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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?