Reed v. Bryant et al

Filing 93

ORDER ADOPTING SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 84 and granting 79 MOTION to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 10/11/18. Copy of Order mailed to: Chad William Reed #584428 HELENA-JCCC 216 N Murray St Helena, OK 73741-9606 (wh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHAD WILLIAM REED,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JASON BRYANT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Number CIV-16-461-C

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed the present action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Consistent with
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell. Judge Purcell entered a Supplemental Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) on July 2, 2018. Defendants have objected to the R&R.
Plaintiff filed his action alleging violation of his constitutional rights.
Plaintiff’s claims center on the decision to terminate him from the religious diet
program. This decision was made based on Plaintiff allegedly violating the policies
related to that program. Plaintiff named as Defendants several individuals who he
argues were involved in the decision to terminate him from the diet program.
In the R&R, Judge Purcell noted that to the extent Plaintiff sought monetary
damages against Defendants in their official capacities, his claims were barred by the
Eleventh Amendment. Additionally, Judge Purcell recommended Plaintiff’s state law
constitutional claims (Counts 2, 4, and 6) and his First Amendment Claim (Count 8)

based on denial of access to the Courts be dismissed without prejudice. Judge Purcell
recommended the remainder of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be denied.
The Court has considered the R&R and Defendants’ Objection thereto. Upon
that review, the Court finds the R&R should be adopted in full.

Defendants’

arguments challenging the R&R and/or Plaintiff’s Complaint fail to apply the
appropriate standard.

The present R&R examines the issues as challenged via a

Motion to Dismiss.

Thus, the question is whether Plaintiff has pleaded factual

allegations in a manner that raises “a right to relief above a speculative level.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Upon de novo review, the Court
finds, as did Judge Purcell, that the Complaint meets this standard. Defendants’
arguments to the contrary, including qualified immunity, do not challenge the
sufficiency of the facts pleaded by Plaintiff. Rather, Defendants’ argument asks the
Court to view the facts as they wish them to be viewed. That is not the proper
approach when resolving a Motion to Dismiss.
Accordingly, the Court adopts, in its entirety, the Supplemental Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 84). For the reasons set forth in
the R&R and this Order, the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 79) is GRANTED as to
Plaintiff’s claims seeking monetary damages against Defendants in their official
capacities, Plaintiff’s state law constitutional claims (Counts 2, 4, and 6), and First
Amendment claim (Count 8) based on an alleged violation of his right of access to
2

courts, and DENIED as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims (Counts 1, 3, and 5) and
Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment and RLUIPA claims challenging ODOC’s
zero-tolerance policy (Count 7). This matter is returned to Judge Purcell for further
proceedings consistent with the original Order of Referral.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of October 2018.

3