Carmichael v. The GEO Group Inc. et al

Filing 53

ORDER ADOPTING 50 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING Defendant Marshall's 44 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/22/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

MICHAEL CARMICHAEL,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
M. AGUILAR, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv01913 LJO DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT MARSHALL’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Document 50)

16
17

Plaintiff Michael Carmichael (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on November 26, 2012. Pursuant to Court order, he

19

filed a First Amended Complaint on June 10, 2013. This action is proceeding on the following

20
21
22

claims: (1) violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Meyer, Pressley, Wilson and
Marshall; (2) violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA?)
against Defendants Aguilar, Meyer, Pressley, Wilson and Marshall; and (3) violation of the

23

Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Meyer, Pressley and Marshall.
24
25
26
27

On October 21, 2014, Defendant Marshall filed a motion for summary judgment. The
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 302.

28
1

1
2
3

On March 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that
Defendant Marshall’s motion be granted. The Findings and Recommendations were served on
Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections must be filed within thirty days.

4

Plaintiff filed objections on April 1, 2015. Defendant Marshall did not file a reply.

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
6
7
8
9

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s
objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and
by proper analysis.

10

The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s claims under section 1983 failed

11

because the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Defendant Marshall did not have any control

12

over Food Services or food policies. Therefore, while a Halal diet was ultimately implemented

13

in September 2013, Plaintiff could not demonstrate that Defendant Marshall had the ability to

14

change the food options provided by McFarland Community Correctional Facility (“MCCF”) in

15

the interim.

16
17
18

In his objections, Plaintiff suggests that Defendant Marshall has such authority because
he recommended that Plaintiff receive a vegetarian diet until a more permanent solution could be
reached. His ability to determine which diet an inmate should receive from the available options

19

does not mean that he has the ability to create a new option, as Plaintiff suggests he should have
20
21
22
23

done.
Turning to Plaintiff’s claim under RLUIPA, the Magistrate Judge again found that
Plaintiff could not adequately link Defendant Marshall to his claim. The Magistrate Judge also

24

determined that the only relief available under RLUIPA, injunctive relief, was moot because

25

Plaintiff began receiving a Halal diet in September 2013. In his objections, Plaintiff now

26

suggests that there is no Halal diet at MCCF. His argument, however, is related to the quality of

27
28
2

1
2
3
4

the diet, rather than the existence of a Halal diet option. Plaintiff’s action does not involve the
quality of the Halal diet, and he cannot expand his claims in opposing summary judgment.
Finally, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Defendant Marshall was
entitled to qualified immunity. The finding was based on the conclusion that a reasonable

5

official would not have believed it was unlawful to deny a Halal diet where such a diet was not
6
7
8
9

provided by the institution. Plaintiff now argues that Defendant Marshall knew that Plaintiff had
a legal right to a Halal diet and that he chose not to accommodate it. His argument does not
change the fact, though, that there was no such diet to offer at the time Plaintiff arrived at

10

MCCF. Defendant Marshall offered Plaintiff what he believed to be a reasonable alternative

11

until a more permanent solution could be determined. Under these facts, Defendant Marshall is

12

entitled to qualified immunity.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 4, 2015, are adopted in full;

15

2.

Defendant Marshall’s motion for summary judgment, filed on October 21, 2014

16
17
18
19
20
21

(Document 44) is GRANTED; and
3.

Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Marshall and he is terminated from this

action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

April 22, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3