Quinn v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Filing 52

ORDER denying 43 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 48 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 3/7/13. (ds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD L. QUINN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:11-cv-268
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

ROBIN KNAB, WARDEN, et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Richard L. Quinn, Jr., an inmate in the custody of the Chillicothe Correctional
Institution (“CCI”) who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants, alleging that Defendants impeded his
ability to exercise his religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) and the First Amendment. This matter is before the Court for
consideration of the January 18, 2013 Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 48) and Defendants’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 51).
Defendants timely filed their objections to the Report and Recommendation under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and
recommendation, the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see also Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In this case, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Defendants’ First
Motion for Summary Judgment. In their First Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants ask
the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining claims on the grounds that he had failed to properly
exhaust his administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996
(“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), prior to bringing suit. Within the Report and
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge correctly sets forth the standards governing summary
judgment decisions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56; the PLRA’s exhaustion
requirements; and Ohio’s grievance procedure for inmates seeking religious accommodations.
(See Jan. 18, 2013 Report and Rec. 4–9, ECF No. 57.) The Court incorporates by reference the
Magistrate Judge’s recitation and discussion of the standards for consideration of motions for
summary judgment, the PLRA’s exhaustion requirements, and Ohio’s grievance procedure as it
relates to inmates seeking religious accommodations.
In concluding that Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on exhaustion
grounds, the Magistrate Judge reasoned as follows:
The Undersigned concludes that Defendants have not satisfied their initial
burden to show that Plaintiff failed to fully exhaust his administrative remedies.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s efforts were insufficient because he “failed to
submit the proper form and proper documentation to effectuate an appeal of the
January 25, 2011 denial of his December 20, 2012 request.” (Defs.’ Mot. 6, ECF No.
43.) Defendants maintain that Plaintiff’s [February 24, 2011] attempted
appeal/objection was deficient because it was untimely and submitted on the wrong
form.
The flaw in Defendants’ position is that under ODRC Policy Number 72REG-02, CCI’s Warden did not have authority to issue a final, appealable decision.
This is because Plaintiff’s religious accommodation, if granted, would require the
creation of a special diet and the recognition of a religious holiday. Indeed, his
2

issuance of a final decision disapproving Plaintiff’s request on January 25, 2011,
violated ODRC Policy Number 72-REG-02(H)(10). (See Form DRC4327, ECF No.
43-1 (marking the box labeled “Disapproved” instead of the box labeled “Refer to
Reg. Religious Services Admin.”).) CCI’s Warden should have forwarded his
response (Form DRC4327) and all accompanying materials to the Religious Services
Administrator for a final decision. Upon receiving the CCI’s Warden’s decision (as
reflected on Form DRC4327 and accompanying materials) on January 26, 2011, the
Religious Services Administrator took no action to remedy the CCI’s Warden’s
violation of policy. Nor did the Religious Services Administrator take action upon
receipt of Plaintiff’s February 24, 2011 attempted appeal/objection wherein he
specifically complained that ODRC Policy Number 72-REG-02 was not followed.
(See Feb. 24, 2011 Appeal/Objection, ECF No. 43-1.)
Plaintiff, in properly filling out the requisite Request for Religious
Accommodation form (Form DRC4326) and submitting it to the chaplain, satisfied
his obligations under ODRC Policy Number 72-REG-02. Plaintiff was entitled to
interpret the Religious Services Administrator’s failure to remedy the policy
deviations and issue a final decision to be a denial of his request. See Risher v.
Lappin, 639 F.3d 236, 240–41 (6th Cir. 2011) (holding that the inmate “was entitled
to consider the absence of a response to be a denial” of his grievance, explaining that
the inmate “was not required to make additional efforts beyond the scope of the
Bureau’s regulations” where the prison staff had failed to follow its own procedures);
Boyd v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 380 F.3d 989, 996 (6th Cir. 2004) (concluding that
“administrative remedies are exhausted when prison officials fail to timely respond
to a properly filed grievance); Hughes v. Lavender, No. 2:10-cv-674, 2011 WL
1337155, at *10 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 6, 2011) (denying the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment on the grounds of exhaustion where the plaintiff submitted
evidence indicating that the defendants had failed to timely respond to his
complaints); Nassar v. Warden, Butler Cnty. Jail, No. 1:10-cv-031, 2011 WL
7268004, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2011) (denying the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment on the grounds of exhaustion where the defendants failed to offer
evidence that the jail officials “properly responded to [the] plaintiff’s grievances in
accordance with their own policy”). As the Court of Appeals noted in Risher:
“When pro se inmates are required to follow agency procedures to the letter in order
to preserve their federal claims, we see no reason to exempt the agency from similar
compliance with its own rules.” 639 F.3d at 241.
In sum, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff’s efforts were
insufficient to exhaust his administrative remedies with regards to his request for a
religious accommodation. Because Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden,
the Undersigned recommends that their Motion be denied.
(Id. at 9–11.)
Defendants object to the Report and Recommendation on two grounds. Defendants first
3

assert that the Magistrate Judge was mistaken in determining that the Warden’s issuance of a
final decision was a deviation from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s
(“ODRC”) Policy. Second, Defendants posit that the Magistrate Judge is “mistaken regarding
her finding that the Religious Service Administrator took no action upon receipt of Plaintiff’s
February 24, 2011 ‘complaint.’” (Defs.’ Obj. 2, ECF No. 51.) The Court has reviewed the
Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s Objections in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) and concludes that both of these objections lack merit.
Resolution of Defendants’ first objection turns on whether or not the Magistrate Judge
erred in concluding that “under ODRC Policy Number 72-REG-02, CCI’s Warden did not have
authority to issue a final, appealable decision.” (Jan. 18, 2013 Report and Rec. 4–9, ECF No.
57.) In support of their contention that the Warden retained the discretion to render a final,
appealable decision, Defendants rely upon ODRC Policy Number 72-REG-02(H)(1-3). In
pertinent part, this Section provides as follows:
The following matters shall be referred to the Religious Services Administrator:
1.

New dietary requests: Requests that would require the creation of a special
diet, a religious “feast” menu, or that would require the purchase of special
foods (e.g. kosher, halal, etc.) not currently offered, or which would expand
access to such diets to different or additional religious groups must be
referred to the Religious Services Administrator for final decision. Decisions
to accommodate an individual inmate with existing dietary options (e.g.
meatless diet, etc.) can be made at the institution.
*

3.

*

*

The recognition of any religious holiday not previously observed or
recognized.

ODRC Policy Number 72-REG-02(H)(1-3). Citing Subsection (H)(1)’s exception for “existing
dietary options,” Defendants submit that the Warden retained discretion because Plaintiff

4

requested a vegetarian diet. Conversely, the Magistrate Judge found that Subsections (H)(1) and
(H)(3) mandated referral of Plaintiff’s grievance to the Religious Services Administrator. The
Magistrate Judge reasoned that Plaintiff’s religious accommodation, if granted, would require
the creation of a special diet and the recognition of a religious holiday. In making this finding,
Magistrate Judge considered Plaintiff’s December 20, 2010 Request for Religious
Accommodation, specifically discussing Plaintiff’s requests relating to his diet and recognition
of religious holidays as follows:
Plaintiff’s requested accommodation includes the following dietary
restrictions: no “wine or vinegar of the grape or vine”; no “unclean foods, strong
drink, or things of the vine”; no consumption of “[a]nything that chews cud but
divide not the hoof”; no “[s]wine - Jellotin-based products, no lard-butter product”;
“all medication [must be administered in] tablet form or Kosher cups”; no
consumption of animals with scales or fins; and no “animal-based oil, fungus, spores,
and the like.” [(Compl. 14–18, ECF No. 5.)] He also requests to “celebrate the
festival of Yahvah,” which he indicates begins “on the fifteenth day of the seventh
month” and includes “sacred rest” on the first and eighth day of the celebration. (Id.
at 16.)
(Jan. 18, 2013 Report and Rec. 2, ECF No. 57.)
The Court finds no error with the Magistrate Judge’s finding. Review of Plaintiff’s
Request for Religious Accommodation, in which he seeks a dietary accommodation to exclude
grapes or other “things of the vine,” reveals that he is not simply seeking a vegetarian diet. (Id.)
Thus, the exception within ODRC Policy Number 72-REG-02(H)(1) upon which Defendants
rely is inapplicable. Regardless, as the Magistrate Judge correctly found, Plaintiff’s request to
recognize a religious holiday, namely, the festival of Yahvah, falls within the ambit of ODRC
Policy Number 72-REG-02(H)(3) such that the Religious Services Administrator, not the
Warden, must render the final decision. Plaintiff’s first objection is, therefore, overruled.
Defendants’ second objection is equally unavailing. Defendants challenge the Magistrate

5

Judge’s finding that the Religious Services Administrator did not take action upon receipt of
Plaintiff’s February 24, 2011 attempted appeal/objection. Defendants point out that the
Religious Services Administrator directed Plaintiff to submit a particular appeal form and
attachments. In making this argument, Defendants have mischaracterized the Magistrate Judge’s
findings and the significance of those findings. As explained above, because Plaintiff’s
requested accommodations fell within the scope of ODRC Policy Number 72-REG-02(H)(1) and
(3), the Religious Services Administrator was required to render a final decision with regards to
his December 20, 2010 Request for Religious Accommodation. The record evidence
demonstrates that the Religious Services Administrator failed to do so, which was likely due to
the Warden and Chaplain’s deviations from policy. In Plaintiff’s February 24, 2011 attempted
appeal/objection and the accompanying correspondence, Plaintiff alerted the Religious Services
Administrator that the Warden and Chaplain failed to adhere to ODRC Policy Number 72-REG02 with regards to his December 20, 2010 Request for Religious Accommodation. After noting
that the Religious Services Administrator took no action to remedy the violation of policy upon
receipt of the Warden’s decision on January 26, 2011, the Magistrate Judge then stated, “[n]or
did the Religious Services Administrator take action upon receipt of Plaintiff’s February 24,
2011 attempted appeal/objection wherein he specifically complained that ODRC Policy Number
72-REG-02 was not followed.” (Jan. 18, 2013 Report and Rec. 9, ECF No. 57 (citing Feb. 24,
2011 Appeal/Objection, ECF No. 43-1).) The Magistrate Judge went on to conclude that
“Plaintiff was entitled to interpret the Religious Services Administrator’s failure to remedy the
policy deviations and issue a final decision to be a denial of his request.” (Id.) Thus, contrary to
Plaintiff’s assertion, the Magistrate Judge did not find that the Religious Services Administrator
had failed to issue a response. Rather, the Magistrate Judge stated, explicitly, that the Religious
6

Services Administrator failed to remedy the policy deviations and issue a final decision even
after Plaintiff specifically alerted him to the deviations. Defendants have offered no evidence
that would undermine the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the Religious Services Administrator
failed to render a final decision concerning Plaintiff’s December 20, 2010 Request for Religious
Accommodation. Plaintiff’s second objection is, therefore, overruled.
In sum, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and Defendants’
Objections in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) and concludes that
Plaintiff’s objections lack merit. Accordingly, Defendants’ Objections (ECF No. 51) are
OVERRULED; the January 18, 2013 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 48) is
ADOPTED; and Defendants’ First Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/ James L. Graham
James L. Graham
United States District Judge
Date: March 7, 2013

7