Yosef Rothstein

FIRST CLAIM  

Declaratory Judgment, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 

(Against All Defendants)  

101.

 

Paragraphs 1 through 99 are incorporated as if set forth fully herein. 

102.

 

An actual and substantial controversy exists between Navdeep and defendants as 

to their respective legal rights and duties.  Navdeep contends that defendants’ restrictions on his 

religious practices are illegal under either: (a) the United States Constitution, First Amendment; 

(b) 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.; and/or (c) the New York State Constitution.  On information and 

belief, defendants contend that the restrictions are valid. 

103.

 

Navdeep requests that the Court declare his right to practice his religion, Sikhism, 

and DOCS legal obligation to accommodate his religious practices.  Specifically, Navdeep 

requests that the court declare that Navdeep is entitled to: 

a.

 

possess and wear his Kara at all times;  

b.

 

possess up to six turbans of a length sufficient to tie the turban in one of 

the traditional manners (at a minimum, three meters long); 

c.

 

wear turbans that are orange, blue or black; 

d.

 

wear his Kacchera at all times consistent with his religious beliefs and 

shall be entitled to possess more than three Kaccheras so that he can 

change and wash his Kacchera on a daily basis;  

e.

 

wash and dry his Kaccheras and turbans in his cell; 

f.

 

remain in contact with his religious articles at all times, including during 

searches and transfers; 

g.

 

be present when his religious articles and books are searched or otherwise 

touched under normal circumstances; 

h.

 

possess a Khanda and wear it in a manner consistent with Directive 4202; 

i.

 

maintain his religious Scriptures and other religious books in a manner 

consistent with his religious beliefs including wrapping them in a piece of 

cloth, and storing them in a clean and elevated location;  

 

---

j.

 

have DOCS employees treat the Scriptures and other religious books with 

respect and to possess his religious articles and books without DOCS  

employees damaging them; 

k.

 

set times during which to pray on a daily basis, including performing 

morning prayers three to four hours before dawn;  

l.

 

to shower in the morning before prayers and have a light on in his cell in 

order to pray before dawn; 

m.

 

a vegetarian diet that complies with Sikh religious requirements, including 

the possible provision of food by a third party more familiar with Sikh 

requirements; 

n.

 

work assignments that do not require him to violate his religious beliefs 

including the Sikh prohibition on contact with either tobacco or alcohol; 

o.

 

be free of religious and racial harassment or physical abuse by correctional 

officers;  

p.

 

an exemption from DOCS’s grooming rules concerning the length of his 

beard; 

q.

 

have his misbehavior reports reversed and expunged from his record; 

r.

 

have Directive 4202 amended to cover Sikh practices so that Navdeep’s 

rights will be protected even if he is moved to another facility. 

SECOND CLAIM 

Violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. 

(Against All Defendants) 

104.

 

Paragraphs 1 through 99 are incorporated as if set forth fully herein. 

105.

 

Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 

(RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, “No government shall impose a substantial burden on the 

religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . even if the burden 

results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition 

of the burden on that person -- (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and 

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 

 26  

---

106.

 

As discussed above, defendants have imposed on Navdeep’s religious exercise a 

substantial burden, which either does not further a compelling governmental interest or is not the 

least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.  Defendants have 

accordingly violated Navdeep’s rights under RLUIPA. 

107.

 

Navdeep requests an injunction prohibiting defendants and other DOCS personnel 

from infringing upon his religious rights and nominal, compensatory and/or punitive damages 

against defendants in an amount to be established at trial. 

THIRD CLAIM 

Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(Against Defendants Goord, Mazzuca, Zwillinger, Annetts, Commia, Lynch, Mendoza, 

DiGirolamo, Monzillo, Stewart, Tabor, Emminger, Stone, John Does #2-6) 

108.

 

Paragraphs 1 through 99 are incorporated as if set forth fully herein. 

109.

 

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:  “Congress shall 

make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .” 

110.

 

By severely restricting plaintiff’s religious practices, defendants have denied, and 

continue to deny, plaintiff his right to the free exercise of his religion as guaranteed  by the First 

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

111.

 

Plaintiff requests an injunction prohibiting defendants and other DOCS personnel 

from infringing upon his First Amendment rights and nominal, compensatory and/or punitive 

damages against defendants in an amount to be established at trial. 

 27  

---

FOURTH CLAIM 

First Amendment Retaliation, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(Against Defendants Stewart, Emminger, Tabor, Lynch and John Does #5 & #6) 

112.

 

Paragraphs 1 through 99 are incorporated as if set forth fully herein. 

113.

 

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:  “Congress shall 

make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or 

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to 

assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 

114.

 

As described above, defendants have severely restricted Navdeep’s ability to 

practice his religion and have placed him in segregation for asserting his rights. 

115.

 

Furthermore, as described above, defendants have physically and verbally abused 

Navdeep and damaged his religious articles in response to Navdeep’s requests that his religious 

needs be accommodated and his religious books and articles be treated with respect.  

116.

 

As a result, defendants have retaliated against Navdeep for his exercise of the 

right to practice his religion and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

117.

 

Navdeep requests an injunction prohibiting defendants and other DOCS personnel 

from further retaliating against him for asserting his religious rights and nominal, compensatory 

and/or punitive damages against the defendants in an amount to be established at trial. 

FIFTH CLAIM 

Violation of New York State Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(Against Defendants Goord, Mazzuca, Zwillinger, Annetts, Commia, Lynch, Mendoza, 

DiGirolamo, Monzillo, Stewart, Tabor, Emminger, Stone, John Does #2-6)  

118.

 

Paragraphs 1 through 99 are incorporated as if set forth fully herein. 

 28  

---

119.

 

Article 1, Section 3 of the New York State Constitution provides:  “The free 

exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or 

preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all mankind.” 

120.

 

By severely restricting Navdeep’s ability to practice his religion, defendants have 

denied, and continue to deny, Navdeep the right to the free exercise of his religion as guaranteed 

by the New York State Constitution. 

121.

 

Plaintiff requests an injunction prohibiting defendants and other DOCS personnel 

from infringing upon his New York State Constitutional rights. 

SIXTH CLAIM 

Violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983  

(Against Defendant Lynch and Tabor) 

122.

 

Paragraphs 1 through 99 are incorporated as if set forth fully herein. 

123.

 

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of “cruel and unusual 

punishments” including the use of excessive force. 

124.

 

As alleged above, on June 6, 2005, Correctional Officer Lynch used excessive 

force when he repeatedly struck Navdeep.  Navdeep refused to pick up cigarette butts because of 

a sincere religious belief.  Navdeep was not involved in a physical confrontation with Lynch at 

the time, and after placing Navdeep in handcuffs there was no reason to have used force on 

Navdeep, let alone, to have repeatedly hit him.  As a result of the forced used, Navdeep sustained 

an injury to his neck and shoulder. 

125.

 

As alleged above, on July 11, 2005, Correctional Officer Tabor used excessive 

force when he violently pushed Navdeep into the guidance counselor’s office.  In early June, 

Navdeep had undertaken a hunger strike to protest the limitations DOCS imposed on his 

 29  

---

religious practices.  After the hunger strike, Navdeep remained on a liquid diet.  As Navdeep 

explained to Correctional Officer Tabor, as a result of his diet, Navdeep was too weak to keep up 

with Tabor.  Under the circumstances, there was no reason to have used force, let alone, to have 

pushed Navdeep violently.  As a result of the push, Navdeep sustained an injury to his back. 

126.

 

Navdeep is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages as a result of the 

injuries incurred. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff hereby demands trial 

by jury of all issues properly triable thereby. 

 30  

---

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment as follows: 

1.

 

A declaration that plaintiff is entitled to exercise his religious rights as set forth in 

paragraph 102 above. 

2.

 

A preliminary and final injunction requiring DOCS to amend Directive 4202 to 

cover Sikh practices and restraining defendants and all DOCS personnel from: 

a.

 

restricting Navdeep’s religious practices; 

b.

 

denying Navdeep the right to have six turbans of a length sufficient to tie 

the turban in one of the traditional manners (at a minimum, three meters 

long); 

c.

 

denying Navdeep the right to wear turbans that are orange, blue or black; 

d.

 

denying Navdeep the right to possess more than three Kaccheras so that 

he can change and wash his Kacchera on a daily basis;  

e.

 

denying Navdeep the right to wash and dry his Kaccheras and turbans in 

his cell; 

f.

 

denying Navdeep the right to possess and wear his religious articles at all 

times, including during searches and transfers; 

g.

 

denying Navdeep the right to wear a Khanda; 

h.

 

denying Navdeep the right to maintain his religious Scriptures and other 

religious books in a manner consistent with his religious beliefs including 

wrapping them in a piece of cloth, and storing them in a clean and 

elevated location;  

i.

 

touching or disrespecting Navdeep’s religious articles and books, or in the 

alternative, at a minimum, requiring DOCS personnel to wash their hands 

before coming into contact with these items; 

j.

 

touching, searching or inspecting Navdeep’s religious articles and books 

outside of his presence unless exigent circumstances demand otherwise; 

k.

 

from treating Navdeep’s religious items and practices with disrespect; 

l.

 

using a photograph of Navdeep without a beard for routine identification 

purposes; 

 31  

---

m.

 

denying Navdeep an opportunity to pray during set times on a daily basis, 

including performing morning prayers three to four hours before dawn;  

n.

 

denying Navdeep the opportunity to shower in the morning before prayers 

and have a light on in his cell in order to pray before dawn; 

o.

 

providing Navdeep with a diet that fails to comply with Sikh religious 

requirements, including providing him a diet that contains eggs; 

p.

 

giving Navdeep work assignments that require him to violate his religious 

beliefs including the Sikh prohibition on contact with tobacco; 

q.

 

enforcing any of DOCS grooming rules against Navdeep that require an 

inmate to cut any part of his hair;  

r.

 

retaliating against Navdeep for exercising his constitutional and statutory 

rights, including but not limited to placing Navdeep in segregate housing 

or transferring him to another facility transfer; 

s.

 

harassing or physically abusing Navdeep. 

3.

 

 

Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 

4.

 

 

Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 

5.

 

 

Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988(b); 

6.

 

 

Such additional and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. 

Dated: November 16, 2005 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

 

 

By:  

 

Andrew J. Frackman (AF4276) 

            Kenneth Marvet (KM8800) 

 

Steven Rubin (SR7887) 

UNITED SIKHS 

481 Eighth Avenue, Suite 10001 

New York, NY 10001 

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

NAVDEEP SIGH 

 

 

 

 32  

---

Document Outline

• INTRODUCTION 
• JURISDICTION AND VENUE 
• PARTIES 
  • Plaintiff 
  • Defendants 
  • FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 
  • FIRST CLAIM  
    • Declaratory Judgment, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 
    • (Against All Defendants)  
    • Violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. 
    • (Against All Defendants) 
  • THIRD CLAIM 
    • Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against Defendants Goord, Mazzuca, Zwillinger, Annetts, Commia, Lynch, Mendoza, DiGirolamo, Monzillo, Stewart, Tabor, Emminger, Stone, John Does #2-6) 
  • FOURTH CLAIM 
    • First Amendment Retaliation, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against Defendants Stewart, Emminger, Tabor, Lynch and John Does #5 & #6) 
  • FIFTH CLAIM 
    • Violation of New York State Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against Defendants Goord, Mazzuca, Zwillinger, Annetts, Commia, Lynch, Mendoza, DiGirolamo, Monzillo, Stewart, Tabor, Emminger, Stone, John Does #2-6)  
  • SIXTH CLAIM 
  • JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
  •  PRAYER FOR RELIEF