten me out on the record?

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
In the appellee's brief at page 24, they say there's no evidence that the R-MAP diet is the closest that he can get to a proper Buddhist diet.

[00:08:12] Speaker 03:
What's the actual evidence you're relying on in the record to that effect?

[00:08:15] Speaker 03:
Is it his affidavit or...?

[00:08:18] Speaker 00:
Sorry, would you mind repeating that question?

[00:08:20] Speaker 03:
Well, I'll try, but what's the...?

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
Evidence in the record showing that the our map diet is the closest available to What he believes his religion calls for yes, I believe if you look at fer 26 he has Declarations describing that he wants a clean diet or and he uses like clean meat GMO free meat is one option, but he divide defines it much more broadly than

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
And he was also told by the rabbi that this was going to be the closest, right?

[00:08:52] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:08:53] Speaker 00:
The rabbi, yeah.

[00:08:53] Speaker 00:
Carol Hyman said it's closest to his spiritual needs.

[00:09:00] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:09:00] Speaker 02:
We'll give you time for rebuttal.

[00:09:01] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:09:01] Speaker 02:
Thank you so much.

[00:09:16] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
It may please the court.

[00:09:18] Speaker 04:
My name is Graprit Sandhu, and I represent the appellees in this case.

[00:09:23] Speaker 04:
I want to start by refocusing on why we're here today.

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
We're not here because Mr. Harris asked the prison for a uniquely tailored GMO-free diet.

[00:09:34] Speaker 04:
We're here because he asked for three specific things.

[00:09:37] Speaker 04:
One, to stop retaliation.

[00:09:39] Speaker 04:
Two, to be reintroduced into the RMA program.

[00:09:42] Speaker 04:
And third, to stop the prison from issuing any violations for all his non-halal purchases.

[00:09:49] Speaker 04:
Regardless of whether they're needed for his health or for his religion.

[00:09:52] Speaker 02:
Well, and I think that may go to my standing argument because I Richie My standing are you Mike standing questions?

[00:10:01] Speaker 02:
I mean, I don't really know how that but unfortunately we kind of have a duty to look at this not unfortunate we have a duty to look at this and I'm just trying to sort through it because Richie

[00:10:12] Speaker 02:
Here's the problem.

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
Is that why you said Richie is the one that was responsible for this?

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
You did say, the state said that, right?

[00:10:20] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:10:20] Speaker 04:
So in terms of jurisdiction in footnote eight, we have conceded that this court has jurisdiction over the defendants, but we do agree that technically defendant Richie wasn't the one who provided the violations.

[00:10:33] Speaker 02:
And why do you think we have jurisdiction?

[00:10:35] Speaker 02:
Because as you know, we have an independent duty to determine our own jurisdiction.

[00:10:39] Speaker 02:
You think Richie provides that jurisdiction?

[00:10:42] Speaker 02:
Because basically you said there was no jurisdiction until they amended and added Richie.

[00:10:49] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:10:49] Speaker 04:
So two things.

[00:10:51] Speaker 04:
Mr. Richie has more of a managerial role.

[00:10:54] Speaker 04:
So he would be in charge of determining whether there would be violations.

[00:10:58] Speaker 02:
Can he determine whether he is taken off of the whole diet?

[00:11:05] Speaker 04:
He could determine the rules, but not necessarily the individual violation of Mr. Harris.

[00:11:11] Speaker 04:
But in this case, I don't think we even need to go to jurisdiction because we can affirm based on the merits themselves.

[00:11:18] Speaker 03:
That's upside down.

[00:11:22] Speaker 03:
We need to deal with jurisdiction.

[00:11:24] Speaker 03:
But you told the district court and the plaintiff that Ritchie is able to provide the relief he seeks, correct?

[00:11:34] Speaker 04:
Not quite.

[00:11:35] Speaker 04:
He would be in charge of setting the rules, but he wouldn't be in charge of determining Mr. Harris' violations.

[00:11:42] Speaker 03:
The case is going to be proceeding in the district court, and if I were the plaintiff's lawyer, I would add every defendant in sight, any potential official in sight, given the arguments that have been made and the issues that have been raised.

[00:11:56] Speaker 03:
But given Rule 65's ability to reach those

[00:12:02] Speaker 03:
associated with the enjoined defendant who have actual knowledge of the injunction.

[00:12:08] Speaker 03:
Is there really any practical problem if an injunction were to run against Mr. Ritchie and those who work with him?

[00:12:19] Speaker 04:
Well, let me put it this way, Mr. Richie wouldn't be able to stop any violation from being issued against specifically Mr. Harris.

[00:12:27] Speaker 04:
He would be in charge of setting the rules, but is not making that individualized inquiry.

[00:12:32] Speaker 04:
And Mr. Harris, if he ever wanted to go back to the RMA, he is free to apply again.

[00:12:38] Speaker 04:
The rules do not prevent him from reapplying, but he would have to follow the rules of the RMA program.

[00:12:45] Speaker 04:
But the key focus here, yes.

[00:12:48] Speaker 02:
The problem with that is, I assume if he reapplied, you'd say, well, no, because you didn't adhere to it.

[00:12:59] Speaker 04:
He is free to reapply even if he, as in this case, has violated the RMA rules by having two violations in the last six months.

[00:13:08] Speaker 01:
But the rules do permit- Then if he violates it again, he'll be kicked off again.

[00:13:11] Speaker 04:
Only if, according to the policy, he violates it within six months.

[00:13:16] Speaker 01:
Why don't you get to the merits then?

[00:13:18] Speaker 04:
Yes, so according to the, the focus here is whether there was substantial harm on Mr. Harris.

[00:13:24] Speaker 04:
Mr. Harris has not shown that there was, simply because his religious beliefs, as he states them, would not be violated regardless of whether he's in the program or not.

[00:13:34] Speaker 04:
He states that he can eat pork.

[00:13:36] Speaker 04:
In his own words, he stated that the method of slaughtering of halal is irrelevant.

[00:13:41] Speaker 04:
And I quote, he said, the only substantial difference between a halal food product and a non-halal food product is its Islamic label.

[00:13:50] Speaker 02:
But he also says, he also says this is, and this came from the state as well, or from the prison as well, the chaplain, that this was the most consistent with his religious beliefs.

[00:14:03] Speaker 04:
Yes to two points in response the statement that mr. Harris makes in his reply Technically is not evidence, but even if we consider that mr. Harris is allowed to have inconsistent beliefs but what the court is allowed and required to do here is to determine whether there was a subjective objective substantial burden and

[00:14:23] Speaker 04:
And based on his statements, his behavior, the fact that he purchased over 25 non-halal products, and that he even said that they are not condoned by his religion, he should... But you're not challenging the sincerity of his beliefs, right?

[00:14:38] Speaker 01:
We are not, and we did not... So if he sincerely believes that the halal food is the closest diet to his religious beliefs, and you don't challenge that, how is that not a burden on his beliefs?

[00:14:51] Speaker 04:
It is not because we don't need to challenge the sincerity of his beliefs.

[00:14:56] Speaker 04:
He has stated that the halal diet is the closest, but he has also stated that the single distinguishing feature of that diet is irrelevant to him.

[00:15:05] Speaker 04:
And in fact, he has asked multiple times to purchase non-halal products, which are a staple to his religion.

[00:15:11] Speaker 01:
So being outside of the program, then- So that sounds like a sincerity question, then.

[00:15:17] Speaker 04:
No, because he can be sincere as to both.

[00:15:19] Speaker 04:
And we do not question that.

[00:15:21] Speaker 04:
The district court has not questioned or interpreted his statements.

[00:15:25] Speaker 02:
Well, I think the district, that's what I'm concerned about, to be honest with you, is I think the district court sort of has.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
The district court kind of adopted these same arguments and said, well, the fact that you bought this non-hoal product means this must not be primary to your religion.

[00:15:43] Speaker 02:
Boy, I'm not sure what the difference is between that and just saying, I don't believe that you actually believe what you say you believe.

[00:15:54] Speaker 04:
What I would say is that the district court hasn't interpreted his beliefs.

[00:15:58] Speaker 04:
We're not here to determine what is central, what isn't to his religion.

[00:16:02] Speaker 04:
We're here to look objectively at his own statements.

[00:16:05] Speaker 02:
He said that the slaughtering process... Boy, that gets really dangerous to me to start parsing out a person's statements about their religious beliefs into a deposition and taking out and saying, well, you've complied or you haven't complied.

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
I mean, it seems like there's a zone of protection for a believer

[00:16:26] Speaker 02:
to have his beliefs.

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
He may not have it fully formalized.

[00:16:31] Speaker 02:
I mean, he may not have thought through, well, does pork rinds fit on this side of the ledger or not?

[00:16:36] Speaker 02:
Once a month, is it OK?

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
Is it not?

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
I just don't think that the courts are into policing that in that way.

[00:16:44] Speaker 03:
It'll turn us into the Pharisees, right?

[00:16:48] Speaker 04:
Yeah, so I would say two things in response.

[00:16:51] Speaker 04:
First, if Mr. Harris accepted that the halal diet was the closest thing, and that's fine.

[00:16:58] Speaker 04:
If we take that in isolation, he was given the RMA.

[00:17:01] Speaker 04:
And even now, he can still apply to the RMA.

[00:17:04] Speaker 04:
However, we're not parsing out any of his statements.

[00:17:07] Speaker 04:
We're looking at the weight of the totality of the circumstances.

[00:17:10] Speaker 04:
The friend from the other side in his brief has asked the court to look at his beliefs in the totality of the circumstances in a holistic way.

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
And that's exactly what we're doing here.

[00:17:20] Speaker 04:
We're looking at what he purchased.

[00:17:21] Speaker 04:
We're looking at his statement, and in Mr. Harris' own words, a halal diet means two things.

[00:17:28] Speaker 04:
One, that you cannot eat pork, and two, that you have to eat meat that is certified as halal.

[00:17:34] Speaker 04:
Both of these factors, Mr. Harris has clarified in his own words that he can eat pork, and it is irrelevant to whether he eats meat that is slaughtered in the halal way.

[00:17:46] Speaker 04:
It is not possible for someone to be burdened by not having something that you explicitly say you do not need.

[00:17:52] Speaker 04:
And the RMA has, as its only feature, the fact that it is halal.

[00:17:57] Speaker 04:
There is nothing else that makes the RMA diet special or different.

[00:18:01] Speaker 02:
Can I ask, what are the costs here?

[00:18:05] Speaker 02:
Is this just the efficiency of running the program or is there actually a cost if he goes back on it?

[00:18:14] Speaker 04:
I would say there are two costs.

[00:18:16] Speaker 04:
There is the economical aspect, which is having to provide a halal diet to an inmate who explicitly said he does not need it.

[00:18:23] Speaker 04:
And then there's also the compelling... Come back up.

[00:18:25] Speaker 02:
I don't think he said he doesn't need it.

[00:18:27] Speaker 02:
He said it's the closest thing that's provided.

[00:18:30] Speaker 04:
Well, he's also stating that he requires to buy non-halal products which are not condoned, which are required for his health, even though there's nothing in the record... All right.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
Go back to the second.

[00:18:41] Speaker 02:
...demonstrating that.

[00:18:41] Speaker 02:
You were going to give a second reason.

[00:18:43] Speaker 04:
Yes, and the second reason is the compelling interest of prison to maintain order, discipline, and security in its institutions.

[00:18:50] Speaker 04:
And it cannot do that if its rules and standardized diets are violated without any justification.

[00:18:57] Speaker 03:
Then why isn't the answer to that to demand a Buddhist diet available for Buddhists?

[00:19:04] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor, if Mr. Harris would like to do that, he is free to do so, and we will discuss it again, but based on the record, we cannot discuss that today because the prison would have to come up with a completely different record to understand what is GMO, what isn't.

[00:19:18] Speaker 04:
Even based on the record today, we're not clear as to what Mr. Harris means because he purchased many non-GMO products, and that is in exhibit H. The problem I'm having with that argument is that you seem to be holding

[00:19:33] Speaker 03:
his willingness to compromise and reach a middle ground against him.

[00:19:39] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor.

[00:19:40] Speaker 04:
We are free and happy to work with Mr. Harris, and just like any other grievance, if a prisoner asked for a specialized diet, it will be assessed and what can be done.

[00:19:49] Speaker 04:
Here, this happened in 2010, where he accepted to the RMA diet, and he signed an agreement which states that you will follow the rules of that diet.

[00:19:59] Speaker 04:
He then violated the one and only rules which make the RMA an RMA, and he has been kicked off.

[00:20:05] Speaker 04:
And now his options are,

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
to remain in a standardized diet, which will allow him to purchase all the products which he insisted he wants, such as the ramen and the sausages, or reapply to the RMA diet, to which the record has shown it does not negatively... There's a third option.

[00:20:22] Speaker 02:
Sue and say that you're violating his religious liberties, but we'll have to decide that one.

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:20:28] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:20:28] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:20:29] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:20:43] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
I guess I'll begin with two quick points.

[00:20:48] Speaker 00:
The first is on standing.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
Appellees say that Mr. Ritchie has a managerial role as part of the Religious Oversight Committee in Sacramento.

[00:20:55] Speaker 00:
He has the ability to direct the Religious Review Committee in Corcoran State Prison to let Mr. Harris back in the program and disregard his violations, even if they issue them, to not use that as a basis to kick him out.

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
And so I think there is relief that Mr. Harris can seek in this lawsuit.

[00:21:11] Speaker 00:
And second,

[00:21:12] Speaker 00:
All of Appali's arguments go to sincerity, but they've never specifically challenged sincerity.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
In fact, he had to be vetted when he applied for the R-MAP program originally.

[00:21:21] Speaker 00:
Carol Hyman told him to apply to the R-MAP program.

[00:21:24] Speaker 00:
I think Mr. Harris's consistent practice of being on this R-MAP diet for the last 16 years and this lawsuit is evidence of his sincerity.

[00:21:32] Speaker 00:
Mr. Harris is a sincerely Buddhist, yeah, Buddhist who believes that the R-MAP program.

[00:21:38] Speaker 02:
I know, we'll give you a little bit of time if you need it, because I know, but,

[00:21:42] Speaker 02:
What happened 60?

[00:21:43] Speaker 02:
I mean, is this a new program that came in?

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
Were they not counting violations?

[00:21:47] Speaker 02:
Did he only start violating in the last two years?

[00:21:50] Speaker 02:
Is there anything in the record on that?

[00:21:52] Speaker 00:
So I believe it was in 2017-2018 when they started recording these violations and that's when Mr. Harris, that's when the violations are on record.

[00:22:00] Speaker 00:
And Mr. Harris said that he had to violate these rules because he was dealing with health issues because

[00:22:05] Speaker 00:
the R-MAP meal at the same time was decreasing its meat content and he was feeling sick from just eating the R-MAP diet alone.

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:
And so the canteen items that he was purchasing were the cheapest way of him satiating his hunger.

[00:22:17] Speaker 02:
But that wasn't happening before that?

[00:22:19] Speaker 00:
Candidly, I'm not sure.

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
I don't know if the record tells us anything about that.

[00:22:24] Speaker 00:
And so, Your Honor, because Mr. Harris is a devout Buddhist and he sincerely believes that the RMAP diet is a sincere component of his religious practice, he should be allowed, at the very least, to be temporarily put in the program while this litigation is pending and the merits of his claims are dealt with.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
For those reasons, I urge reversal.

[00:22:43] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:22:44] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:22:44] Speaker 02:
Thank you to both sides for your arguments in the case.

[00:22:46] Speaker 02:
The case is now submitted.