Robinson v. Delgado et al

Filing 388

Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying 384 Motion to Enforce Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

ANTHONY L. ROBINSON,

Case No. 02-cv-01538-NJV

Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11

ANTHONY A. LAMARQUE, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF TRIAL COURT'S
ORDER AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION, COMMITMENT FOR
CIVIL CONTEMPT
Re: Dkt. No. 384

12
13
14

Pending before the court is Plaintiff Anthony L. Robinson’s Motion for Enforcement of

15
16
17
18

Trial Court’s Order and Permanent Injunction, Commitment for Civil Contempt, filed December
7, 2015. (Doc. 384.) Defendants oppose the Motion. (Doc. 385.) For the reasons stated below,
the court denies the Motion.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY

19

On August 31, 2010, following a jury trial, the court entered a permanent injunction which

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

included the requirement that Defendant Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), and his agents and all persons in active concert or
participating with any of them who received actual notice, permit Plaintiff to participate in the
CDCR’s Jewish Kosher Meal Program on the same terms and conditions as kosher-observant
Jewish inmates. (Doc. 316.) The court expressly retained jurisdiction of this action for all
purposes, including without limitation, all proceedings involving the interpretation, enforcement,
or amendment of the permanent injunction. (Id.)
//

1
2

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that officials at California State Prison, Corcoran refused to provide him

3

with his court-mandated kosher meals on October 23, 2015, October 24, 2015, October 25, 2015,

4

and October 28, 2015. He further alleges that he was not given kosher meals while he was at the

5

California Health Care Facility in Stockton, from May 3, 2015, through May 29, 2015. Finally,

6

Plaintiff alleges that although he returned to California State Prison, Corcoran on May 29, 2015,

7

he did not receive his kosher meals until late June 2015.

8

The injunction entered by the court on August 31, 2010, provides that, “[i]n the event that
any dispute or disagreement arises in the future with respect to Plaintiff’s participation in the

10

Jewish Kosher Meal Program, Plaintiff is required to fully exhaust all available administrative

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

remedies before seeking the Court’s intervention.” (Doc. 316, 1:26-2:1.) Plaintiff does not allege

12

in that he has complied with this requirement.

13

In opposing Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiff in fact has not complied

14

with the requirement of exhausting his administrative remedies before seeking relief from this

15

court. Defendants provide the Declaration of A. Pacillas, Appeals Coordinator at California State

16

Prison, Corcoran. (Doc. 387.) Pacillas states under penalty of perjury that two days after Plaintiff

17

filed his Motion, Corcoran State Prison received Plaintiff’s administrative grievance about kosher

18

meal service in October 2015. (Doc. 387, para. 8.) At the time of Pacillas’ Declaration on

19

December 17, 2015, Plaintiff’s grievance remained at the first level and had not yet been

20

exhausted. Id. The grievance therefore had not been exhausted at the time that Plaintiff filed the

21

current motion. Pacillas further states that Plaintiff never exhausted any grievance about

22

Corcoran's kosher meal service in June 2015. (Id. at para. 7-10). Finally, Defendants provide the

23

Declaration of A. Infante, Appeals Coordinator at the California Health Care Facility. (Doc. 386.)

24

Infante states under penalty of perjury that Plaintiff did not file any grievance about Kosher meals

25

at California Healthcare Facility in 2015. (Id. at 7-9.)

26

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the

27

requirement set forth in the court's order of August 31, 2010, that he fully exhaust all

28

administrative remedies before seeking the court's intervention regarding the Kosher Meal
2

1

Program. Plaintiff's Motion is therefore DENIED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5
6

Dated: January 20, 2016
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3