Gregory Houston Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad v. Dexter Payne

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1507
___________________________
Gregory Houston Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Dexter Payne, in his official capacity only as the Director of the Division of
Correction within the Arkansas Department of Corrections; James Shipman,
Warden of the Tucker Maximum Security Unit, in his official and individual
capacity
Defendants - Appellees
Muhammad Ameen, Chaplain employed by the Arkansas Department of
Corrections, in his official and individual capacity; William Straughn, Chaplain
employed by the Arkansas Department of Corrections, in his official and
individual capacity
Defendants
------------------------------
First Liberty Institute; Religious Freedom Institute
Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s)
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________

-- 1 of 6 --

-2-
Submitted: January 15, 2026
Filed: March 27, 2026
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.
Inmate Gregory Holt brought this lawsuit against certain prison officials
employed by the Arkansas Department of Corrections (the “Department”). He
sought declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages on the grounds that
they substantially burdened his religious exercise by allegedly providing insufficient
food and drink in the post-sunset and predawn meals served during Ramadan. The
district court1 granted the prison officials’ motion for summary judgment, and Holt
appeals. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad, is a Muslim housed at the
Tucker Maximum Security Unit (the “Unit”) within the Department. The two prison
officials subject to this appeal are Dexter Payne, Director of the Department’s
Division of Corrections, and James Shipman, Warden of the Unit.
As a Muslim, Holt sincerely believes that he must fast every day, from dawn
to sunset, during the month of Ramadan. To prepare for this daily fast, Holt sincerely
believes that he must eat enough after sunset and before dawn so that his mind and
body are prepared for each fast. During Ramadan, Holt forgoes the lunch provided
by the Department because it is served during daylight hours.
1 The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, now deceased, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Edie R. Ervin, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of
Arkansas.

-- 2 of 6 --

-3-
In 2021 and 2022, the Department served fasting Muslims a “double-portion”2
dinner after sunset and a standard portion breakfast before dawn during Ramadan.
In 2023, Shipman terminated the practice of serving a double-portion dinner and
fasting Muslims received the standard portion dinner. The parties disagree about the
reason for the change in policy, but the reason is immaterial to resolution of this
appeal. The dinner continued to be served after sunset, and the Department
continued to serve a standard portion breakfast before dawn to fasting Muslims. The
post-sunset and predawn meals served during Ramadan in 2023 and 2024 provided
at least 2,000 calories per day.
Throughout the year, Holt regularly forgoes the breakfasts because he does
not like “to get out so early,” and he does not like the breakfast options served.
During Ramadan 2023, Holt skipped the Department’s predawn breakfast “a good
amount” of the month, and during Ramadan 2024, he did not eat the Department’s
predawn breakfast about “half the time.”
To accommodate his preferences regarding when and what he ate, Holt
stocked up on food items from the commissary before Ramadan each year. During
Ramadan, Holt ate commissary food as his breakfast and to supplement his diet when
he chose to. Holt acknowledged that it was “relatively easy” for him to acquire
commissary food.
Holt filed suit in 2024 challenging the change in policy from a double-portion
dinner to a standard portion dinner during Ramadan. Holt claimed that the policy
change violated the Eighth Amendment and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). The court granted the prison officials’
motion for summary judgment on both claims.
2 The term “double-portion” did not mean two portions of every item served
as the standard dinner. Depending on what was available, the term referred to adding
to the standard dinner: (1) the lunch main course, (2) a half portion of the dinner
entrée, or (3) the side courses.

-- 3 of 6 --

-4-
II. DISCUSSION
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo while viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Mbonyunkiza v.
Beasley, 956 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2020). Holt appeals only the grant of
summary judgment on his RLUIPA claim.
RLUIPA provides that “[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on
the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . .” 42
U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). The plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving that a prison
policy “implicates his religious exercise” and that the policy’s burden on his
religious exercise is substantial. Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. 411, 425 (2022)
(quoting Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 360, 361 (2015)). If the plaintiff meets this
initial burden, then the burden shifts to the prison to demonstrate that the policy “(1)
is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive
means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” § 2000cc-1(a).
RLUIPA defines “religious exercise” to include “any exercise of religion,
whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” § 2000cc-
5(7)(A). “[O]f course, a prisoner’s request for an accommodation must be sincerely
based on a religious belief and not some other motivation.” Holt, 574 U.S. at 360-
61.
In this case, the religious exercise is fasting from dawn to sunset during
Ramadan. Holt does not dispute that the Department permits him to engage in this
religious exercise. Cf. Ramirez, 595 U.S. at 418, 426 (denying access to pastor is a
substantial burden). Instead, Holt asserts that the Department inhibits his ability to
consume enough food and drink after sunset and before dawn to allow his mind and
body to maintain the day’s fast.
To constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise, the policy must
significantly inhibit or constrain conduct or expression that manifests

-- 4 of 6 --

-5-
some central tenet of a person’s individual religious beliefs; must
meaningfully curtail a person’s ability to express adherence to his or
her faith; or must deny a person reasonable opportunities to engage in
those activities that are fundamental to a person’s religion.
Mbonyunkiza, 956 F.3d at 1053 (citations omitted).
Holt frames the amount of food required to maintain his fast in terms of
calories. He asserts that the Department must provide him with 3,000 calories per
day during Ramadan. This figure does not come from a sincerely held belief; it is
based on the standard daily meal plan provided by the Department. The only
evidence in the record regarding the source of the 3,000 calories goal was that a
registered dietician based it off the complete prison population in the Unit, which
included accounting for sex and the range in ages and weights. The dietician also
testified that providing at least 2,000 calories to fasting Muslims during Ramadan is
adequate nutrition for males.
Because Holt regularly forgoes the Department breakfast throughout the year,
he is routinely receiving less than 3,000 calories outside of Ramadan. The Ramadan
meals in 2021 and 2022, which Holt did not object to, were also less than 3,000
calories. When he chooses not to eat the Department breakfast during Ramadan, he
eats commissary food. As Holt admits, he can easily acquire commissary food for
his breakfasts during Ramadan.
Holt claims he experienced hunger, dizziness, and headaches from lack of
adequate nutrition during Ramadan in 2023 and 2024. Again, Holt refused to eat the
provided breakfast most of the time during Ramadan in 2023 and 2024. Holt did not
request medical care and provided no objective evidence to corroborate any alleged
physical ailments. The alleged hunger, dizziness, and headaches also did not prevent
his religious exercise as Holt did not break his fast in 2023 or 2024. Providing
fasting Muslims with less than 3,000 calories per day during Ramadan does not

-- 5 of 6 --

-6-
significantly inhibit or meaningfully curtail Holt’s opportunity to practice his
religion. See id. (defining substantial burden).
Alternatively, Holt references the custom during Ramadan of eating a “large,
plentiful” meal at sunset so that fasting Muslims may eat until they are full. But he
does not profess that this custom is a religious practice. As Holt explained, his
sincerely held belief regarding eating during Ramadan derives from the following
passage in the Qur’an: “eat and drink until the white thread of dawn appears, to you
distinct from the black thread (of the night).” The sincerely held belief is that Holt
eats enough after sunset and before dawn to allow his mind and body to maintain the
fast.
The Department provides fasting Muslims with at least 2,000 calories per day
during Ramadan and serves the meals after sunset and before dawn. The only
evidence in the record establishes that these meals are adequate nutrition for a
healthy male for a month. Holt voluntarily foregoes one of these meals most of the
time during Ramadan. If Holt wants additional food with his post-sunset dinner, he
can easily supplement with commissary food. By failing to raise a genuine dispute
of material fact on substantial burden, Holt did not meet his initial burden of proof
under RLUIPA. See Ramirez, 595 U.S. at 425 (the plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing a substantial burden on his religious exercise).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 6 of 6 --