Rhoden v. Department of State Hospitals et al

Filing 72

ORDER ADOPTING 70 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/18/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWTIS DONALD RHODEN,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,

No. 1:18-cv-00101-NONE-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
(Doc. No. 70)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS,
et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Lawtis Donald Rhoden is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violation of his rights under the Due

19

Process Clause, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), and the

20

First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. (Doc. Nos. 29, 46.) Plaintiff is currently a civil

21

detainee at the California Department of State Hospitals at Coalinga (“DSH-Coalinga”) after

22

being found to be a sexually violent predator. He now claims that defendants— DSH-Coalinga’s

23

current executive director Brandon Price, director Pam Ahlin, and a program director responsible

24

for religious activities, Stefanie Heggen—implemented policies and practices between 2018 and

25

2019 that violated his rights.

26

On October 10, 2019, defendants sought summary judgment in their favor, arguing that

27

they did not violate plaintiff’s rights, and that even if they had, they were entitled to summary

28

judgment in their favor on qualified immunity grounds. (Doc. No. 65-2 at 1.) Plaintiff filed an
1

1

opposition to the motion on November 12, 2019. (Doc. No. 67.) The matter was referred to a

2

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

3

March 20, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

4

recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. No. 70.)

5

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this

6

case and will adopt the pending findings and recommendations for the reasons explained below.

7
8
9

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are accepted as true (unless stated otherwise) because, as the
magistrate judge found, there is no genuinely contradicting evidence. (Doc. No. 70 at 4 n. 1.)

10

This case was touched off by the implementation of an amendment to Section 4350 of title 9 of

11

the California Code of Regulations, banning civil detainees from possessing electronic devices.

12

(Doc. No. 65-3 ¶¶ 7-8.) Thereafter, plaintiff’s laptop and memory devices were confiscated. (Id

13

at ¶ 28.) When the amendment was implemented at DSH-Coalinga on January 12, 2018, civil

14

detainees responded by destroying facility property. (Id. ¶ 10.) Because of the disturbances,

15

executive director Price implemented a lockdown of DSH-Coalinga until January 16, 2018, after

16

which the facility shifted to a transitional period known as a “modified program.” (Id. ¶¶ 14, 19.)

17

Under the modified program, effective until February 8, 2018, all units were locked, and patients

18

were allowed to see their doctors or attorneys only by escort. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 24, 31.) Prior to the

19

lockdown, plaintiff regularly attended morning prayer twice a week and mass on Sundays in the

20

Catholic chapel located within DSH-Coalinga. (Doc. No. 70 at 3.) During the lockdown and

21

modified program, religious services were not permitted or were limited. (Doc. No. 65-3 ¶ 18-19,

22

39, 41.)

23

Father Viktor Perez (“Father Perez”) was an authorized religious volunteer and regularly

24

conducted services at DSH-Coalinga. (Id. ¶ 38.) Raul Amador (“Brother Andreas”) was

25

employed as the Catholic Chaplain for DSH-Coalinga, but because he was not a priest, there were

26

sacraments he was not allowed to administer. (Id. ¶ 35.) From the end of the modified program

27

at DSH-Coalinga to approximately November 25, 2018, Father Perez and Brother Andreas were

28

able to conduct mass and other Catholic services. (Id. ¶ 43.) In or around December 2018,
2

1

plaintiff requested to conduct Catholic services in the chapel on December 25, 2018, but

2

defendants denied the request due to insufficient staffing for safety. (Id. ¶¶ 68-69.) Between

3

approximately November 2018 to April 2019, plaintiff led the Sunday prayer services because

4

Brother Andreas was on reassignment. (Id. ¶ 46.) On February 25, 2019, defendants rescinded

5

Father Perez’s clearance on the basis that it was “in the best interest of the facility and security

6

and patient and staff safety” after “contraband items” were found in his wallet. (Id. ¶¶ 51, 56.)

7

Afterward, defendants searched for a new volunteer priest, but due to the shortage of Catholic

8

priests and the lengthy approval process, the new priest was not hired for some time and did not

9

begin conducting regular services until September 16, 2019. (Id. ¶¶ 58-61.)

10

Plaintiff contends that his rights to religious exercise and to his electronic devices were

11

violated between January 12, 2018 to February 8, 2018 during the lockdown and modified

12

program, (Doc. No. 67 at 14); between November 25, 2018 to February 24, 2019 when Father

13

Perez was denied access DSH-Coalinga to engage with religious services, (id. at 16); because

14

Brother Andreas was not allowed to provide religious services until April 2019, (id. at 16, 27);

15

and those rights are still being violated today as plaintiff cannot attend mass or receive holy

16

sacraments (with few exceptions) with Father Perez, (Doc. No. 71, Rhoden Decl. at ¶¶ 24-26).

17
18

ANALYSIS
Defendants moved for summary judgment in their favor as to plaintiff’s claims that: (1)

19

his right to due process was violated; (2) his rights under RLUIPA were violated; and (3) his First

20

Amendment Free Exercise rights were violated. (Doc. No. 70 at 14.) The magistrate judge first

21

found that plaintiff’s due process rights were not violated because there was no constitutional

22

right affording inmates’ possession of electronic devices and that plaintiff was given but chose

23

not to take the option of mailing his electronic devices to a location of his choice before they were

24

confiscated. (Id. at 16-18.) Next, the magistrate judge found that, under RLUIPA, the

25

cancellation and limitation of religious practices during the lockdown and modified programming

26

at DSH-Coalinga constituted a substantial burden on plaintiff’s religious exercise. (Id. at 18-20.)

27

Nevertheless, the magistrate judge concluded that the substantial burden placed on plaintiff’s

28

exercise of religion was justified in response to patient disturbances during the facility-wide
3

1

search to confiscate contrabands (i.e. electronic devices), and that as an adequate alternative,

2

plaintiff had been allowed to gather privately with other detainees to worship, the detainees had

3

been permitted to call their religious advisors, and religious advisors were allowed to visit and did

4

visit plaintiff to facilitate his religious practice during the relevant time period. (Id. at 19-21.)

5

The magistrate judge also found based upon the evidence presented on summary judgment that

6

the denial of plaintiff’s request to hold Catholic services on December 25, 2018 was properly

7

based on insufficient staffing and legitimate safety concerns. (Id. at 23-24.) Based on the same

8

evidence, the magistrate judge concluded that there had been no infringement of plaintiff’s Free

9

Exercise rights. (Id. at 24-27.) The court finds the pending findings and recommendations to be

10

supported by the record and by proper analysis.

11

Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on April 10, 2020. (Doc.

12

No. 71.) Therein, plaintiff emphasizes that his right to religious exercise was violated when

13

Brother Andreas was not performing religious services between November 2018 and April 2019,

14

and that his rights in this regard continue to be violated because Father Perez has not been

15

allowed to return to DSH-Coalinga since February 25, 2019. (Id., Rhoden Decl. ¶¶ at 12, 24-26.)

16

In advancing this objection, plaintiff appears to conflate his right to religious exercise with his

17

personal preference as to who leads religious services in which he is participating at DSH-

18

Coalinga. Moreover, defendants have come forward with undisputed evidence on summary

19

judgment showing that Brother Andreas was on reassignment and was unable to perform religious

20

services between November 2018 and April 2019, and that over that period, plaintiff led Sunday

21

prayer services and had a Bible and Catholic missal to practice his religion. (Doc. No. 65-3 ¶¶

22

45-46, 48.) The evidence on summary judgment also establishes that after Brother Andreas was

23

reassigned, he resumed conducting his Sunday prayer and other religious services at DSH-

24

Coalinga. (Id. ¶ 57.) The undisputed evidence also shows that Father Perez’s clearance was

25

rescinded for appropriate reasons, and that defendants made reasonable efforts to procure, and did

26

ultimately procure, a new priest to conduct the religious services that had been conducted at

27

DSH-Coalinga before Father Perez left. (Id. ¶¶ 51, 56, 58-61.)

28

/////
4

1
2
3

In light of the foregoing, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s objections have provided no
basis upon which the findings and recommendations should be rejected.
Accordingly:

4

1. The March 20, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 70) are adopted as

5

supplemented by the analysis set forth above;

6

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 65) is granted;

7

3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of defendants; and

8

4. The Clerk of Court is also directed to assign a district judge to this case for the

9
10
11

purpose of closing the case and then to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 18, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5