Garcia v. Clark, et al.

Filing 53

ORDER Adopting 40 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and GRANTING Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by Senior Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 9/22/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8 WILLIAM P. GARCIA,

1:10-CV-00447-OWW-DLB PC

9

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
KEN CLARK, et al.,
12

(DOC. 40)
Defendants.

13
14

/

15
16

Plaintiff William P. Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the

17 custody

of

the

California

Department

of

Corrections

and

18 Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), proceeding pro se in this civil rights
19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

This action is proceeding on

20 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants K. Allison,
21 F. Diaz, D. Ibarra, S. Knight, C. Palmer, R. Santos, R. Tolson, K.
22 Turner, and C. Walters for violation of the First Amendment, the
23 Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the
24 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
25 (“RLUIPA”).

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for

26 preliminary injunction, filed May 5, 2010.

Doc. 8. The matter was

27 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
28 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
1

1

On July 8, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

2 Recommendations which was served on the parties and which contained
3 notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and
4 Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days.

Doc. 40.

On

5 August 15, 2011, Defendants filed an Objection to the Findings and
6 Recommendations.

Doc. 44.

On August 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

7 Reply to Defendants’ Objection.
8

Doc. 50.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

9 this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case.

Having

10 carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court will adopt the
11 Findings and Recommendations, and provides the following additional
12 analysis.
13
14 with

The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff be provided
Kosher

15 prisoners.
16 Kosher

food

meals

as

provided

for

other

similarly

situated

Defendants contend that Plaintiff is receiving proper
as

a

part

17 Objections 4, Doc. 44.

of

the

Kosher

meal

program.

Defs.’

Plaintiff contends that the meals are not

18 Kosher because they are contaminated with foreign objects, on a
19 dirty cart, and with other people’s food on it.

Pl.’s Reply 3-4,

20 Doc. 50. Nevertheless, Plaintiff does not dispute he receives food
21 from the Kosher meal program at CDCR.

However, Plaintiff further

22 contends that certain Defendants took away his Kosher food right
23 from his hands. Pl.’s Reply 11-12, Doc. 50. Plaintiff’s religious
24 dietary needs would not be met, even if he is on the Kosher food
25 program, if he does not receive his food.

See McElyea v. Babbitt,

26 833 F.2d 196, 198 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (holding under the
27 First Amendment, “[i]nmates . . . have the right to be provided
28 with food sufficient to sustain them in good health that satisfies
2

1 the dietary laws of their religion”).
2

Plaintiff also contends that Defendants do not provide a place

3 for Plaintiff to wash, pray, and stand and face east before his
4 breakfast meal.

Pl.’s Mot. 2, Doc. 8.

Defendants contend that

5 Plaintiff may perform his religious duties prior to eating his
6 breakfast in the dining hall, citing a declaration from Rabbi
7 Moskovitz.

Defs.’ Objections, Moskovitz Decl. ¶ 3.

However,

8 Plaintiff contends that he is religiously required to pray out loud
9 before he eats his meal, and to purify himself and his eating area.
10 Pl.’s

Reply

4-6.

Defendants’

reliance

on

Rabbi

Moskowitz’s

11 declaration is unavailing. The Court does not make determinations
12 as to what is necessary for the exercise of a person’s religion.
13 See Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008) (for
14 the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to apply, the
15 prisoner’s belief must be sincerely held and rooted in religious
16 belief);

see

also

42

U.S.C.

§

2000cc-5(7)(A)

(under

RLUIPA,

17 “religious exercise” includes “any exercise of religion, whether or
18 not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”);
19 Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2005) (under
20 RLUIPA, “substantial burden” is one that imposes a significantly
21 great restriction or onus” upon a prisoner’s exercise of religion)
22 (citation omitted).
23

Based on the record before the Court, Plaintiff has met the

24 requirements for receiving a preliminary injunction. It is unclear
25 whether Defendants will have to substantially change any of their
26 procedures.

Defendants contend, for example, that Plaintiff may

27 ritually wash himself using a small cup of water.

Plaintiff does

28 not

loud

appear

to

be

prohibited

from
3

praying

out

over

his

1 breakfast meal.

Plaintiff also does not appear to have these

2 problems during the lunch and dinner meals.1
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

5
6

adopted as stated herein;
2.

7
8

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, filed May
5, 2010, is granted as stated herein;

3.

9
10

The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 8, 2011, is

Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with the Kosher meals
that are provided other similarly situated prisoners; and

4.

Defendants are to provide Plaintiff with a means for

11

Plaintiff to pray and to perform his religious duties,

12

prior to, during, and/or after the breakfast meal.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 Dated:
September 22, 2011
emm0d6
15

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

The Court will dispense with the security requirement for
Plaintiff. Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113,
28 1126 (9th Cir. 2005).
4
27