Jefferson v. Wall et al
Filing
71
ORDER denying as moot 28 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; passing as withdrawn 62 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; adopting 67 Report and Recommendations; adopting 70 Report and Recommendations. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 12/18/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ASHBEL T. WALL, Director of Rhode )
Island Department of Corrections; )
CORY CLOUD, Grievance Coordinator )
at Rhode Island’s Adult
)
Correctional Institutions; MATTHEW )
KETTLE, Associate Director/Warden )
of the Adult Correctional
)
Institutions’ Maximum Security
)
Building; LT. AMARAL, Correctional )
Officer at the Adult Correctional )
Institutions; DR. JENNIFER CLARKE, )
Medical Program Director at the
)
Adult Correctional Institutions;
)
DOCTORS AMANDA NOSKA, MICHAEL
)
POSHKUS, and CHRISTOPHER SALAS,
)
Members of the Rhode Island
)
Department of Corrections
)
Hepatitis C Committee,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
LEONARD C. JEFFERSON,
C.A. No. 16-652 WES
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
On
filed
a
November
Report
9,
and
2017,
Magistrate
Recommendation
Judge
(“R&R”)
Patricia
(ECF
No.
A.
Sullivan
67)
denying
Plaintiff’s request for an evidentiary hearing and recommending that
the Court deny as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(ECF No. 28) to the extent that it seeks relief related to his claim
under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
On
November 27, 2017, Magistrate Judge Sullivan filed an additional R&R
(ECF
No.
70)
recommending
that
Plaintiff’s
Amended
Motion
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 62) be passed as withdrawn.
for
After
carefully reviewing both R&Rs and the relevant papers, and having
heard no objections, the Court ACCEPTS both R&Rs in their entirety
and adopts their reasoning.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary
No.
Injunction
(ECF
28)
is
DENIED
as
moot
and
Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 62)
is passed as withdrawn.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: December 18, 2017
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
LEONARD C. JEFFERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASHBEL T. WALL, Director of Rhode
Island Department of Corrections;
COREY CLOUD, Grievance Coordinator
at Rhode Island’s Adult Correctional
Institutions; MATTHEW KETTLE,
Associate Director/Warden of the Adult
Correctional Institutions’ Maximum
Security Building; LT. AMARAL,
Correctional Officer at the Adult
Correctional Institutions; DR. JENNIFER
CLARKE, Medical Program Director
at the Adult Correctional Institutions;
DOCTORS AMANDA NOSKA,
MICHAEL POSHKUS, and
CHRISTOPHER SALAS, Members of
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Hepatitis C. Committee,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
C.A. No. 16-652WES
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Invoking the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42
U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq., pro se Plaintiff Leonard Jefferson, a prisoner at the Adult Correctional
Institution (“ACI”), claims that the exercise of his sincerely-held religious belief as a Muslim has
been unduly burdened by the headwear policy of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections
(“RIDOC”), which prohibits him from wearing his kufi 1 at all times and in all places within the
1
“A Kufi is a ‘close-fitting brimless cylindrical or round hat.’” Harris v. Wall, 217 F. Supp. 3d 541, 546 n.4 (D.R.I.
2016) (quoting Malik v. Ozmint, C.A. No. 8:07-387-RBH-BHH, 2008 WL 701517, at *9 (D.S.C. Feb. 13, 2008)). It
is worn by Muslims as a religious head covering. Harris, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 546.
ACI. 2 The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction
seeking interim relief in connection with his RLUIPA claim (“the motion”). ECF No. 28.
Specifically, Plaintiff has asked the Court to enter an injunction that would “immediately allow
him to wear his kufi in all areas of the [ACI] at all times, subject to searches pursuant to existing
ACI Policies.” ECF No. 28 at 1. With Plaintiff’s responsive filing on October 30, 2017 (ECF
No. 64), the motion is now fully briefed and ready for determination as to whether an evidentiary
hearing is necessary, and, if not, for report and recommendation.
On November 1, 2017, RIDOC advised the Court that it had issued a new Standard
Operating Procedure, which became effective on November 6, 2017 (“2017 SOP”). ECF No. 65.
The 2017 SOP provides that ACI inmates who are listed as Muslim, such as Plaintiff, are
permitted to wear a specified kufi anywhere in the ACI’s secure facilities, 3 subject to search
procedures. ECF No. 65-1. The 2017 SOP moots Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction
because it provides him with all of the relief sought by the motion. In light of RIDOC’s adoption
of the 2017 SOP, there is no need for this Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the
propriety of his recent discipline for possession of contraband. Nor is it appropriate for the Court
to have an evidentiary hearing on his somewhat bizarre claim that he is not a prisoner under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. §1997e (“PLRA”). 4 Nor must the Court resolve
2
Plaintiff also claims that he has been deprived of necessary treatment for chronic hepatitis C. That claim is not
implicated by the motion for injunctive relief addressed by this report and recommendation.
3
The 2017 SOP excludes the “Correctional Industries” from the areas where the kufi may be worn. Plaintiff works
as a Dining Room Packer (ECF No. 28 at 3), and there is nothing in the record suggesting that he would be affected
by this exception. To the extent that Plaintiff believes that this exception burdens his religious practice, he may file
a new motion for injunctive relief.
4
In 1974, Plaintiff was convicted of murder and sentenced to life by the Rhode Island Superior Court, but was
paroled in 1985. In 1994, he was convicted in Pennsylvania of aggravated assault based on an incident involving the
use of a baseball bat; this conviction resulted in the revocation of his Rhode Island parole. After serving almost
twenty years in Pennsylvania, Plaintiff was returned to the custody of Rhode Island, where he is now serving the life
sentence for murder. Plaintiff has argued that the PLRA does not apply to the motion because his parole was
wrongly revoked. But see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h) (PLRA defines “prisoner” as “any person incarcerated or detained
2
Plaintiff’s accusation that RIDOC misled the Court in omitting the wearing of protective head
coverings by food workers from the information provided to the Court in another case raising the
same RLUIPA claims (Harris v. Wall, CA. No. 16-080 S). 5 Rather, with all of the relief sought
by the motion provided by the 2017 SOP, there is no issue requiring an evidentiary hearing, and
the motion should be denied as moot.
Based on the foregoing, I deny Plaintiff’s request for an evidentiary hearing and
recommend that the Court deny as moot his motion for preliminary injunction to the extent that
the motion seeks relief in connection with his RLUIPA claim. ECF No. 28.
Any objection to this report and recommendation must be specific and must be served
and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after its service on the objecting
party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); DRI LR Cv 72(d). Failure to file specific objections in a
timely manner constitutes waiver of the right to review by the district judge and the right to
appeal the Court’s decision. See United States v. Lugo Guerrero, 524 F.3d 5, 14 (1st Cir. 2008);
Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 605 (1st Cir. 1980).
/s/ Patricia A. Sullivan
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN
United States Magistrate Judge
November 9, 2017
in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal
law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program”).
5
As already noted on the record during a prior hearing in this case, the Court has not found any of RIDOC’s filings
to be in bad faith or deceptive.
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
LEONARD C. JEFFERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASHBEL T. WALL, Director of Rhode
Island Department of Corrections;
COREY CLOUD, Grievance Coordinator
at Rhode Island’s Adult Correctional
Institutions; MATTHEW KETTLE,
Associate Director/Warden of the Adult
Correctional Institutions’ Maximum
Security Building; LT. AMARAL,
Correctional Officer at the Adult
Correctional Institutions; DR. JENNIFER
CLARKE, Medical Program Director
at the Adult Correctional Institutions;
DOCTORS AMANDA NOSKA,
MICHAEL POSHKUS, and
CHRISTOPHER SALAS, Members of
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Hepatitis C Committee,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
C.A. No. 16-652WES
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
On October 17, 2017, acting through counsel appointed from the Court’s pro bono panel,
Plaintiff Leonard C. Jefferson filed his renewed motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 62),
requesting the Court to order Defendants to provide treatment for his life-threatening condition
of chronic hepatitis C. The motion is grounded in Plaintiff’s right under the Eighth Amendment
of the United States Constitution to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as a result of
prison officials’ deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 103 (1976). The motion has been referred to me for report and recommendation pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
After the filing of Plaintiffs’ opening brief, supported by a deposition, other discovery
responses, and other relevant materials, the Court set a schedule for further briefing and an
evidentiary hearing. Text Order of Oct. 31, 2017. Well prior to the deadline for the filing of
their opposition to the motion, on November 7, 2017, Defendants filed a Notice advising that
Rhode Island Department of Corrections (“RIDOC”) had expeditiously convened its hepatitis C
Committee, which had voted to treat Plaintiff as requested by the motion for injunctive relief.
After a brief hiatus, during which Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that treatment had indeed been
initiated, on November 22, 2017, Plaintiff responded to the Notice by advising the Court that he
is now receiving the treatment of the type sought by the preliminary injunction motion. In light
of the commencement of such treatment and the expectation that it will cure the hepatitis C,
Plaintiff has withdrawn the motion. Based on the withdrawal of the motion, and with
commendation to counsel for all parties for the professionalism with which they have handled
this issue, I now recommend that renewed motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 62) based
on Eighth Amendment claims be passed as withdrawn.
Any objection to this report and recommendation must be specific and must be served
and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after its service on the objecting
party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); DRI LR Cv 72(d). Failure to file specific objections in a
timely manner constitutes waiver of the right to review by the district judge and the right to
appeal the Court’s decision. See United States v. Lugo Guerrero, 524 F.3d 5, 14 (1st Cir. 2008);
Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 605 (1st Cir. 1980).
/s/ Patricia A. Sullivan
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN
United States Magistrate Judge
November 27, 2017
2
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?