Ha'Keem et al v. Mesojedec et al

Filing 115

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 108 ] is ADOPTED. Plaintiffs' Objections to the R&R [ECF No. 112 ] are OVERRULED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 95 ] is GRANTED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 1/28/2021. (CBC)

CASE 0:16-cv-00348-JNE-HB Doc. 115 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Maikijah Ha’Keem, Roy Hughes, Jimmy
Booker, and Jacquard Larkin,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-0348 (JNE/HB)
ORDER

Chad Mesojedec, Rehabilitation Therapist
Director; Steve Sayovitz, Security Manager;
Elizabeth Wyatt, Security Counselor; Kevin
Schleret, Property Personnel; Mandy
Torgerson, Property Supervisor; Kevin Moser,
Facility Director MSOP-Moose Lake; Nick
Lammi, Rehabilitation Counselor; Scott Benoit,
Program Manager MSOP-Moose Lake; Terry
Kneisel, Assistant Facility Director MSOPMoose Lake; Peter Puffer, Clinical Director
MSOP-Moose Lake,
Defendants.
This case is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated
November 30, 2020 by the Honorable Hildy Bowbeer, United States Magistrate Judge,
on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs in this case are civilly
committed in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”) in Moose Lake,
Minnesota. They claim that Defendants’ policies and practices regarding the use of
prayer oils violates their First Amendment right to freely exercise their faith.
The R&R recommended that the Court grant summary judgment to Defendants
and Plaintiffs objected. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and the
R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (b)(3); LR 72.2 (b)(3). Based on

1

CASE 0:16-cv-00348-JNE-HB Doc. 115 Filed 01/28/21 Page 2 of 2

that review, and after considering Plaintiffs’ objections, the Court adopts the R&R in full
and accepts the recommended disposition.
One objection raised by Plaintiffs merits a brief discussion. Plaintiffs argue that
when this Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the free exercise claim with
respect to prayer oils, it held that Plaintiffs had a constitutional right to religious prayer
oils as matter of law. This is a misreading of the Court’s holding. As stated in the
February 26, 2019 Order, at that early stage in the litigation, the Court could not
“conclude whether Defendants’ policies and practice pose a substantial burden on
Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.” ECF No. 59 at 3. Now, at summary judgment, Plaintiffs
have not produced evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that
Defendants’ prayer oil policies or practices have imposed a substantial burden on the free
exercise of their religion. As explained in the R&R, the facts simply do not support
Plaintiffs’ legal claim.
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated
above, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 108] is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiffs’ Objections to the R&R [ECF No. 112] are OVERRULED.
3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 95] is GRANTED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 28, 2021
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge
2