Haendel v. Clark et al, No. 7:2017cv00135 - Document 56 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 9/18/2018. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cLE- s OFFICE U.S.DIST.COURT AT DANVILLEIVA FILED IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIW SION sEP 18 2218 Ju BY: DAN H AENDEL, Plaintiff, V. HAROLD W .CLXRK,etal., D efendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.DDDLEK CL DEPUW CLERK CivilAction No.7:17-cv-00135 M EM OR ANDUM OPINION By: H on.Jackson L .K iser Senior U nited States D istrictJudge Dan Haendel,a formerVirginiainm ateproceedingpro K ,comm enced tllisaction while incarceratedpuzsuantto 42 U .S.C.jj 1983and2000cc-1,etseq.1 Plaintiffnamesnllm erous officialsoftheVirginiaDepartmentofCorrections(GûVDOC''),HaynesvilleCorrectionalCenter (GQHCC''),andCoffeewoodCorrectionalCenter(GGCW CC'')asdefendants.z Generally,Plaintiff allegesthat( Defendants' llnlae lly failed toaccornrnodate hisreligiouspracticesan. d discdm inated againsthim ,in violation oftheFirstand Fourteenth Amendm entsoftheUnited StatesConstitutionandtheReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalizedPersonsAct(:1RI,UIPA''). Thismatterisbeforemeontheparties'motionsforsummal'yjudgment(ECFNos.29,33,and 55)andPlaintiffsmotionforcontempt(ECFNo.45)andmotion forapreliminaryinjunction (ECFNo.34).Afterreviewingtherecord,IgrantinpartanddenyinpartDefendants'motion formlmmaryjudgment,denyPlaintiffsmotionsforsummaryjudgment,denyinpartPlaintiffs motionforapreliminaryinjunction,andreferPlaintiff'smotionforcontempttoUzlitedStates M agistrateJudgeJoelC.Hoppe. Haendel v. Clark et al 1Plaintiffisan attorney oftheDistrictofColumbiaBar. See In Re K atrina CanalBreaches Consol.Litia., Doc. 56 533F.Supp.2d615,631-33& M .14-15(E.D.La.2008)(collectingcasesindicatingthatfederalcourtsmaytake judicialnoticeofjovernmentalwebsites);Williamsv.LonM,585F.Supp.2d679,686-88& n.4(D.Md.2008) (collectingcaseslndicatingthatpostùysongovernmentwebsitesareinherentlyauthenticorself-authenticating). Consequently,ldeclineto extendthellberalconstruction standardto an attorney.SeeHainesv.Kerner,404U.S. 519,521(1972)(observingthatacourtshouldholdpro#-qcomplaintstot&lessstringentstandardsthanformal pleadingsdraftedbylawyers''(emphasisaddedl). 2Plaintiffwasconfined atHCC from M arch untilSeptember2015, when hewastransferredto CW CC. CW CC islocatedwithin theCharlottesvilleDivision ofthiscourq andHCC islocated in theEastem Districtof Virginia. Dockets.Justia.com 1. Plaintiffpresentstwom ain claim sand seeksdnm agesand equitablerelief.First,Director Clarke,ChiefofCorrectionsRobinson,W arden Gilm ore,Assis% tW arden Hicks,and Institm ionalProgrnm M anagerGourdineviolatedtheFirstAm endm ent'sFreeExerciseClause and RLUIPA by providing inadequate ElkosherforPassover''foodsdtlring Passoverin 2016and 2017andinadequatekosherfoodsdaily ontheCommonFareDiet(ttcommonFare'')atCW CC.3 Second,Defendantsviolated theFourteenth Amendm ent'sEqualProtection Clauseby discrim inating againsthim forbeing Jewish. AspartofhisJewish faith,Plaintiffbelieveshe should consllm eonly kosherfood and should observetheJewish holiday Pmssover,which lastsapproximately eightdays.Plaintiff assertsthat,while foodsserved dudngPassoverarelabeled askosher,they arenotlabeled as tdkosherforPassover.''Plaintiffexplainsthatfoodsdesignated askosherforeveryday consumption azenotadequateforconsumption during Passover,and instead,hemustconsllm e specifcSdkosherforPassover''foods. PlaintiffassertsthatDefendantsfailto appreciatethe differencebetweenkosherandkosherforPassoverfoodsbecause,despitelzisobjections,the VD OC continued to servehim unacceptablefoods- non-kosherandregularkosherfoods- dudngPassover.Plaintiffalsoobjectstothefoodservedon CommonFareasinadequateforhis daily consllmption becausehebelievesCom mon Fare isnotkosher.4 Plaintiffallegesthatkosher foodsserved on Com mon Fare and duringPassoverarem adeun-kosherby being (ttainted''from conkctingsomethingthathadcontactedanon-kosherfood.Plaintiffalsospecificallyobjectsto 3Common FareistheVDOC'Sspecially-desir ed dietintended forinmateswhosedietaryrequirements cannotbeaccom modatedbytheregularm enu andeatkosherfoods. 4Plaintiffassertsthathewantedto eatkosherfoods9om Common Farebutabandoned allattemptsto receiveCommon Fareoncehelearned itwàsnotkosher. 2 theVDOC notproviding kosherforPassoverfoodsdtuing theflrsttwo daysofPassoverin 2017. DefendantsassertthattheVDOC recogrlizestheneed forinm atesofa Jewish faith to observePassoverand Sçprovidels)areligiousdietthatreasonablyaccommodates''theirreligious dietary needsçlto theextentfeasibleduring Passover.'' Plaintiffarguesthattherecpnnotbea ççreasonable accom m odation''ofkosherforPassover;çsiteitherisoritisn't.'' PlaintiffbelievesthatDefendantswere anti-sem itic and llnlawfully penalized him for beingJewish.HebelievesClarke,Robinson,Gilmore,Hicks,and Golzrdinewere discrim inatory fornotcorrecting thefood,W arden Allen wasdiscdm inatory fornotallowing him to havea Jewish calendar,Captain W ard wasdiscrim inatory fornotdisciplininga subordinate,and AssistantW ardenBowlesandUnitM anagerLongwerediscriminatoryforejectingPlaintiff f' rom a housing tm it. II. Plaintiffsreleasefrom incarcerationmootsinjlmctivereliefandhisRI,UIPA claims. ç1(A)federalcourthasneitherthepowertorenderadvisoryopirlionsnordtodecidequestionsthat cnnnotaffecttherightsoflitigantsin thecasebeforethem .''' Preiserv.Newkirk,422U .S.395, 401(1975)(quotingNorthCarolinav.Rice,404U.S.244,246(1971));seeUllitedStatesv. Sprincer,715F.3d535,540(4thCir.2013)(recognizingmootnessmayberaised suasponte). FederalcourtsareSsnotempowered to decidem ootquestionsorabstractpropositions....'' Californiav.SanPablo& TulareR.R.,149U.S.308,314 (1893).EçM ootquestionsrequireno answen''M o..Kan.& Tex.Ry.v.Fenis,179U.S.602,606(1900). Dam agesare notan availablerem edy tmderRLUIPA,and Plaintiffsreleasemeansthe rem aining rem ediesfora RI-UIPA claim could no longerredressthealleged hnrms.5 seese.g., W allv.W ade,741F.3d492,496n.5(4th Cir.2014)(notingdnmagesaretmavailablevia RI, UIPA andEçplaintiffsonlypotentialremediesunderRI,UIPA areequitable');Incllmmav. Ozmint,507F.3d281,286-87(4thCir.2007)(statingaprisoner'stransferorreleasefrom a particularprisonmootshisclaimsforinjunctiveanddeclaratoryreliefwith respecttohis incarcerationthere);W illinmsv.Griffin,952F.2d 820,823(4th Cir.1991)(transferrendered mootaprisoner'sclaimsforinjtmctiveanddeclaratoryrelief,butnotclaimsfordamages);see alsoUnited Statesv.M tmsingwear.Inc.,340U.S.36,39(1950)(notingthedutyofappellate courtwhen Gtdealing with acivilcase9om a courtin the federalsystem which hasbecom em oot whileonitsway Etlhere...istoreverseorvacatethejudgmentbelow andremandwitha directiontodismiss).ThepossibilitythatPlaintiffmayre-entertheVDOC istoo speculativeto fndajusticiableclaim forinjunctiveordeclaratoryrelief.SeeL.A.v.Lyons,461U.S.95,105- 08(1983)(holdingthatLyonsdidnothavestandingtoseekanhjunctionprollibitingtheLos M gelesPolice Departmentfrom employing chokeholdsbecause he could notestablish thathe wouldbesubjectedtoachokeholdinthefuttlrel;O'Sheav.Littleton,414U.S.488,497(1974) (holdingthatnocaseorcontroversyexistedtoissueinjunction abouttheenforcementofcriminal lawsbecauseitwastobeassumedthatçllplaintiffs)willconducttheiractivitieswithinthelaw and so avoid prosecution and conviction aswellasexpostlreto the challenged courseofconduct saidtobefollowedbypetitioners').Accordingly,injunctiveanddeclaratoryreliefisnot available,andtheRI, UIPA claimsGedismissedwithoutprejudice. 5Plaintiffassertsasaconclusion thatdamagesareavailableviaRIU IPA tmdertheComm erceClause.1 donotfm dPlaintiff'sbareassedion persuasiveand declineto constzuctthatargllm enton hisbehalf 4 111. Defendantsassertthey areentitledtosummaryjudgmentandqualifiedimmunityfor Plaintiffsrequestfordnmagespursuantto42U.S.C.j 1983.Qualifiedimmldnityprotects governmentofticialsf' rom dnm agesin theirindividualcapacities6forççbad guessesin g' ray areas'' and ensuresthattheym ay beheld personally liable only forSttransgressingbrightlines.'' Maciariellov.Sllmner,973F.2d295,298(4thCir.1992);seeInreAllen,106F.3d582,593' (4thCir.1997)($<EA)nofficialmayclaim qualifiedimmunityaslongashisactionsarenot cleadyestablishedtobebeyondtheboundadesofhisdiscretionaryauthority.'').Qualified immurlityinvolvesatwostepinquiry:(1)whetheraconstimtionalorstatutoryrightwouldhave beenviolatedonthealleged facts,and(2)whethertherightwasclearlyestablished.Saucierv. Katz,533U.S.194,201-02(2001).Clearlyestablished1aw Sdincludesnotonlyalready specificallyadjudicatedrights,butthosemnnifestlyincludedwithinmoregeneral applications ofthecoreconstitm ionalprinciple invoked.'' W all,741F.3d at502-03. Case law recognized beforeM arch 2015thatan inmatehasa clearly established rightto a dietconsistentwith religiousscnzplestmdertheFirstAmendment,Lovelacev.Lee,472F.3d 174,198-99(4thCir. 2006),andtobefreef' rom religiousdiscriminationundertheFourteenthAmendment,M onison v.Garraghty,239F.3d648,654 (4thCir.2001). A partyisentitledtosummaryjudgmentifthepleadings,thedisclosedmaterialson file, and any affidavitsshow thatthereisno genuirie dispute asto any m ateriqlfact.Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).M aterialfactsarethosenecessarytoestablishtheelementsofaparty'scauseofaction. Andersonv.LibertyLobby.Inc.,477U.S.242,248(1986).A genuinedisputeofmaterialfact 6Damagesarenotavailableagainstdefendantsintheirox cialcapacities. See.e.g.,W illv.M ich.Dep'tof StatePolice,491U.S.58,71(1989);Lytlev.Griftith,240F.3d404,408(4thCir.2001). existsif,inviewing adm issibleevidenceanda11reasonableinferencesdrawn therefrom in alight mostfavorableto thenon-m ovingparty,areasonablefact-sndercould rettzrn averdictforthe non-movant.J. 1JZ.Themovingpartyhastheburdenofshowing- çithatis,pointingouttothe districtcourt- thatthereisan absenceofevidenceto supportthenonm oving party'scase.'' CelotexCorp.v.Catrett 477U.S.317,325(1986).lfthemovantsatisfiesthisburden,thenthe non-m ovantm ustsetforth specific factsthatdemonstratetheexistenceofagenuinedisputeof factfortrial.1d.at322-24.A partyisentitledto sllmmaryjudgmentiftheadmissibleevidence asawholecould notlead arationaltrieroffactto fnd in favorofthenon-m ovant. W illinmsv. Gdffin,952F.2d820,823(4th Cir.1991).However,Gçlmqeretmsupportedspeculation...isnot enoughtodefeatas'lmmaryjudgmentmotion.''Ennisv.Nat'lAss'nofBus.& Educ.Radio. Inc.,53F.3d55,62(4th Cir.1995). A plaltiffcannotusearesponsetoamotion forsummary judgmenttonmend orcorrectacomplaintchallengedbythemotionforsllmmaryjudgment. Clonnincerv.M cDevitt,555F.3d324,336(4th Cir.2009). IV . A. FirstA m endm ent An inm ate'srightto religiousexerciseundertheFirstAmendm entmustbebalanced with aprison'sinstitutionalneedsofsecurity,discipline,andgeneraladm inistration. Cutterv. W ilkinson,544U.S.709,722(2005);O'Lonev.EstateofShabazz,482U.S.342,348-49 (1987).A çGsubstantialburden''onreligiousexerciseoccurstmdertheFirstAmendmentifit Glputgs)substantialpresstlreon anadherenttomodifyhisbehaviorandtoviolatehisbeliefs, or...forcesaperson to choosebetween followingthepreceptsofherreligion and forfeiting (governmental)benefits,on theonehand,andabandorlingoneofthepreceptsofherreligion... 6 ontheotherhand.''-/ Lovelace, 4t2F.3dat187;see.e.g.,Patelv.BtlreauofPrisons,515F.3d 807,814(8thCir.2008)CçW henthesigrlificanceofareligiousbeliefisnotatissue,thesame definition ofçsubstantialburden'appliestmdertheFreeExercise Clause,R-FRA,and RT,UIPA.'').A successfulee-exerciseclaim mustshow adefendant'sconsciousorintentional interferencewith theplaintiffsreligiousrights. W all,741F.3d at500 n.11. çiAllowing negligencesuitstoproceed...wouldtmdermine...deferencegtotheexpedenceandexpertise ofprisonandjailadministratorsjbyexposingprisonofficialstoanundulylligh levelofjudicial scrutiny.''Lovelace,472 F.3d at194.Consequently,lessthan intentionalconductisinsuffkient to m eetthe faultrequirem entfora free-exercise claim . A correctionalpolicy orpracticethatsubstantially burdensan inmate'sFirstAm endment rightisvalid ifitisreasonably related to legitim atepenologicalinterests. Id.at199. W hethera regulation isreasonably related dependson: (1) (W lhether there is a ççvalid,rational connection'' between the prison regulation or action and the interest asserted by the governm ent,or whether this interestisççso remoteasto renderthepolicy arbitrary orirrational'';(2) whether Gsalternative m eans of exercising the right ...remain open to prison inm ates,''an inquiry thatasks broadly whether inm ates were deprived ofa1l fonns ofreligious exercise or whether they were able to participate in other observancesoftheirfaith;(3)whatimpactthedesired accommodation would haveon security staff,inmates,and theallocation ofprison resotlrces;and (4) whether there exist any <sobvious, easy altem atives'' to the challenged regulation or action, wllich m ay suggest that it is lGnot reasonable, but is Einstead)anexaggeratedresponsetoprisonconcerns.'' J#a.at200(citingTurnerv.Safley,482U.S.78,89-92(1987));seeOvertonv.Bazzetta,539U.S. 126,132(2003)(recognizingtheprisonerhastheburdentodisprovethevalidityofapdson regulation tmderD lrner). 11assumeforpurposesofthisopinionthatPlaintim sdesireto eatkosherand kosherforPassoverfoodsis apersonalpracticethatisboth sincerelyheld androoted in religiousbelief.See.e.c.,Cutter,544U.S.at725. Disputesofmaterialfactsprecludetheparties'motionsforsummaryjudgmentabout whethertheVDOC'SkosherforPassoverfoodsdudng Passoverorkosherfoodsserved on Com mon Farecom portwith Plaintiffspurported sincerely-heldreligiousdietarybeliefs. Defendantsexplain thatthesefoodsareintendedto bekosherand generally acceptableto Jewish inm ates,whereasPlaintiffassertsthatthe foodsarenotkosherorarekosherbutm adetm-kosher by thetim ethefoodsare served.Plaintiffaversthathehad personally inform ed Clarke, Robinson,Gilmore,Hicks,and G/tlrdine abouttheVDOC'Salleged faillzreto providekosher andkosherforPassoverfoodsand thateach defendantfailed to correcttheissue.Assum ing Plaintiffsallegationsastrue,itisdisputed whethereach defendants'failm eto correctismerely anegligentoran intentionaldeprivation ofreligiousexercise. AsforkosherforPassover,itisalso disputed whetherPlaintiffsuffered a substantial btlrden to hisreligiousexercise. Plaintiffargueshow,in principle,itispreferablethatthe VDOC providef' ree specialfoodpackagesto al1theJewish inm atesasan entitlem entoftheir faith.Regardlessofwhatwasserved,Plaintiffwasallowedtopurchasenon-VD OC kosherfor Passoverfoodsfrom thecomm issary,and nothing in therecord indicatesPlaintiffwasindigent and could notafford those foodsforhiseight-day holiday.GçNo substantialburden occursifthe govem m entaction m erely m akesthereligiousexercise more expensiveordix cultor inconvenientlqbutdoesnotpresstlretheadherenttoviolatelllislreligiousbeliefsorabandonone ofthepreceptsof(llis)religiom''Rolmtreev.Clarke,CivilActionNo.7:11cv00572,2015U.S. Dist.LEXIS28511,at*21,2015WL 1021286,at*7(W .D.Va.M ar.9,2015)(citingSmithv. Allen,502F.3d 1255,1278(11th Cir.2007),and LivingW aterChurch ofGodv.CharterTp.of M eddian,258F.App'x729,739(6th Cir.2007:.Notably,however,Plaintiffassertsthathe wasunabletoplzrchasekosherforPassoverfoodsfrom thecöm m issary becausehewasnever infonned ofthatoption.Thus,thesedefendantscould haveim posed a substantialbm den ifthey had hidden thatoption orm adeitunavailable. Accordingly,theparties'm otionsforsumm ary judgmentaredenied.SeeBuonocorev.Harris,65F.3d347,359 (4thCir.1995)(finding summaryjudgmentnotproperwhenresolutionofqualifedimmunityquestionand claim itself bothdependupon determiningwhathappened). B. Fourteenth Am endm ent Forthefinalclaim ,Plaintiffgenerally assertsthatDefendantsdiscdm inated againsthirrf forbeing Jewish. PlaintiffallegesthatW arden Allen preventedhisreceiptofaJewish calendar8 andA ssistantW arden Bowles,UrlitM anagerLong,and Captain W ard failedto ensure asafe, sectlre,and healing environmentby ignoring otherinm ates'anti-sernitism .Plaintiffalso generally allegesthatClarke,Robinson,Gilmore,Hicks,and Gourdine discrim inated againsthim becausethey did notcorrecthiscomplaintsaboutfoodsserved on Com m on Fareand dudng P% sover. TheEqualProtection ClauseoftheFourteenth Am endm entrequiresthatçGno State shall...denytoanypersonwitllinitsjudsdictiontheequalprotedion ofthelaws.''U.S.Const. nmend.XIV,j1.ç4'rosucceedonanequalprotectionclaim,(a)plaintiffmustfirstdemonstrate thathehasbeen treated differently from otherswith whom heissim ilarly situated and thatthe unequaltreatm entwastheresultofintentionalorpurposefuldiscrim ination.'' M onison,239 F.3d at653-54. Gioncethisshowing ism ade,a courtproceedsto determ inewhetherthe disparity 8Plaintiffarguesforthe& sttimeinhismotionforsllmmaryjudgmentthatthewithholdingoftheJewish calendarconstituted aRsubstantialburden''tohisreligiousexercise.First,Plaintiffdidnotmakethisclaim in the smended complaint;hementionedthecalendarspecifically only asoneexnmplein hisequalprotection claim. Plaintiffcannotamendhisamendedcomplaintviaamotionforsllmmaryjudgmentorresponsethereto.See.e.2.. Cloaninger,555F.3dat336. Second,Plaintiffisalawyerwhoseamended complaintisnotliberally construed. n ird,even ifitwasliberally construed,Plaintiffoffersnothingbuthisown conclusory assertion ofçtsubstantial burden''to assertthewithholdingofacalendarviolatedtheFreeExerciseClause,and such aconclusoryassertion is insufficienttostateaclaim.Seeme.c..BellAtl.Cop.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,555(2007). 9 intreatmentcanbejustiûedtmdertherequisitelevelofscnztiny.''J. IJ. Reasonablenessisthe properlevelofscrutinyforclaimsrelatedtoincarceration.J#.aat655;see.e.a.,Turner,482U.S. at89-92. 1. AssistantW arden Bowlesand UrlitM anagerLong PlaintiffallegesBow lesand Long GGdiscrim inated ...and exhibited blatlm tantiSemitism''forallowingPlaintiffto b'erem oved f' rom the CW CC Veterans'pod.Forseveral weeks,a fellow inm ate in thatpod had called Plaintiffderogatory nnm esforbeing Jew ish. Three weeksafterPlaintiffreported the inmate'sharassm ent,Long accused Plaintiffofharassing the inmate.Twodaysafterthemeeting,Plaintiffwasejectedfrom theVeterans'podwhilethe harassing inm atewasallowed to stay. Bowleslatertold Plaintiffhewasmoved dueto apending investigation and thatLong çdhad to addressyourbehaviorand languageseveraltimes.'' AjurycouldfindthatBowlesandLongkickedPlaintiffoutoftheVeterans'podbecause hewasJewish while allowingtheinstigating,non-lewish inmateto stay.Defendantshavenot addressedwhetherthisallegeddispadty intreatmentcanbejustifiedasreasonablegiven the circllmstancesorMstoryofconductintheVeterans'pod.Altematively,ajurycouldfinditwas reasonabletoremove Plaintifffrom theVeterans'podbased on hispurported behavioralissues orpendinginvestigation.Accordingly,theparties'motionsforsllmmaryjudgmentaredenied forthisclaim . 2. Captain W ard PlaintiffallegesthatdefendantW ard exllibited lGcompleteindifference''toward Plaintic s complaintaboutan inm atewho said,çlFucktheJews,''inthe dining halldudng Passover. Plaintiffcom plained to a sergeantin the dirling hall,alleging itw as defnm ation,and w as dissatisfied with thesergeant'sresponse.PlaintifffaultsW ard fornottaldngçldisciplinary or 10 otheraction to tllisblatantdisplay ofanti-sem itism ,thereby contributing to an unsafe, unwelcom e,and hostile environm entforJew sin the facility.'' W ardisentitledtoqualifedimmlmityandsummaryjudgment.No clearly established law authorizestheclaim thata supervisory correctionaloffkerisliablefordnm agesfora disparaging comm entfrom one inmateto anotherand addressed by a subordinate correctional officer. Even ifastateoftk ialhad spokenthedisparagingw ords,thelaw doesnotsupportan j 1983claim.Seese.g.,M oodyv.Grove,885F.2d 865(4thCir.1989)(table)(tmpublished) (statingasageneralnzlethatverbalabuseofinmatesbyguards,withoutmore,doesnotstatea cohstimtionalclaim);seealsoM artinv.Sament,780F.2d 1334,1338(8th Cir.1985)(callingan inmatean obscenennmedidnotviolateconstitutionalrights);Keyesv.CityofAlbany,594F. Supp.1147(N.D.N.Y.1984)(ç1(T)heuseofvileandabusivelanguage(includingracialepithets), nomatterhow abhorrentorreprehensible,cnnnotfonnthebasisforaj 1983c1aim.''). Accordingly,Defendants'motionforsllmmaryjudgmentisgrantedinpartandPlaintiffs motionsforsummmyjudgmentaredeniedastothisclaim. 3. HCC W arden Allen PlaintiffallegesthatAllen'srefusalto allow PlaintifftopossessaJewish calendarat HCC on August18,2015,constitm estm lawfuldiscrimination. On theday itanived,staff incorrectlytoldPlaintiffhecouldnothavethecalendarbecauseKtgcqalendarsarenotallowedper policy.''However,policy allowed Plaintifftopossessonecalendarno largerthan 8 %''by 11',. Plaintiffobjected,andmailroom stafftoldPlaintiffanew rationale:itwastoobigformeasuring 16' 'by 11' ' Plaintiffexplainedto Allenthatthe calendarhelped him practicellisfaith. Allen affirmedhisstaffsdecision,noting,çç-f' heinvestigationrevealscalendarsaretobe8% (inches 11 by)11Einches).Thecalendarjhatnrrivedinthemailforyouwas11(inchesbyj16 ginches). Therefore,itistmauthodzedm ailandyou w illnotbeallowed to have itin yourpossession.'' OncePlaintiffleftAllen'scustody atHCC,hereceived theJewish calendaratCW CC without issue.Plaintiffprovidedthe courtaphotocopy ofthe calendarfrom adifferentyear,and it appearsto m easure approximately 8''by 11''when closed. A jury couldfmdthatAllentreatedtheJewishcalendr differentlybyapplyingthesize restriction to itopen versusclosed like othercalendarsormatedals.9 Furthermore, Allen hasnot addressedwhethertlzisallegeddispadtyintreatmentcanbejustifiedasreasonable.Nonetheless, ajuty couldfindthat,interalia,Allennegligentlyinvestigatedthegrievmlceorsoughttoinsulate hisstaffserroneousinitialdecision withoutregard to Plaintiffsreligion. See.e.c.,M onison, 239F.3dat654(notingasuccessfulclaim mustestablishthattmequaltreatmentwastheresultof intentionalorpurposef' uldiscdmination).Accordingly,neitherPlaintiffnorAllenisentitledto summaryjudgmentforthisclaim . 4. Clarke,Robinson,Gilm ore,Hicks,and Gotlrdine Otherthan generally invoking thetenn discrim ination and alleginghedid notgetthe foodshewanted,Plaintifffailsto describehow Clarke,Robinson,Gilmore,Hicks,and Gourdine treated ilim diflkrentlythan a similarly situated inm ate.lndeed,heallegestheopposite- these defendantsdidnottreatltim differently and did notgivellim food notavailableto otherinm ates. BecausePlaintifffailsto dem onstratethathehasbeen treated differently from otherswith whom 9Defendantshavenotclarifiedwhetherthemaxi 'mum measurementsarewhen acalendarisopen orclosed, butareview ofothersize limitssupportsan inferencethatthemeasurementsareforcloseditems.Forexample,an addressbook islimitedto 5''by 8'..Ifthisdimensionwasforan openaddressbook,theoveralldimensionwouldbe either2.5,'by 8''or5''by 16' '.Itseemsmorelikely thatthe 5''by 8''limitisforaclosed addressbook. 12 heissim ilarly simated,Clarke,Robinson,Gilm ore,Hicks,and Gotzrdine areentitledto qualified immldnityandsllmmaryjudgmentfortheequalprotectionclaims. V. Plaintiffallegesin hism otion forcontem ptthatsom edefendantsand VD OC stafffailed tocomplywithmyOrdergrantinginparthismotion forapreliminaryinjunction.Defendants disputePlaintiffsassertions.Themotion forcontemptand a11otherm otionsarerefen' ed to United StatesM agistrateJudgeJoelC.Hoppeplzrsuantto28U.S.C.j636(b)(1).Heis designated to conductheadngs,including evidentiary hearings,ashe findsnecessary,and he shallfilehisproposedfindingsandrecommendationswhenrequiredby j636(b)(1)(B). W . Fortheforegoing reasons,Igrantin partand deny in pal'tDefendants'm otion for summaryjudgmentanddeny Plaintiff'smotionsforsllmmaryjudgment.PlaintiffsRI,UIPA claimsandrequestfordeclaratory andinjtmctivereliefaredismissedasmoot.Plaintiffsclaims underthe FreeExercise Clauseremain pending againstClarke,Robinson,Gilm ore,Hicks,and Gourdine,and hisclaimstmdertheEqualProtection Clauserem ain pending againstBowles, Long,and Allen.A11m otions,including Plaintiffsm otion forcontempt,arereferred to United StatesM agistrateJudgeJoelC.Hoppe. ExlxR:Thislt hdayofseptember,2018. eniorUrlited StatesD istdctJudge 13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
