Fernandez-Torres v. Watts et al
Filing
28
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21 , granting 14 Motion to Dismiss, and dismissing complaint. Plaintiff is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply 24 and Motion for Extension of Time 27 are dismissed as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 3/29/17. (slt)
ru
3 the aniteb btateo Ditrttt Qtour
for the Ooutbern flttritt of eoria
20b MAR 2
runMuitk flibtion
MAN EL FERNANDEZ-TORRES,
Plaintiff,
V.
HARRELL WATTS RAYMOND E. HOLT;
ANTHONY HAYNES; DR. BRUCE COX;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
COURI
P L:
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:16-cv-24
ORDER
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Objections,
dkt. no. 25, to the Magistrate Judge's January 30, 2017, Report
and Recommendation, dkt. no. 21. After an independent and de
novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with
the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS
the Report and Recommendation, as supplemented herein, as the
opinion of the Court and OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections. The
Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, DISMISSES
Plaintiff's Complaint, DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, and DISMISSES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motions for
Extension of Time to File Objections.' Dkt. Nos. 24, 27. The
Plaintiff's timely filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation
moot his later-filed Motions for Extension of Time to File Objections.
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate
judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a Santeria practitioner, was incarcerated at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Jesup, Georgia ("FCI Jesup")
from 2010 until October 23, 2014. Dkt. No. 1,
p. 3. During
that time, he sought to have Santeria bead necklaces sent to him
by outside sources rather than through the prison's approved
vendor catalog. Id. at p. 4; Dkt. No. 1-1. Plaintiff stated
that his religion requires him to wear Santeria beads that have
been infused by a special ceremony with the spiritual force,
Ache, and that beads sold by the prison's approved vendors are
not guaranteed to have undergone this ceremony. Dkt. No. 1,
p. 7. Beginning on October 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a
grievance and a series of appeals pursuant to the Bureau of
Prisons' grievance policy. Dkt. Nos. 1-3, 1-5, 1-7. Defendant
Watts denied Plaintiff's final appeal on January 24, 2013. Dkt.
No. 1-8.
On October 23, 2014, Plaintiff was released to a halfway
house in his home territory of Puerto Rico and then later to
home confinement. Dkt. No. 1, p. 6. Since at least December 1,
2014, officials at FCI Jesup have allowed inmates to receive
Santeria beads from sources other than the prison-approved
vendors. Id. Plaintiff filed the present lawsuit more than a
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
2
year later, on February 18, 2016. In his Complaint, Plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages,
and the costs and expenses of litigation. Id. at p. 13. He
claims Defendants violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise
Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Religious Freedom
and Restoration Act ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq.
Id.
On February 26, 2016, the Magistrate Judge recommended
dismissal of Plaintiff's claims due to statutory untimeliness
and limitations on monetary relief under RFRA. Dkt. No. 4.
However, the Magistrate Judge vacated this Report on June 6,
2016, after Plaintiff's Objections raised questions as to the
timeliness of Plaintiff's Complaint. Dkt. No. 7. Concurrently,
the Magistrate Judge directed the United States Marshals Service
to serve Plaintiff's Complaint on Defendants. Dkt. No. 9.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 14, 2016, to
which Plaintiff filed a Response. Dkt. Nos. 14, 16. The
Magistrate Judge issued a Report in which he recommended
granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 21.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation
to dismiss his: 1) individual capacity claims under RFRA;
2) Bivens and RFRA claims under qualified immunity; and 3) equal
protection claims. Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation that the Court deny Plaintiff in forma
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
3
pauperis status on appeal. Dkt. No. 25. The Magistrate Judge
adequately addressed Plaintiff's individual capacity claims
under RFRA, Defendants' qualified immunity for Plaintiff's
Bivens and RFRA claims, and Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status
on appeal. Thus, the Court will not repeat that analysis. 2
However, the Court will address Plaintiff's Objection that
the Court should allow his equal protection claim to proceed,
because the Magistrate Judge did not specifically address that
claim in his Report. Dkt. No. 25, p. 4. Plaintiff alleges in
his Complaint that other religious faith groups—including
Muslim, Catholic, and Jewish adherents—are allowed to practice
their sincerely held beliefs by wearing their religious items
"without restrictions whatsoever," whereas Santerian
practitioners are prevented from doing the same. Dkt. No. 1,
p. 7. In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argue that
Plaintiff's equal protection claims fail because Plaintiff does
not identify preferential treatment given to a similarly
situated class. Dkt. No. 14, pp. 10-11. Defendants maintain
that Plaintiff "does not allege he was unable to wear the
Santeria necklaces and beads procured through the catalog of
2
Furthermore, because Plaintiff only seeks monetary damages, the
Magistrate Judge's qualified immunity analysis is virtually identical
to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' analysis in Davila v.
Gladden, 777 F.3d 1198, 1210-14 (11th Cir. 2015) (analyzing the same
policy at FCI Jesup and finding qualified immunity applicable to
plaintiff's RFRA and First Amendment claims and also providing
independent, alternative reasons to dismiss those First Amendment
claims)
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
4
approved vendors" and that, consequently, he fails to adequately
allege that Defendants violated his equal protection rights.
Dkt. No. 14, p. 11; Dkt. No. 26, p. 3. Specifically, Defendants
contend that Plaintiff inappropriately analogizes other
religious faith groups' ability to wear properly acquired
religious items with Santerian practitioners' alleged inability
to wear or procure religious items outside of the prison's
approved vendor catalog.
To state a valid equal protection claim, a prisoner must
show: (1) that he has been treated differently from other
"similarly situated" inmates, and (2) that this discriminatory
treatment is based upon a constitutionally impermissible basis,
such as religion. Jones v. Ray, 279 F.3d 944, 946-47 (11th Cir.
2001) (per curiam). Additionally, a prisoner must demonstrate
that the defendants were motivated by a discriminatory intent or
purpose. See Parks v. City of Warner Robins, 43 F.3d 609, 616
(11th Cir. 1995) (requiring 'proof of discriminatory intent or
purpose" to show an Equal Protection Clause violation); Elston
v. Talladega Cty. Bd. of Educ., 997 F.2d 1394, 1406 (11th Cir.
1993) (requiring a plaintiff to demonstrate that the challenged
action was motivated by an intent to discriminate in order to
establish an equal protection violation).
Plaintiff fails to allege that similarly situated prisoners
received more favorable treatment. His claims are not based on
AU 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
5
any contention that Defendants prevented him from wearing
Santerian items obtained through the approved vendor catalog.
Rather, Plaintiff's Complaint centers on his inability to
procure such items outside of the prison's approved vendor
catalog. However, he does not allege that other religious
groups were allowed to obtain religious items outside of the
approved vendor catalog. Instead, Plaintiff bases his equal
protection arguments on the ability of other religious groups to
wear their approved vendor religious items "without
restriction." Dkt. No. 1, p. 7. The right to obtain religious
items outside the approved vendor catalog and the right to wear
approved vendor religious items are two separate and distinctive
rights. See Gladden, 777 F.3d at 1212 (establishing that there
is a clear distinction between the right to wear religious items
and the right to obtain religious items from outside sources).
In sum, Plaintiff's equal protection claim fails because he
does not allege that similarly situated inmates received more
favorable treatment. Thus, the Court also OVERRULES this
portion of Plaintiff's Objections and DISMISSES Plaintiff's
equal protection claim for failure to state a claim.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, dkt. no. 21, as supplemented herein, as the
opinion of the Court and OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections. The
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
6
Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, DISMISSES
Plaintiff's Complaint, DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, and DISMISSES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motions for
Extension of Time to File Objections. Dkt. Nos. 24, 27. The
Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate
judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED, this 29th day of March, 2017.
LISA GODBEY WO , CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
7
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?