The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert United States District Judge
Plaintiff, formerly detained at the Madison County Jail and currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, et seq., and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("IRFRA"), 775 ILCS 35/1, et seq. Plaintiff claims that while he was incarcerated at the Madison County Jail, Jail Administrators Bunt and Bost failed to provide him with a nutritionally adequate Kosher diet. He believes the Hostess brand honey buns and Wonder brand bread the jail served contained pork products and contaminated the other food it touched on his tray so, if he observed his religious beliefs, he could not eat it. He alleges the only uncontaminated food was nutritionally insufficient.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the complaint. Accepting Plaintiff's allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated colorable causes of action:
Count 1: A claim against Defendants Hertz, Bunt and Bost for violation of his First Amendment rights by failing to provide Kosher meals;
Count 2: A claim against Defendants Hertz, Bunt and Bost for violation of RLUIPA by failing to provide Kosher meals; and
Count 3: A claim against Defendants Hertz, Bunt and Bost for violation of IRFRA by failing to provide Kosher meals.
Defendant Hertz is dismissed from Counts 1, 2 and 3 without prejudice for the following reasons
* Plaintiff makes no allegations against him plausibly suggesting a right to relief. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); and
* The doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable to § 1983 actions, and there is no allegation the Defendant was personally responsible for the alleged wrong. See Sanville
v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001).
Defendants Bunt and Bost in their individual capacities are dismissed from Count 2 with prejudice for the following reason:
* RLUIPA does not authorize a suit for money damages against individuals in their individual capacities. Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450, 451 (7th Cir. 2012); Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 717 (7th Cir. 2011)
Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are dismissed without prejudice for the following reason:
* Transfer of a prisoner out of an institution renders the prisoner's request for injunctive relief moot unless he makes a showing that he will likely be reincarcerated at the institution. Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 811 (7th Cir. 1996). ...