Yosef Rothstein

---

Andrew J. Frackman (AF4276) 

Kenneth Marvet (KM8800) 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

Times Square Tower 

7 Times Square 

New York, NY  10036 

Telephone: (212) 

326-2000 

Facsimile: (212) 

326-2061 

 

 

Steven Rubin (SR7887) 

UNITED SIKHS 

481 Eighth Avenue, Suite 10001 

New York, NY 10001 

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

NAVDEEP SINGH 

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

NAVDEEP SINGH, 

Plaintiff, 

-against- 

GLENN S. GOORD, Commissioner Department 

of Correctional Services, WILLIAM MAZZUCA, 

former Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional 

Facility, LARRY ZWILLINGER, acting 

Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility, 

PAUL ANNETTS, Superintendent, Downstate 

Correctional Facility, WOHLRAB, Lieutenant, 

Downstate Correctional Facility, COMMIA, 

Correctional Officer, Downstate Correctional 

Facility, LYNCH, Correctional Officer, Fishkill 

Correctional Facility, LARKIN, Deputy, Fishkill 

Correctional Facility, MENDOZA, Correctional 

Officer, Fishkill Correctional Facility, 

DIGIROLAMO, Correctional Officer, Fishkill 

Correctional Facility, MONZILLO, Correctional 

Officer, Fishkill Correctional Facility, 

STEWART, Correctional Officer, Fishkill 

Correctional Facility, TABOR, Correctional 

Case No. 

 

COMPLAINT

 

 

 

---

Officer, Fishkill Correctional Facility, K. 

EMMINGER, Correctional Officer, Fishkill 

Correctional Facility, MICHELLE P. STONE, 

head of the Inmate Grievance Program at Fishkill 

Correctional Facility, and JOHN DOE #1-6, 

Defendants. 

 

 

INTRODUCTION 

1.

 

This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc 

(“RLUIPA”), the laws and the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State 

of New York, to permit Navdeep Singh (“Navdeep”) to practice his religion while incarcerated.  

As a devout Sikh, Navdeep is obligated to follow all of the teachings of the Sikh religion.  

Defendants have unjustifiably and unlawfully imposed on Navdeep unwarranted restrictions on 

his religious practices.  RLUIPA, in particular, prohibits defendants from imposing a substantial 

burden on Navdeep’s religious exercise unless the burden furthers a compelling government 

interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.  No such justification exists 

for the burdens imposed by defendants on Navdeep in this case. 

2.

 

The burdens and limitations imposed by defendants on Navdeep are particularly 

unjustified because they are inconsistent with accommodations which The New York State 

Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”) has made for other incarcerated persons of other 

religious groups, including Christians, Muslims, Jews, Native Americans, and Rastafarians, to 

name a few.    

3.

 

DOCS Directive 4202 provides that the Department “attempts to identify 

particular faiths within the inmate population in an effort to accommodate the legitimate spiritual 

needs of its inmates as reasonably as possible.”  Consistent with Directive 4202, DOCS, for 

 2  

---

example, permits a Native American inmate to possess several religious items including a 

medicine bag, an American Rosette on a fabric or leather cord, sacred herbs, smoking pipe and 

religious artifacts and symbols.  In contrast, defendants have prevented Navdeep from possessing 

essential religious items, including without limitation, the Kara, a thin cast-iron or steel bracelet 

worn by Sikhs at all times.  Similarly, DOCS permits a Christian inmate to wear a cross pendant, 

but refuses to permit Navdeep to wear a Khanda, the Sikh pendant. 

4.

 

Navdeep seeks the right to practice his religion and an order requiring DOCS to 

grant all of his reasonable requests for religious accommodations, as required by RLUIPA, 

DOCS’ own Directive, the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of 

New York.  These requests fall into three general categories, Navdeep requests: (a) the right to 

possess his religious articles, books, and pendants; (b) that these items be treated with respect; 

and (c) that he be provided reasonable accommodations so that he can practice Sikhism, such as 

set times for prayer and a vegetarian diet. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

5.

 

This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc (“RLUIPA”), the 

laws and the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of New York.  

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), 1343(a)(4) and 

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(a).  The Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).  

Jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202.  Injunctive relief 

is authorized under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

6.

 

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as a substantial part of the 

events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the Southern District of New York. 

 3  

---