(PC) Smith v. Diez et al

Filing 79

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/16/24; DECLING to adopt 75 Findings and Recommendations. This matter is REFERRED back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order, including issuing new findings and recommendations addressing defendants' 56 pending motion for summary judgment. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARRY SMITH,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:20-cv-00071-DAD-DMC (PC)
ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
(Doc. Nos. 56, 75)
RALPH DIEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Larry Smith is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

17
18

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

19

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 7, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

20
21

recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment in their favor (Doc. No. 56) be

22

granted as to plaintiff’s Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) claim

23

and that this court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state

24

law claims. (Doc. No. 75 at 5–12.)1 The pending findings and recommendations concluded that

25

1

26
27
28

Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for
summary judgment which he dated March 5, 2024, but was not received by the court until March
11, 2024, after the pending findings and recommendations were issued. (Doc. No. 76.) The
request for extension of time was based upon plaintiff’s involvement in other cases he was
prosecuting on his own behalf (including depositions taken in those cases) and his serious
medical conditions and treatment. (Id.) The motion was denied as untimely. (Doc. No. 77.)
1

1

plaintiff never sought religious accommodations and that “whatever problems plaintiff faced with

2

respect to the practice of Thelema were of his own making by relying on another inmate and not

3

personally following up on any request for accommodation.” (Id. at 9–10.) The magistrate judge

4

also concluded that defendants, all of whom are supervisory personnel, could not be held liable in

5

connection with plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim simply by virtue of having participated in the inmate

6

grievance process. (Id. at 10–11.)

7

The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained

8

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at

9

12.) Plaintiff filed objections which were received by the court on March 29, 2024, but he simply

10

states therein that he objects to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 78.)

11

Defendants submitted no response to plaintiff’s objections.

12

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

13

de novo review of the case and carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s objections.
In concluding that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be granted the

14
15

pending findings and recommendations acknowledged that defendants had presented four

16

arguments:

17

23

First, Defendants contend that the undisputed evidence shows that
Plaintiff could have sought and secured accommodations or
exemptions relating to his practice of Thelema. See id. [Doc. No.
56-1] at 13. Second, Defendants contend that they did not “make
requesting and obtaining religious accommodations impossible or
practically futile for Plaintiff.” Id. Third, Defendants assert that,
because the applicable statutes and regulations applied to all
inmates irrespective of their religious beliefs or practices,
Defendants “had no reason to pressure Plaintiff to act in ways that
violated his religious [sic] or make Plaintiff modify his behavior.”
Id. at 14. Fourth, Defendants argue that there is no substantial
burden traceable to them for the simple reason that Plaintiff never
sought religious accommodations or exemptions. See id.

24

(Doc. No. 75 at 9.) However, the findings and recommendations addressed only the last of these

25

arguments and did not base the recommendation that the motion for summary judgment be

26

granted on any of the other three grounds. (Id. at 10–12.) Thus, as noted above, it was

27

recommended that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted solely on the following

28

basis:

18
19
20
21
22

2

Based on Plaintiff’s testimony, which Plaintiff has not contested, it
is undisputed that whatever problems Plaintiff faced with respect to
the practice of Thelema were of his own making by relying on
another inmate and not personally following up on any request for
accommodation. Further, Defendants cannot be held liable simply
by virtue of their participation in the inmate grievance process.

1
2
3
4

***
5
Put simply, the undisputed evidence fails to establish a causal
connection between Defendants – who are high-level supervisory
personnel – and a RLUIPA violation.

6
7
8
9

(Id. at 10-11.)
However, in a portion of plaintiff’s deposition attached to defendants’ pending motion and

10

thus before the court on summary judgment, plaintiff testified that he had in fact himself

11

requested a religious accommodation through the inmate grievance process by submitting a form

12

602 making such a request. (See Doc. No. 56-3 at 27.) That same transcript reflects that at

13

plaintiff’s deposition, defendants’ counsel appeared to accept that submitting a 602 appeal on the

14

subject was a sufficient way in which to request a religious accommodation. (See id. at 36 (“[S]o

15

besides 602 what other ways did you try to get a religious accommodation?”); see also id. at 38

16

(“[Plaintiff:] I said defendant Diaz and Gipson refused to comply with that law to grant

17

exemption for tobacco products in religious exercises. What do I mean by that? They denied my

18

602.”)). In their pending motion for summary judgment, defendants do not address or explain in

19

what way the filing of such a 602 inmate appeal, and the denial of that appeal by prison officials

20

including named defendants, would not constitute an adequate request for religious

21

accommodation. Therefore, the undersigned declines to adopt the findings that plaintiff never

22

sought religious accommodations and that “whatever problems he faced . . . were of his own

23

making.” Based upon the evidence before the court on summary judgment, at the very least there

24

exists a disputed issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff requested a religious

25

accommodation from defendants.

26

The court also declines to adopt the recommendation that summary judgment be granted

27

in defendants’ favor as to plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim because the defendants cannot be held liable

28

simply by virtue of their participation in the inmate grievance process. (See Doc. No. 75 at 10–
3

1

11.) Notably, plaintiff is not seeking damages as to his claim but rather is seeking only injunctive

2

relief. (See Doc. No. 30 at 6); see also Padilla v. Nev. Dep’t of Corr., 510 F. App’x 629, 630 (9th

3

Cir. 2013) (“We are unaware of any case that requires a prisoner’s claim for injunctive relief to

4

allege the personal participation of the defendants or to ‘link’ each specific defendant with an

5

alleged constitutional violation.”).2

6

Because the court will decline to adopt either of the grounds upon which the findings and

7

recommendations recommend summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants as to

8

plaintiff’s federal RLUIPA claim, the court also declines to adopt the findings and

9

recommendations recommending that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

10

plaintiff’s state law claims.

11

Accordingly:

12

1.

13

The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations issued on March 7,
2024 (Doc. No. 75);

14

2.

This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings

15

consistent with this order, including issuing new findings and recommendations

16

addressing defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 56).3

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 16, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Citation to this unpublished Ninth Circuit opinion is appropriate pursuant to Ninth Circuit
Rule 36-3(b).
3

The undersigned also suggests that in light of this order the assigned magistrate judge may wish
to consider granting plaintiff a short, but reasonable, period of time in which to file an opposition
to defendants’ still pending motion for summary judgment.
4