Oram v. Linderman et al
Filing
118
ORDER, the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 72 , Defendants Linderman and Manning's Motion for Summary Judgment 99 , and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike 114 ; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 72 on Counts I and II and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike 114 are denied; Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 99 is granted, Counts I and II are dismissed with prejudice, and Defendants Linderman and Manning are dismissed. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 6/9/14. (REW)
1
2
SVK
WO
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Jimmy Oram,
10
11
12
13
No. CV-12-02450-PHX-FJM (BSB)
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
Mike Linderman, et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
Plaintiff Jimmy Oram, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Arizona Department
16
of Corrections (ADC), brought this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
17
Defendant Mike Linderman, Charles Manning, Wexford Health Services (Wexford), Dr.
18
Thomas Bell, and Cameron Lewis, Facility Health Administrator (FHA). (Doc. 41,
19
Second Amend. Compl. (SAC).)
20
remaining claims—Counts I through III.
21
Manning, who are Defendants in Counts I and II only, file a separate cross-motion for
22
summary judgment. (Doc. 99.) This Order addresses Counts I and II. Count III is
23
addressed in a separate order.
24
I.
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the
(Doc. 72.)
Defendants Linderman and
Background
25
In Count I, Plaintiff claims his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and his
26
rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) are
27
violated by Defendants Linderman and Manning’s policy of allowing religious groups to
28
meet on their own for no more than 60 minutes once per week. Plaintiff claims that this
1
policy substantially burdens the practice of his religion because it does not allow him to
2
complete his weekly prescribed observances.
3
In Count II, Plaintiff claims his First Amendment and RLUIPA rights were
4
violated when Linderman and Manning denied Plaintiff’s request for an adult-sized
5
prayer shawl.
6
II.
Governing Standards
7
A.
8
A court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
9
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
10
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23
11
(1986). The moving party bears the initial responsibility of presenting the basis for its
12
motion and identifying those portions of the record, together with affidavits, which it
13
believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323. If the
14
moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party
15
who must demonstrate the existence of a material factual. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
16
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
17
U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986).
18
Summary Judgment
B.
Religious Claims
19
“Inmates retain the protections afforded by the First Amendment, ‘including its
20
directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.’” Shakur v. Schriro, 514
21
F.3d 878, 883-84 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342,
22
348 (1987)). To implicate the Free Exercise Clause, a prisoner must show that the belief
23
at issue is both “sincerely held” and “rooted in religious belief.” Malik v. Brown, 16 F.3d
24
330, 333 (9th Cir. 1994). If the inmate makes his initial showing, he must establish that
25
prison officials substantially burden the practice of his religion by preventing him from
26
engaging in conduct which he sincerely believes is consistent with his faith. Shakur, 514
27
F.3d at 884-85.
28
-2-
1
A regulation that burdens the First Amendment right to free exercise may be
2
upheld only if it is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. Turner v.
3
Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). This determination requires analysis of four factors:
4
(1) there must be a valid, rational connection between the regulation and the legitimate
5
governmental interest; (2) whether there are alternative means of exercising the right; (3)
6
the impact the accommodation of the right will have on guards, other inmates, and the
7
allocation of prison resources; and (4) the absence of ready alternatives. Id. at 90.
8
The inmate bears the burden of establishing prima facie that RLUIPA has been
9
violated and that his religious exercise has been substantially burdened. Warsoldier, 418
10
F.3d at 994. The government then bears the burden of proving that the substantial burden
11
on the inmate’s religious practice both furthers a compelling governmental interest and is
12
the least restrictive means of doing so. Id. at 995 (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc-1(a),
13
2000cc-2(b)).
14
C.
Equal Protection
15
The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be
16
treated alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985);
17
Shakur, 514 F.3d at 891. An equal protection claim may be established by showing that
18
prison officials intentionally discriminated against a plaintiff based on his membership in
19
a protected class, Comm. Concerning Cmty. Imp. v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690,
20
702B03 (9th Cir. 2009), or that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated
21
differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose, Engquist v. Or.
22
Dept. of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 601B02 (2008).
23
In addition, an inmate “‘must set forth specific facts showing that there is a
24
genuine issue’ as to whether he was afforded a reasonable opportunity to pursue his faith
25
as compared to prisoners of other faiths” and that “officials intentionally acted in a
26
discriminatory manner.”
27
abrogated on other grounds by Shakur, 514 F.3d at 884-85. Taking from Turner, the
28
Court must consider whether “the difference between the defendants’ treatment of
Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 1997),
-3-
1
[Plaintiff] and their treatment of [other] inmates is ‘reasonably related to legitimate
2
penological interests.’” Shakur, 514 F.3d at 891.
3
III.
Preliminary Issues
4
A.
5
Damages are not available for official-capacity RLUIPA claims. Sossamon v.
6
Texas, --- U.S. ---, 131 S. Ct. 1651, 1663 (2011). In addition, this Court has consistently
7
held that damages are not available against Defendants sued in their individual capacity
8
under RLUIPA. See e.g., White v. Linderman, CV 11-8152-PCT-RCB (SPL) (Doc. 68);
9
Harris v. Schriro, 652 F. Supp. 2d 1024, 1030 (D. Ariz. 2009); Abdullah v. Schriro, CV
No Damages under RLUIPA
10
08-0255-TUC-CKJ.
11
observed that four other circuit courts have held that RLUIPA does not provide for
12
damage claims against prison officials. Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, 639
13
F.3d 916, 922 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011). Other district courts within this Circuit have also
14
found that RLUIPA does not provide for individual-capacity damage claims. See, e.g.,
15
Florer v. Bales- Johnson, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1205-1206 (W.D. Wash. 2010); Parks v.
16
Brooks, 2010 WL 5186071, at *1-2 (D. Nev. 2010); Sokolsky v. Voss, 2010 WL 2991522,
17
at *2-4 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (damages are also not available on official-capacity claims).
18
19
Although the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on the issue, it has
Because damages under RLUIPA are not available as a matter of law, claims for
damages under RLUIPA are dismissed.
20
B.
21
An action against a state official in his official capacity is not an action against the
22
official but rather is an action against the official’s office, so damages are unavailable.
23
Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Therefore, the Eleventh
24
Amendment bars damages actions against state officials in their official capacity. Flint v.
25
Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir. 2007). Official-capacity damage claims for
26
First Amendment violations will be dismissed.
27
IV.
28
No Damages for First Amendment Official-Capacity Claims
Count I
A.
Background Facts
-4-
1
Plaintiff asserts that he is a gentile practitioner of Torah Observant Messianic
2
Judaism (TOMJ). (PSOF ¶ 6.) He contends that one of the core tenets is observance of
3
the Sabbath (Shabbat), which begins on Friday at sunset and ends on Saturday at sunset.
4
(Id. ¶ 8.) He claims that the Friday evening observance consists of about 25 prayers and
5
blessings and lasts 60-90 minutes and the Saturday morning observance involves prayers
6
and blessings, readings from the Bible, and discussion by the congregation, all of which
7
lasts up to 4 hours. (Id.) In his SAC, Plaintiff alleged that Shabbat also includes an
8
evening convocation known as Ma’arn. (Doc. 41 at 5.) Religious services for TOMJ are
9
currently limited to 60 minutes. (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff argues that Native Americans are
10
permitted Sweat Lodge ceremonies that are 3 to 4 hours long because they cannot
11
complete the ceremony in only 60 minutes. (PSOF ¶ 10.)
12
Defendants assert that ADC incarcerates over 40,000 prisoners in ten prison
13
complexes throughout Arizona, as well as in private and contracted facilities. (DSOF ¶
14
52.) The current ADC inmate population represents over forty different religions as
15
declared by the inmates. (Id. ¶ 55.) Department Order (DO) 904: Inmate Religious
16
Activities/Marriage Requests governs inmate religious practice. (Id. ¶ 54.)
17
The current policy for religious services provides that when no volunteer is
18
assisting or conducting services, services are scheduled for 60 minutes. (Id. ¶ 74.) The
19
60-minute time limit was established before Linderman and Manning became employed
20
by the ADC. (Id. ¶ 75, Manning Decl. ¶ 17, Linderman Decl. ¶¶ 33, 48.) The Defendants
21
are not aware of the specific considerations that went into making the decision to limit
22
the time to an hour. (Manning Decl. ¶ 17, Linderman Decl. ¶ 48.)
23
Multi-faith gatherings are generally held once a week at each institutional unit, as
24
arranged through the Chaplain in consultation with the Warden, Deputy Warden, or Chief
25
of security. (DSOF ¶ 77.) Multi-faith services are scheduled for 60 minutes. (Id. ¶ 8.)
26
Multi-faith gatherings are for religious groups that do not have identified volunteer
27
leadership, that are not already scheduled for weekly ceremonies, and that have a
28
sufficient number of inmates requesting group ceremonies. (DSOF ¶ 78.) Inmates
-5-
1
practicing a religion that does not have a volunteer are generally required to have their
2
services during the Multi-faith services. (Id. ¶ 79.) An exception is made for the Jewish
3
and Messianic Jewish inmates to observe Shabbat because Shabbat is observed on Friday
4
evenings. (Id.)
5
In his SAC, Plaintiff seeks 3 hours to conduct Shabbat services on Friday. In a
6
grievance, he proposed a 1-hour Friday observance and 2 hours Saturday to study in the
7
dayroom. (Doc. PSOF ¶¶ 15-17, Ex. 7 (Doc. 75-6).) He further asserts that another
8
alternative would be to allow 90 minutes on Friday evenings and then use the prison
9
closed circuit television system to show Messianic Shabbat/Holiday studies that Plaintiff
10
11
and others can watch from their assigned living areas. (Doc. 105 ¶ 99.)
B.
12
Free Exercise Analysis
1.
Sincerely Held Belief and Substantial burden
13
Defendants do not assert that Plaintiff does not have a sincerely held belief in
14
Shabbat services. But Plaintiff must demonstrate that Defendants substantially burden
15
the practice of his religion by preventing him from participating in 3-hour Shabbat
16
services on Friday. Shakur, 514 F.3d at 884-85. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed
17
to carry his burden.
18
RLUIPA does not define “substantial burden.” A substantial burden exists where
19
the state “put[s] substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate
20
his beliefs.”
21
behavior may be indirect, “the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless
22
substantial.” Id. at 718. In Warsoldier, the inmate challenged a grooming policy that
23
forced him to choose between cutting his beard and being punished for violating the
24
grooming policy.
25
intentionally puts significant pressure on inmates such as Warsoldier to abandon their
26
religious beliefs by cutting their hair, CDC’s grooming policy imposes a substantial
27
burden on Warsoldier’s religious practice.” Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 996.
28
Thomas, 450 U.S. at 717-18. Even where the compulsion to modify
The Ninth Circuit held that “[b]ecause the grooming policy
In addition, a substantial burden exists where government conduct “impose[s] a
-6-
1
significantly great restriction or onus upon [religious] exercise.” Id. at 995–96. In other
2
words, “[t]he burden must be more than a mere inconvenience, and must prevent the
3
plaintiff from engaging in [religious] conduct or having a religious experience[.]”
4
Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., 479 F.3d 1024, 1033 (9th Cir. 2007).
5
The present case is distinguishable from Warsoldier—Plaintiff does not claim that
6
he is being threatened with disciplinary action or denied benefits. And it is undisputed
7
that the ADC policy does not operate as an outright ban on congregate services for those
8
practicing TOMJ—they are permitted weekly 60-minute periods for observance on
9
Friday evening. Thus, the issue is whether the time limitation restriction creates a
10
significantly great restriction or onus upon Plaintiff’s religious practice, is more than a
11
mere inconvenience, and prevents Plaintiff from engaging in religious conduct or having
12
a religious experience.
13
Plaintiff alleges that those unable to perform the Friday evening and Saturday
14
morning observances in the manner described by him are deprived of the “rich spiritual
15
lessons and experiences” and “forced to violate God’s commandments concerning
16
Shabbat” and that those “who do not observe Shabbat are spiritually cut off from the
17
commonwealth of Israel and the body of Yeshua.” (PSOF ¶ 9.)
18
But Plaintiff’s SAC seeks 3 hours for services on Friday; he seeks nothing for
19
Saturday morning or Saturday evening. Elsewhere, he suggests 1 hour on Friday and 2
20
hours on Saturday in the dayroom, or 90 minutes on Friday and access to the prison
21
closed circuit television system to show Messianic Shabbat/Holiday studies that Plaintiff
22
and others can watch from their assigned living areas. Plaintiff’s inconsistent positions
23
regarding what would be satisfactory undermine his claim that he is substantially
24
burdened by refusal to provide a 3-hour time period for services on Friday. The 3-hour
25
period on Friday without any time on Saturday is itself inconsistent with his claim that he
26
must engage in certain activities on Saturday. None of his alternatives seek 2 meetings
27
on Saturdays, which Plaintiff asserted in his SAC was a requirement of Shabbat. And
28
one of his alternatives suggests 1 hour on Fridays, which is what the policy now provides.
-7-
1
Plaintiff’s varying and inconsistent alternatives show that he is not so burdened by
2
denial of a 3-hour Shabbat service on Friday as to pressure him to abandon his beliefs,
3
and he is plainly not prevented from engaging in religious conduct or having a religious
4
experience, even as to Shabbat observances. The policy providing for weekly 60-minute
5
services rather than 3-hour services is an inconvenience, not a substantial burden.
6
Finally, the Court need only consider the request for 3-hour Shabbat services on
7
Friday as that is the only request made in the SAC. See Pickern v. Pier 1 Imps., Inc., 457
8
F.3d 963, 968-69 (9th Cir. 2006).
9
3.
RLUIPA
10
Alternatively, even if there is a triable issue of fact as to a substantial burden, the
11
Court finds that Defendants establish a compelling interest in denying 3-hour weekly
12
Shabbat services, that the present 60-minute time limitation is the least restrictive means
13
of meeting its compelling interest, and that no injunctive relief is available from either
14
Defendant.
15
a.
Evidentiary Objections
16
Regarding population, security, and space issues, Defendants offer the declarations
17
of Chris Moody, currently the Warden at ASPC-Lewis, and Carson McWilliams, ADC
18
Northern Regions Operations Director. (Doc. 100, Exs. 3, 5) Plaintiff objects to many
19
assertions in these declarations, arguing that they are argument, hearsay, conclusions,
20
speculations and unsupported because Moody and McWilliams are administrators and do
21
not describe experience with security. (Doc. 105 ¶¶ 93-97.) Moody and McWilliams
22
submit supplemental declarations, and Plaintiff moves to strike them. (Docs. 113, 114.)
23
The Court overrules Plaintiff’s general objections to the declarations of Moody
24
and McWilliams; Plaintiff’s assertion that administrators are not qualified to testify
25
regarding security is without merit as it relates to these declarants. Although declarations
26
must be made with personal knowledge, a court can infer personal knowledge and
27
competence to testify from the declarations themselves. See Lockwood v. Wolf Corp.,
28
629 F.2d 603, 611 (9th Cir. 1980); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
-8-
1
Here, Moody is an ADC Warden and former ADC Deputy Warden of Operations
2
and McWilliams is an ADC Division Director of Operations and a former ADC Warden.
3
The Court can infer from their positions their knowledge of security issues at ADC. In
4
addition, the supplemental declarations make clear that these declarants have extensive
5
personal knowledge of ADC security matters. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is denied.
6
b.
Compelling Interest and Least Restrictive Means
7
It is beyond dispute that security in a prison is a compelling government interest.
8
Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 998. Defendants’ evidence also demonstrates that based on
9
security and space considerations, Defendants’ 60-minute policy is the least restrictive
10
means of meeting compelling government interests.
11
Defendants contend that extending religious services to three hours without a
12
volunteer presents a significant security concern because it would either leave inmates
13
largely unsupervised for extended periods of time or require staff to be taken away from
14
their regular duties to supervise the inmates. (DSOF ¶ 93, Moody at ¶ 6; McWilliams at
15
¶ 6.) A volunteer leading a service provides a degree of supervision. (Id.)
16
As to the time allotted for Sweat Lodge ceremonies, Defendants acknowledge that
17
the ceremonies are conducted over a 3- to 4-hour period; but it is undisputed that the
18
inmates are only in the lodge for 15 to 20 minutes at a time before they are required to
19
take a break of 10 to 15 minutes before re-entering for 4 or 5 rounds. (Id. ¶ 82, 102.) In
20
addition, Sweat Lodge ceremonies are only conducted when there is wood available for
21
the inmates to use and when security considerations, such as staffing levels, allow. The
22
last Sweat Lodge ceremony that was held at ASPC-Lewis was on October 24, 2013. (Id.
23
¶¶ 83, 85.) When Native American inmates are not able to participate in a Sweat Lodge
24
ceremony, they are able to attend multi-faith services and participate in a Talking Circle
25
and are limited to 60-minute services. (Id. ¶¶ 87-88.)
26
Defendants contend that the location of the Sweat Lodges versus other religious
27
ceremonies is relevant to both security and space issues. The undisputed evidence shows
28
that Sweat Lodges have limited access as well as high visibility. (DSOF ¶¶ 101-104;
-9-
1
PSOF2 ¶¶ 101-104.) They are located in separate, specifically designated locations.
2
(DSOF ¶ 104, Moody Decl. ¶ 8, McWilliams Decl. ¶ 12.) They are in areas where they
3
are visible to staff on the unit at all times, and security staff is able to conduct checks of
4
the area in the course of their regular duties. (DSOF ¶ 103, Moody at ¶ 7; McWilliams at
5
¶ 11.) Based on the forgoing, Defendants contend that it more difficult for inmates to
6
smuggle weapons or other unauthorized items into Sweat Lodges. (DSOF ¶ 103.)
7
In contrast, the rooms where Multi-faith gatherings are held are also used for other
8
activities such as visitation and education; these rooms are accessible to a wider range of
9
inmates and non-inmates on a much more frequent basis than the Sweat Lodges. (DSOF
10
¶ 95.) Therefore, these areas must be checked regularly; extending services would
11
require additional checks. Depending on the custody level, security staff will either have
12
to be stationed there the entire time it is in use or will have to check it periodically.
13
(DSOF ¶ 96, McWilliams Decl. ¶ 7.)
14
Defendants assert that if religious services were extended to weekly, 3-hour
15
services, with its current staffing levels, ASPC-Lewis would be unable to accommodate
16
them. (DSOF ¶ 99, Moody at ¶ 12.) Moreover, Defendants contend, and Plaintiff does
17
not dispute, that space is an issue because there are only so many areas in each given unit
18
where religious ceremonies can be held. (DSOF ¶ 100, McWilliams at ¶ 9; Moody at ¶
19
9.) The longer each religious service, the less space and time is available for other
20
activities. (DSOF ¶ 99, Moody at ¶ 12.) There would also be significant scheduling
21
conflicts due to the mixed use purpose of most of the rooms that would have to be used
22
and increased security measures such as more frequent checks would have to be instituted
23
and would strain the resources of the prison. (Id.)
24
The Court finds that Defendants have carried their burden to demonstrate
25
compelling interests in limiting Shabbat services to 60-minutes on Friday evenings and
26
that prison official considered other alternatives such as extending the services and using
27
other spaces but that the current policy is the least restrictive means of furthering the
28
compelling interests.
- 10 -
1
2
3
4.
Turner First Amendment Analysis
As noted, Plaintiff fails to show that the policy substantially burdens the practice
of his religion. But even if it does, the policy is constitutional under the Turner test.
4
a.
Constitutional Violation
5
The first Turner factor requires a valid, rational connection between the regulation
6
and the legitimate governmental interest. Turner, 482 U.S. at 89. The Court finds that
7
the ADC policy is rationally connected to a legitimate need to maintain secure and
8
orderly prison operations in a fiscally-responsible manner while at the same time
9
accommodating the needs of thousands of prisoners for religious services. Symington,
10
197 F.3d 348, 355 (9th Cir. 1999) (“as long as it is plausible that prison officials believed
11
the policy would further a legitimate objective, the governmental defendant should
12
prevail on Turner’s first prong”). The Court also finds that the different time limit for
13
Sweat Lodges is rationally connected to legitimate penolgical interests because inmates
14
must leave and return to Sweat Lodges over a period of time, few Sweat Lodges are
15
actually held, and Native American inmates are limited to the same 60-minutes for their
16
Talking Circles.
17
As to the second Turner factor—whether there are alternative means of exercising
18
the right that remain open to inmates, the relevant inquiry “is not whether the inmate has
19
an alternative means of engaging in a particular religious practice that he or she claims is
20
being affected; rather [the court is] to determine whether the inmate has been denied all
21
means of religious expression.” Ward v. Walsh, 1 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 1993). The
22
lack of a 3-hour time period for Shabbat services has not denied Plaintiff all means of
23
religious expression; in fact, he is able to participate in weekly Shabbat observances. He
24
can also possess printed religious material and pray and study on his own. (DSOF ¶ 89.)
25
The Court finds that Defendants demonstrate that permitting 3-hour Shabbat
26
services would have a substantial burden on the prison due to staff resources needed for
27
security and due to space considerations. The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s SAC does
28
not pose a ready alternative to the policy.
- 11 -
1
b.
Qualified Immunity
2
Even if Plaintiff can demonstrate a constitutional violation under Turner, the Court
3
finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment damage
4
claim.
5
Here, ADC policy provides for 60-minute religious services for all faith groups
6
not led by a volunteer and who meet in a room not designated solely for that purpose.
7
Plaintiff does not demonstrate a clearly-established right to longer services for his
8
religious group, which meets in a space not designated solely for that purpose.
9
Moreover, “[t]he qualified immunity standard gives ample room for mistaken
10
judgments.” Dunn, 621 F.3d at 1204-05. The record establishes that the restriction on
11
Shabbat services to 60 minutes was not made arbitrarily or irrationally. See Overton v.
12
Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 137 (2003).
13
C.
14
As noted, to show a violation under the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff must
15
demonstrate that the defendant acted with a discriminatory intent or purpose that was
16
based upon the plaintiff=s membership in a protected class, Serrano, 345 F.3d at 1082,
17
and he “‘must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue’ as to whether
18
he was afforded a reasonable opportunity to pursue his faith as compared to prisoners of
19
other faiths” and that “officials intentionally acted in a discriminatory manner.”
20
Freeman, 125 F.3d at 737.
Equal Protection
21
The equal protection claim relates to the additional time permitted for Sweat
22
Lodge ceremonies. Plaintiff fails to create a triable issue of fact regarding this claim.
23
Prison officials are not required to provide identical facilities or services for different
24
religious faiths; rather, they must make a good faith accommodation of rights in light of
25
practical considerations.
26
McReaken v. Schriro is misplaced. (Doc. 104 at 21-22, citing McReaken, 2011 WL
27
1988077 (D. Ariz. May 23, 2011).) The district court in McReaken found there was no
28
question that Native American Sweat Lodges were treated differently than other religious
See Freeman, 125 F. 2d at 737.
- 12 -
Plaintiff’s reliance on
1
services but also found the policy differences were reasonably related to legitimate
2
penological concerns. McReaken, at 2011 WL 1988077, *3-5.
3
Likewise, in the present case, the same Turner analysis that requires rejection of
4
the free-exercise claim, requires rejection of the equal protection claim. The legitimate
5
interests of security and space justify the 60-minute limitation on Shabbat services. In
6
addition, for the reasons discussed in the free exercise claim analysis, the Court finds that
7
Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity regarding damage claim for any violation
8
of equal protection.
9
D.
Linderman and Manning
10
The Court has already determined that Plaintiff cannot sue Defendants for
11
damages in their individual capacities. His only claim is against each Defendant in his
12
official capacity for injunctive relief.
13
concerns justify ADC’s limitation on the time for group services and that these
14
Defendants have no authority to act with regard to these concerns such that they could
15
provide the relief sought.
The evidence shows that security and space
16
Defendants claim they were not involved in decisions regarding the time-
17
restriction policies. (DSOF ¶ 67, Manning Decl. ¶ 11; Linderman Decl. ¶ 18.) But the
18
issue here is not Defendants’ personal responsibility for the alleged RLUIPA violation,
19
but whether their duties and responsibilities are such that, if Plaintiff prevails, they have
20
the authority to grant him relief. See Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, n. 12 (9th Cir
21
2004); Sebra v. Neville, 801 F.2d 1135, 1039 (9th Cir. 1986) (lack of authority to order
22
the requested transfer precludes the plaintiff from obtaining injunctive relief against the
23
defendant).
24
Plaintiff asserts that he and his fellow congregants “have asked security and the
25
chaplaincy for more time” for services and that “[s]ecurity had no objections, but left it
26
up to the chaplaincy.” (PSOF ¶ 2.) This is inadmissible hearsay because Plaintiff fails to
27
identify who “security” is.
28
Administrator of Pastoral Services.
The undisputed evidence shows that Linderman is the
The ADC policy regarding religious worship
- 13 -
1
provides that activities are based on several factors, including space and time
2
considerations and safety and security issues. (Doc. 100, Linderman Decl., Attach. C,
3
DO 904.03 § 1.5.2.) Defendants assert that Linderman does not have the authority to
4
overrule decisions based on security consideration.
5
disputes this based on Linderman’s general duty to make recommendations to the
6
Division Director. (PSOF ¶ 2.) But even a duty to make recommendations would not
7
give Linderman the authority to overrule decisions made on security.
(DSOF ¶¶ 134-135.)
Plaintiff
8
As to Manning, Defendants argue that the claims appear to be based on Plaintiff’s
9
mistaken assumption that Manning is the “Division Director for Support Services” and
10
his duties therefore include “approving or denying policies relative to religious practices
11
and observances.” (Doc. 99 at 18; ref. Doc. 73 ¶ 3.) In fact, Manning is the Program
12
Systems Administrator and has never held the position or filled the role of Division
13
Director.
14
authority to approve or deny policies related to religious practices. (DSOF ¶ 134; PSOF ¶
15
134.) That kind of policy change would have to be effected at the Director’s level in
16
conjunction with the Offender Operations Division. (Id.) The Court overrules Plaintiff’s
17
objection based on hearsay. (See PSOF2 ¶ 136.)
(DSOF ¶¶ 48-49.)
Plaintiff provides no evidence that Manning has the
18
The Court has found that the evidence shows that the 60-minute limitation is a
19
function of security and space issues and that there is no evidence that either Defendant
20
has authority to change religious policy insofar as that policy is determined by security
21
and space concerns.
22
In sum, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the
23
claims regarding the length of the Shabbat service and grant summary judgment to
24
Defendants.
25
V.
Count II
26
A.
27
Plaintiff asserts that one of the core observances of TOMJ is the adorning of a
28
shawl. (PSOF ¶ 22.) He contends that a shawl must be large enough to cover the head
Background Facts
- 14 -
1
and torso and have tassels 9″-10″ that extend below the waist. Plaintiff seeks a shawl
2
measuring 72″ by 22″, while the shawl authorized by ADC policy is 60″ by 20″. (Id. ¶¶
3
25; DSOF ¶ 25.)
4
Plaintiff submitted an Inmate Grievance regarding the purchase of his shawl,
5
claiming that the current size restriction of 60″ by 20″ was unrealistic, and that his family
6
did an internet search and stated there was no such size available. (DSOF ¶ 146.)
7
Linderman responded and advised that Plaintiff could request a larger size through the
8
purchase process based upon lack of availability, but that he had located smaller shawls
9
through an internet search. (DSOF ¶ 148.) Linderman also advised that Christian Book
10
Distributors, the same source that Plaintiff referred to as not having a smaller shawl, had
11
one that was 63″ by 15″, and that while it exceeded the currently approved dimensions, it
12
had a better chance of being approved than a 6-foot shawl. (DSOF ¶ 150.)
13
Plaintiff appealed and the Director advised that shorter prayer shawls were
14
available from a number of sources and provided a list of the sources. (DSOF ¶¶ 154,
15
156-157.))
16
In August 2012, Linderman received a letter from Plaintiff stating that he was
17
unable to find a shawl that met the size requirements. (DSOF 158) Linderman advised
18
that there were shawls available in the approved size and that they could be found under
19
listings for children or youth. (DSOF ¶ 159.) A non-exhaustive search of the websites
20
resulted in finding seven styles of shawls that come in sizes within the approved
21
dimensions. (DSOF ¶ 160.) Rabbis from both Orthodox and Messianic Judaism have
22
advised that there is no size restriction or requirement for a prayer shawl, and that any
23
designation of “child-sized” or “youth” is a sales designation, not a religious designation.
24
(DSOF ¶ 167.)
25
Defendants argue that the only complaint Plaintiff made with respect to the current
26
size limitation on prayer shawls is that he was unable to find one within the approved
27
dimensions. (DSOF ¶¶ 142, 144, 146, 152, 154, 158, 161.)
28
B.
Religious Claims Analysis
- 15 -
1
1.
Sincerely Held Belief and Substantial Burden
2
As with the prior claim, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to carry his burden that
3
Defendants substantially burden the practice of his religion by limiting the size of the
4
permissible shawl to 60″ by 20″ rather than 72″ by 22″. See Shakur, 514 F.3d at 884-85.
5
It appears from Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment that he is now claiming
6
only that Defendants do not permit him to possess a larger shawl and that the 60″ by 20″
7
limitation is not valid. (Doc. 72 at 8.) He does not assert that he is unable to purchase a
8
shawl within the required dimensions.1
9
Because the restriction on the size of the shawl does not result in imposition of a
10
penalty, such as discipline or denial of benefits, compare with Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at
11
996, and it is undisputed that ADC does not impose an outright ban on possessing a
12
shawl, compare with Greene, 513 F.3d at 988, the issue is whether the size limitation
13
creates a significantly great restriction or onus upon Plaintiff’s religious practice, is more
14
than a mere inconvenience, or prevents Plaintiff from engaging in religious conduct or
15
having a religious experience.
16
Plaintiff asserts that wearing the shawl is a core observance of TOMJ and that it
17
must be large enough to cover the head and torso and have tassels 9″-10″ that extend
18
below the waist. But the policy permits Plaintiff to wear a shawl, and it is clear to the
19
Court that a 60" shawl will cover the head and most if not all of the torso. Although the
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Defendants are correct that Plaintiff did not actually assert in his initial grievance
documents that the approved size is too small or complain that the approved size is for
children. The Court has already determined, however, that Plaintiff exhausted his
administrative remedies on this claim. (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff initially complains only that
72″ by 22″ is the smallest he can find. (Doc. 100, Ex. G, Inmate Letter dated 7/25/2011,
Inmate Letter dated 8/15/2100, Inmate Grievance dated 8/25/2011 (Docs. 100-1 at 126,
123, 116).) In his in Grievance Appeal, he complains that the shawl identified by
Kingsland is for a bar mitzvah and not ceremonially appropriate for an adult and that
another shawl does not have tassels; the final Grievance Appeal to the Director does not
complain that the approved size is inappropriate. (Id., Inmate Grievance Appeal dated
10/12/2011, Inmate Grievance Appeal dated 10/21/11(Docs. 100-1 at 114, 110).)
- 16 -
1
tassels may not extend below Plaintiff’s waist, Plaintiff fails to explain how that will
2
substantially burden the practice of his religion. As noted, Plaintiff’s grievance
3
documents complain only once about an inappropriate size; he never claims that the
4
shawl must cover his head and torso and have fringe extending below his waist.
5
Plaintiff’s literature regarding the wearing of the shawl makes no reference to its size.
6
Plaintiff does not claim that he is unable to purchase a shawl within the approved
7
size. The Court finds that the policy does not pressure Plaintiff to abandon his beliefs
8
and he is not prevented from engaging in religious conduct or having a religious
9
experience, including the wearing of a shawl. The size limitation is an inconvenience,
10
not a substantial burden.
11
2.
Qualified Immunity
12
The Court also finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to the
13
First Amendment damage claim regarding the size of the approved shawl. Plaintiff does
14
not demonstrate a clearly-established right to a larger one, and even if there was a
15
constitutional violation, “[t]he qualified immunity standard gives ample room for
16
mistaken judgments.” Dunn, 621 F.3d at 1204-05
17
IT IS ORDERED:
18
(1)
The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Motion
19
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72), Defendants Linderman and Manning’s Motion for
20
Summary Judgment (Doc. 99), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 114).
21
22
(2)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72) on Counts I and II and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 114) are denied.
23
(3)
24
…
25
…
26
…
27
…
28
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 99) is granted, Counts I
…
- 17 -
1
and II are dismissed with prejudice, and Defendants Linderman and Manning are
2
dismissed.
3
Dated this 9th day of June, 2014.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 18 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?