Daley v. Lappin et al
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying pltf's Motion for reconsideration 53 Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 07/24/12 (ma, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAMEON DALEY,
Plaintiff
v.
HARLEY LAPPIN, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 1:CV-10-02060
(Judge Rambo)
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is Plaintiff Dameon Daley’s motion to alter or amend
judgment (Doc. 53), requesting the court reconsider its memorandum and order of
September 7, 2011, granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants1 in this
case, (Doc. 50). For the reasons that follow, the instant motion (Doc. 53) will be
denied.
I.
Background
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (“USP-Lewisburg”), initiated this action with a
complaint filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. 1.) In the complaint, Plaintiff
alleged that Defendants denied him a diet consistent with his Rastafarian religious
beliefs. He also alleged that he was forced to eat food to which he is allergic and
Named as Defendants were Harley Lappin, Director of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”);
B.A. Bledsoe, Warden; K. Rear, Associate Warden; and, D. Young, Associate Warden. Daley
also named the United States of America and the BOP as Defendants.
1
was forced to exist primarily on apples and bread, which resulted in his becoming
malnourished.
On January 28, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary
judgment. (Doc. 23.) Accompanying the motion were a brief in support and a
statement of material facts. (Docs. 24 & 25.) After receiving two extensions of
time in which to file a brief in opposition to the motion, (see Docs. 27 & 29),
Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition, counter statement of material facts, a
declaration, and supporting exhibits, (Docs. 37-40). After Defendants replied to
Plaintiff’s brief in opposition, (see Doc. 44), the court issued a memorandum and
order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on September 7, 2011,
(Doc. 50).
Consequently, Plaintiff has filed the instant motion to alter or amend
judgment. (Doc. 53.) In the motion, Plaintiff makes the following arguments: (1)
the court relied on the inadmissible declaration of Chaplain Kevin Kelly in support
of its judgment; (2) certain Defendants should not have been dismissed on the basis
of sovereign immunity; (3) the court failed to give notice to Plaintiff that
Defendants’ dispositive motion would be considered a motion for summary
judgment; (4) the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants
because the pleadings demonstrated genuine issues of material fact; and (5) the
2
court erred in denying Plaintiff’s claims alleging that Defendants denied him a diet
appropriate for his Rastafarian religion.2
II.
Discussion
A motion for reconsideration is governed by Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to move to alter or amend a judgment
within twenty-eight (28) days of entry. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “The purpose of a
motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.
1985). A judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration
establishes at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when
the court entered judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or
to prevent manifest injustice. Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677
(3d Cir. 1999) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d
1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). “A motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a
means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of or as an attempt to
relitigate a point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant.” Ogden v.
2
Plaintiff, in the instant motion, makes several sub-arguments, which will be discussed
infra.
3
Keystone Residence, 226 F. Supp. 2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002) (citation omitted).
“[R]econsideration motions may not be used to raise new arguments or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Hill v.
Tammac Corp., No. 1:05-CV-1148, 2006 WL 529044, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 3,
2006). Lastly, reconsideration of judgment is an extraordinary remedy, and such
motion should be granted sparingly. D’Angio v. Borough of Nescopeck, 56 F.
Supp. 2d 502, 504 (M.D. Pa. 1999).
Applying the standard used when a party seeks reconsideration, the court
will discuss Plaintiff’s claims in turn.
A.
Declaration in Support of Summary Judgment
Plaintiff first argues that the court should reconsider its judgment in this case
because it relied on the inadmissible declaration of Chaplain Kevin Kelly that
Defendants cite in their statement of material facts related to religious beliefs and
practices. (See Doc. 25 ¶¶ 18-27.) Specifically, he contends that it is “highly
improbable” that Chaplain Kelly would have personal knowledge that the BOP’s
Alternative Diet Program (“ADP”) offers Plaintiff sufficient opportunity to observe
his religious dietary practice and does not substantially burden the exercise of his
religion. He also contends that “[i]t is even more improbable” that Chaplain Kelly
could testify whether requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiff wih a Kosher vegan
4
diet would burden Defendants. After careful review, the court disagrees with
Plaintiff and will deny his motion on this claim.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “[a] party asserting that a fact
cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to
particular parts of materials in the . . . affidavits or declarations . . . .” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c)(1)(A). Further, “An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a
motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be
admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to
testify on the matters stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4).
In this case, Defendants submitted the declaration of Chaplain Kevin Kelly
in support of their material facts related to religious beliefs and practices. (Doc.
24-1, Ex. 2, Kelly Decl.) Chaplain Kelly, the BOP’s Northeast Regional
Chaplaincy Administrator, initially declared as follows:
As a part of my duties and responsibilities, I have access to inmates’
records, electronic data maintained on the BOP’s SENTRY computer
system, Administrative Remedy data, and BOP Program Statements. I
also serve as consultant to the Regional Director on matters of
correctional chaplaincy. I administer, develop, implement,
coordinate, and evaluate all aspects of religious ministry for each
institution within the northeast region. I am knowledgeable of the
beliefs and religious practices of world religions as well as religious
beliefs and practices of indigenous and non-traditional groups
identified within the inmate population so as to interpret faith group
concerns.
(Id. ¶ 1.) Further, as to Plaintiff, Chaplain Kelly declares:
5
Since his arrival at USP Lewisburg Plaintiff has identified his
religious affiliation as Rastafarian. The Rastafarian faith was founded
in 1930 with its origins in the country of Jamaica. It’s [sic]
foundation is rooted in African and Jamaican culture. The faith has no
comprehensive set of doctrines and is largely individualistic in nature.
It is generally accepted that their holy book is the King James version
of the Bible. The Rastafarian faith has no dietary mandates though
some adherents are vegetarian believing food should be natural, pure,
and from the earth.
(Id. ¶ 2.) Thereafter, Chaplain Kelly makes several assertions with respect to the
BOP policy on the ADP. (Id. ¶ 6.) In addition, he declares,
Inmates who elect to participate in a religious diet can choose from
two diet tracks: the no-flesh option and the salad bar, or the
religiously certified food diet and the salad bar. Also, other
nutritionally, adequate food items can be purchased in the institution
commissary that would meet his religious diet requirements. Since his
arrival at USP Lewisburg, Daley has been participating in the certified
food component of the religious diet program.
(Id. ¶ 7.) He concludes his declaration with, “I declare under perjury pursuant to
28, United States Code, Section 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information, and belief.” (Doc. 24-1 at 23.)
In light of Chaplain Kelly’s declared qualifications and position within the
BOP, the court cannot agree with Plaintiff that Chaplain Kelly lacks the personal
knowledge or qualifications that would deem him incompetent to testify on the
6
matters stated in his declaration. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as to
this claim will be denied.3
B.
Sovereign Immunity
Plaintiff next contends that the court should reconsider its judgment in this
case because certain Defendants should not have been dismissed on the basis of
sovereign immunity. Because the court has already determined that Plaintiff has
failed to prevail on the merits of his claims, the request for reconsideration will be
denied.
In the court’s memorandum and order granting summary judgment in favor
of Defendants, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for money damages against
Defendants the United States and the BOP and dismissed them from the action.
(Doc. 50 at 14.) In addition, the court dismissed the claims against individual
Defendants in their official capacities. (Id.) In the instant motion, Plaintiff states
that the claims should not have been dismissed as to these Defendants because he
was seeking equitable as well as monetary relief.
The court notes that the law is clear that the United States and the BOP, an
agency of the federal government, are not proper Defendants in a Bivens action for
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff also contends that the declaration of
Chaplain Kelly was not admissible to support Defendants’ contention that BOP policies do not
substantially burden Plaintiff’s religious exercise. (Doc. 54 at 7-8.) As the court has concluded
that Chaplain Kelly possesses the personal knowledge and qualifications to competently testify
on the matters stated in his declaration, the court disagrees with Plaintiff that his declaration is
inadmissible. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied as to that claim.
3
7
damages. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477-78 (1994). Thus, these parties
were properly dismissed. Further, because a suit against a federal official in his
official capacity is in essence a suit against the government entity itself, the BOP
Defendants in their official capacities were properly dismissed as to the Bivens
claims for damages. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985).
Therefore, all claims for damages against the BOP Defendants in their official
capacities were properly dismissed. While it is true that the United States has
waived its sovereign immunity with respect to claims which seek declaratory or
equitable relief, see 5 U.S.C. § 702, in this case, the court has already determined
that Plaintiff’s claims fail, and rather that summary judgment shall be granted in
favor of Defendants. Thus, Plaintiff would not be awarded equitable relief should
the court reconsider its order dismissing the relevant parties in their official
capacities. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as to this claim will be
denied.
C.
Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff next contends that the court should reconsider its judgment in this
case because it failed to give him proper notice of its intent to address Defendants’
motion to dismiss and for summary judgment solely as a motion for summary
judgment. He also claims that the court failed to give him a notice of the
8
requirements of the summary judgment rules. After careful review, the court will
deny Plaintiff’s claim.
Initially, the court notes that the docket clearly documents Defendants’ filing
of a dispositive motion, entitled “Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, motion for summary judgment.” (Doc. 23.) Further, a certificate of
service attached to that motion indicates that Plaintiff was timely mailed this
motion by United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (Id. at 3.) There is
nothing in the docket indicating that Plaintiff did not receive that motion. In fact,
Plaintiff not only sought extensions of time to respond to that motion (see Docs.
26, 28), but also responded to the motion with a brief in opposition (Doc. 39) and
counter statement of facts (Doc. 37). Plaintiff’s filings in response to Defendants’
motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment clearly contradict Plaintiff’s
contention set forth in the instant motion. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim here fails.
Further, as to Plaintiff’s claim that the court failed to give him a notice of the
requirements of the summary judgment rules, it is noted that on October 5, 2010,
Plaintiff was mailed the court’s standing practice order which informs the parties
of their briefing and other responsibilities that commonly arise during the course of
a lawsuit. (Doc. 6.) In that standing practice order, Plaintiff was specifically
informed of requirements with respect to the filing of a motion for summary
9
judgment and response thereto. (Id. at 3.) For example, the order states the
following:
Rule 56(e) also provides that a party opposing a summary judgment
motion may not rely on the mere allegations or denials in his or her
pleading, such as a complaint. Instead, Rule 56(e) requires a party
opposing a motion for summary judgment to file evidentiary material
(affidavits or other evidence), as described in Rule 56, setting forth
specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.
(Id.) In this case, the docket clearly shows that Plaintiff did, in fact, file such
materials opposing the motion for summary judgment. (See Docs. 40, 49.) In light
of these filings and the express instructions on the filing of a motion for summary
judgment and response thereto provided to Plaintiff in the course of this action,
Plaintiff’s claim on reconsideration that he was not given notice of the
requirements for summary judgment fails.
D.
Genuine Issues of Material Fact
Next, Plaintiff contends that the court should reconsider its judgment in this
case because it erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants
because the pleadings demonstrated genuine issues of material fact. In support of
this contention, Plaintiff cites to evidence already considered in the court’s
judgment, and simply states, without more, that the evidence “clearly contradicts
the Defendants’ claims, and the court’s holding . . . .” (Doc. 54 at 20.) Plaintiff’s
restated argument here does not constitute new evidence that was unavailable when
10
the court made its decision, and thus, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration will be
denied as to this claim.
E.
Plaintiff’s Constitutional Claims
Lastly, Plaintiff contends that the court should reconsider its judgment in
this case because it erred in denying Plaintiff’s claims alleging that Defendants did
not provide him with a diet appropriate for his Rastafarian religion. Specifically,
Plaintiff claims with respect to his First Amendment claim that: (1) the court erred
when it applied the incorrect standard of law; (2) the court erred in finding that
Plaintiff’s practice of religion was not substantially burdened because he had the
opportunity to observe religious holidays, participate in holiday meals, fastings,
and prayer; and (3) the court erred in finding that because there is a freedom of
choice in a Rastafarian diet, Defendants did not substantially burden his practice of
religion by denying him a vegan or “Ital” diet. Plaintiff claims with respect to his
equal protection claim that: (1) the court erred in finding that Plaintiff had not
shown he was treated differently from persons similarly situated; and (2) the court
erred in finding that Defendants did not intentionally discriminate against Plaintiff
by denying him a vegan diet. The court will discuss Plaintiff’s claims with respect
to his freedom of religion and equal protection claims in turn.
11
1.
Freedom of Religion Claim
First, Plaintiff’s claim that the court applied the incorrect standard of law
when considering his freedom of religion claim fails. Specifically, Plaintiff argues
that the court did not consider his claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act (“RFRA”). However, this is simply not the case. The court cited to and
discussed RFRA in its consideration of Plaintiff’s freedom of religion claim. (See
Doc. 50 at 22-25.) Thus, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration here will be denied.
Next, Plaintiff’s claim that the court erred in finding that his practice of
religion was not substantially burdened because he had the opportunity to observe
religious holidays, participate in holiday meals, fastings, and prayer, fails. In
connection with this claim, Plaintiff restates his argument that because he is housed
in the Special Management Unit (“SMU”), he is unable to participate in holiday
meals, fastings, and prayers. (Doc. 54 at 13.) This restated argument does not
constitute new evidence that was unavailable when the court made its decision, and
thus Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration here will be denied.
Finally, Plaintiff’s claim that the court erred in finding that because there is a
freedom of choice in a Rastafarian diet, Defendants did not substantially burden his
practice of religion by denying him a vegan or “Ital” diet, fails. In its judgment,
the court cited to documents submitted by Plaintiff in support of this finding.
Specifically, Plaintiff submitted exhibits that indicate that Rastafarianism
12
emphasizes “individual personal meditation,” and the expression of “Ital” living
varies widely, with few universal “rules” of “Ital” eating. (See Doc. 50 at 25.)
Because Plaintiff’s own exhibits do not support his argument here, the court will
not reconsider this claim.
2.
Equal Protection Claim
First, Plaintiff’s claim that the court erred in finding that Plaintiff had not
shown he was treated differently from persons similarly situated fails. In
connection with this claim, Plaintiff argues that the court should have relied on a
declaration submitted by him that he claims showed that he was treated differently
from persons similarly situated. This declarant, a fellow inmate, asserted that he
witnessed BOP staff provide two other Rastafarians with vegan diets. However, as
stated by the court in its judgment, the declaration indicates nothing more than that
observation. (Doc. 50 at 27.) Without more, the court was not willing to presume
that the two other Rastafarians were served vegan meals only because of their
religious beliefs. (See id.) Plaintiff’s restated argument here relating to the
declaration already submitted does not constitute new evidence that was
unavailable when the court made its decision, and thus, Plaintiff’s request for
reconsideration here will be denied.
Second, Plaintiff’s claim that the court erred in finding that Defendants did
not intentionally discriminate against him fails. As explained above, in its
13
judgment, the court found that Plaintiff was not treated differently from persons
similarly situated. Without this showing, there could be no finding that
Defendants’ treatment of Plaintiff was intentional. (See Doc. 50 at 26) (“To
prevail here, Daley must show that he was treated differently from persons who are
similarly situated, and that this treatment was purposeful or intentional rather than
incidental”) (citation omitted). Thus, Plaintiff’s claim here fails.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the
court’s memorandum and order granting summary judgment in favor of
Defendants will be denied.
An appropriate order follows.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: July 24, 2012.
14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAMEON DALEY,
Plaintiff
v.
HARLEY LAPPIN, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 1:CV-10-02060
(Judge Rambo)
ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 53) is
DENIED.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: July 24, 2012.
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?