Elias v. Kinross et al

Filing 65

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/29/22 ORDERING that this case is REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge for further findings and recommendations addressing (1) whether plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants' actions substantially burdened his religious beliefs, and (2) if so, whether plaintiff's evidence raises a triable issue of fact as to either his RLUIPA or Free Exercise claims. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

KEIRON M. ELIAS,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:17-cv-2106 WBS DB

v.

ORDER

J. KINROSS, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

----oo0oo----

19

Plaintiff, an inmate the California Medical Facility,

20

filed this suit alleging various claims under the Free Exercise

21

Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and

22

Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”).

23

on the alleged confiscation of his bottled ink used for religious

24

purposes and the resulting disciplinary proceedings against him

25

for allegedly possessing tattoo paraphernalia.

26

motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 40) and the Magistrate

27

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations (Docket No. 54) are now

28

pending before the court. After the Magistrate Judge issued her
1

His claims are based

Defendants’

1

Findings and Recommendations, the court appointed counsel for the

2

limited purpose of opposing defendants’ summary judgment motion

3

(see Docket No. 56), and the parties have since submitted

4

supplemental briefing.

5

The court notes that the Findings and Recommendations

6

recommend dismissal of the suit based on the determination that

7

defendants’ actions did not substantially burden plaintiff’s

8

religious beliefs, “because there is no evidence that plaintiff’s

9

religious beliefs mandate him to use bottled ink of the type

10

confiscated.”

11

recommendations did not address whether defendants’ actions (1)

12

furthered a compelling government interest, (2) were the least

13

restrictive means of doing so, or (3) were reasonably related to

14

a legitimate penological interest.

15

U.S.C. §§ 2000cc-1(a); Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab.,

16

707 F.3d 1114, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2013); Jones v. Williams, 791

17

F.3d 1023, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2015).)

18

(Docket No. 54 at 7-8.)

The findings and

(Id. (citing, inter alia, 42

Further, the Findings and Recommendations do not

19

address plaintiff’s allegations that his religious practices

20

require him to possess bottles of ink so that he may engage in

21

drawing “Sacred Pentacles of Solomon” or any of the evidence

22

submitted in support of those allegations.

23

plaintiff, these drawings must be made by a feather dipped in

24

colored ink, requiring the use of ink blown into bottles.1

25

If plaintiff’s contention that he must use a feather
dipped in bottled ink is true, then the observation in the
Findings and Recommendations that “plaintiff may possess and use
non-bottled pen ink for the purpose of drawing” (Docket No. 54 at
7) is not dispositive as to the determination of whether his
religious practices were substantially burdened. The court
2

26
27
28

1

According to

(See,

1

e.g., Docket Nos. 9 at 3; 40-4 at 10-11; 51 at 13-14; 64 at 2-4.)

2

Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the Magistrate

3

Judge for further findings and recommendations addressing (1)

4

whether plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact as

5

to whether defendants’ actions substantially burdened his

6

religious beliefs, and (2) if so, whether plaintiff’s evidence

7

raises a triable issue of fact as to either his RLUIPA or Free

8

Exercise claims.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 29, 2022

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

expresses no opinion as to whether plaintiff has submitted
evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as
to whether his religious beliefs were substantially burdened.
3