Sokolsky v. State of California et al

Filing 77

ORDER Clarifying Plaintiff's Claims and Permitting Further Briefing on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/28/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK S. SOKOLSKY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15

1:13-cv-02044-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER CLARIFYING PLAINTIFF’S
CLAIMS AND PERMITTING FURTHER
BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 61.)

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on December 16, 2013.

20

(ECF No. 1.) On September 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint as a matter

21

of course. (ECF No. 9.) On July 27, 2015, the court issued an order finding cognizable claims

22

in the First Amended Complaint and requiring Plaintiff to either notify the court of his

23

willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims, or file a Second Amended Complaint.

24

(ECF No. 16.) On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff notified the court that he wished to proceed only

25

with the claims found cognizable by the court, namely: (1) free exercise of religion claims

26

under the First Amendment and RLUIPA against defendants Domrese, Coyne, King, Meek,

27

Porter, and Bonsu, and (2) substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment

28

against defendants Domrese, King, Porter, and Bonsu, “for their alleged failure to provide
1

1

medically appropriate food with respect to his CVID condition,” labeled a condition of

2

confinement claim. (ECF No. 15.) The court then issued orders dismissing all other claims

3

and defendants from this action and initiating service of process by the United States Marshal.

4

(ECF Nos. 18, 20.)

5

On January 14, 2016, Plaintiff requested leave to amend the complaint to substitute the

6

correct names of Defendants being sued in their official capacities. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff

7

submitted a proposed Second Amended Complaint in which the names of the Defendants had

8

been updated. (ECF No. 29.) On February 5, 2016, the court granted Plaintiff leave to file the

9

Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 29.)

10

On December 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 61.)

11

On December 8, 2014, defendants Coyne, King, Meek, Porter, and Bonsu (“Defendants”) filed

12

an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 65.) On March 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a reply to the

13

opposition. (ECF No. 67.)

14

II.

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AT ISSUE

15

In their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Defendants request

16

clarification of the factual and legal allegations which Plaintiff is allowed to explore in his

17

motion for summary judgment and further proceedings in this action. Defendants correctly

18

state that on September 14, 2015, the court allowed Plaintiff to proceed with the First Amended

19

Complaint with only certain claims and defendants. Defendants also correctly note that the

20

Second Amended Complaint includes claims that were dismissed by the court on September

21

14, 2015.

22

This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on February

23

4, 2016. (ECF No. 30.) In addition, Plaintiff’s claims and defendants dismissed from this

24

action on September 14, 2015, remain dismissed. (ECF No. 18.) Thus, the case now proceeds

25

only with the claims found cognizable by the court, namely: (1) free exercise of religion claims

26

under the First Amendment and RLUIPA against defendants Domrese, Coyne, King, Meek,

27

Porter, and Bonsu, and (2) substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment

28

against defendants Domrese, King, Porter, and Bonsu, “for their alleged failure to provide
2

1

medically appropriate food with respect to his CVID condition,” labeled a condition of

2

confinement claim.1

3

Additionally in their opposition, Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s claims concerning

4

Kosher foods using only First Amendment standards, and opposed Plaintiff’s claims

5

concerning Jewish celebrations and observances using only RLUIPA standards. In explanation

6

of this division in their analysis, Defendants assert that in the SAC Plaintiff does not specify

7

what law he claims was violated by any particular fact pattern, but in the motion for summary

8

judgment, Plaintiff alleges that his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was

9

violated when he was not provided a proper Kosher diet, while his religious exercise rights

10

under RLUIPA were violated when he was not allowed to fully participate in particular

11

religious obligations. The court does not find such a clear division of law used by Plaintiff in

12

the motion for summary judgment and nevertheless, the court turns to Plaintiff’s SAC and the

13

court’s screening orders to determine Plaintiff’s claims. The SAC does not specify that one law

14

or the other, First Amendment or RLUIPA, applies to particular allegations. Therefore, the

15

court shall consider both laws as they apply to all of Plaintiff’s free exercise allegations,

16

whether they concern Kosher foods or Jewish holidays and observances.

17

Due to this clarification of Plaintiff’s claims, Defendants shall be granted sixty days to

18

submit additional briefing in response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, addressing

19

the First Amendment and RLUIPA with respect to all of Plaintiff’s free exercise allegations.

20

Plaintiff may then file a reply to Defendants’ briefing, should they file one, within thirty days

21

of the date of filing of their briefing.

22

III.

CONCLUSION

23

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1.

25

This case now proceeds with the Second Amended Complaint filed on February
4, 2016, on the following claims and defendants: (1) free exercise of religion

26
27
28

1

The court’s February 5, 2016, order permitted Plaintiff to file the Second Amended Complaint
only for the purpose of substituting the proper parties’ names as defendants. As the order states, “Plaintiff has
submitted a Second Amended Complaint in which he has taken the First Amended Complaint and amended the
proper parties.” (ECF No. 29.)
3

1

claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA against defendants Domrese,

2

Coyne, King, Meek, Porter, and Bonsu, and (2) substantive due process claims

3

under the Fourteenth Amendment against defendants Domrese, King, Porter,

4

and Bonsu, “for their alleged failure to provide medically appropriate food with

5

respect to [Plaintiff’s] CVID condition;”

6

2.

Defendants are granted sixty days from the date of service of this order to

7

submit additional briefing in response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary

8

judgment, addressing the First Amendment and RLUIPA with respect to all of

9

Plaintiff’s free exercise allegations; and

10

3.

11

Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendants’ briefing within thirty days of the date of
filing of the Defendant’s brief.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 28, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4