Chamma K. Brandon, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Mark Royce, Deputy Superintendent of Security, Leslie Malin, Deputy Superintendent of Programs, John V. Werlau, Safety and Security Lieutenant, in their official and individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees* Before: Calabresi and Nathan, C.JJ.; Nagala, D.J.**
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 16-cv-5552 — Briccetti, District Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Chamma K. Brandon appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York’s (Briccetti, J.): (1) grant of summary judgment to the Defendants-Appellees on his claim that they violated his right to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; and (2) the district court’s denial of his request to reopen discovery for a second time to permit expert testimony on his claim that one defendant, Mark Royce, subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We agree with Plaintiff-Appellant that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Defendants-Appellees on his First Amendment claim, but we find no error in the district court’s denial of his motion to reopen discovery. We therefore VACATE IN PART and AFFIRM IN PART. GUIDO CALABRESI, C.J. Chamma K. Brandon (“Brandon”), then proceeding pro se as an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) and incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (“Sing Sing”), brought suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Briccetti, J.) against three prison officials in their individual and official capacities. As relevant here, Brandon alleged that: (1) all three defendants — Mark Royce (“Royce”), then Deputy Superintendent of Security at Sing Sing, Leslie Malin (“Malin”), then Deputy Superintendent of Program Services at Sing Sing, and John V. Werlau (“Werlau”), then Safety and Security Lieutenant at Sing Sing — violated his right to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by denying him a special meal in celebration of Eid al-Adha; and (2) Royce violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution by ordering that his housing block be constantly illuminated. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Brandon’s First Amendment claim and denied Brandon’s request to reopen discovery for a second time to permit expert testimony at trial on his Eighth Amendment claim. Following a five-day trial in September 2021, a jury found that Royce had not violated Brandon’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. On appeal, Brandon argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment to the defendants on his First Amendment claim and by denying his request to reopen discovery to permit expert testimony on his Eighth Amendment claim. We hold that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment but that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brandon’s request to reopen discovery for a second time. Accordingly, we VACATE IN PART and AFFIRM IN PART. BACKGROUND I. First Amendment Claim Eid al-Adha, or the feast of sacrifice, is a major annual Islamic holiday observed worldwide through special prayer service, shared meals, and other religious activities. See Brandon v. Royce, No. 16-cv-5552, 2019 WL 1227804, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2019). Brandon alleged that Eid al-Adha is a four-day religious celebration whose first day in 2015 fell on Thursday, September 24. Id. According to a memorandum from Imam Jon Young, Sing Sing’s “Coordinating Chaplain,” to Defendant Malin, Sing Sing organized a full-day event on September 24, 2015 to celebrate Eid al-Adha. Supp. App’x 95. That event included a religiously mandated morning shower, a prayer service, fellowship activities, and a shared religious meal “prepared by Muslim cooks” and served to Muslim inmates in the mess hall after “the population feed-up.” Id. Importantly, Imam Young’s memorandum further specified that meal trays “shall be provided” for Muslim inmates in “Keep-lock, [the housing units], or the Hospital” who were unable to join their fellow observers in the mess hall. Id. “A list of [those] confined Muslim inmates [was] attached.” Id. The parties agreed that Brandon was able to attend the September 24 event in person and that he received the Eid al-Adha meals that day. Brandon, 2019 WL 1227804, at *2. Sing Sing also scheduled a separate event for September 26, 2015 at which a special meal like that offered on September 24 would be served in the mess hall to Muslim inmates and their guests. Brandon’s First Amendment claim arises from a single incident related to that second event. The parties dispute many of the material facts. Therefore, we briefly recount the material facts from each party’s perspective. A. Brandon’s Version of Events According to Brandon, and as corroborated by the sworn declaration of Jerry Johnson (“Johnson”), an inmate then serving as the Administrative Chaplain Clerk, the September 26 event was organized to commemorate Eid al-Adha through a shared religious meal with inmates and their invited guests. App’x 113
