Randall v. State of Utah et al
Filing
65
MEMORANDUM DECISION & Order: Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 58) is DENIED. Defendant's motion to dismiss claims against Defendant Caldwell is DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Seal is GRANTED (ECF No. 51) as un opposed. Defendants' Motion to Substitute Parties (ECF No. 57; 59) is GRANTED as unopposed. Defendants have thirty days in which to SHOW CAUSE why Defendant Caldwell's successor should not be substituted as a Defendant in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) and local DU7-1(a)(2)(D). Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 03/26/2024. (kpf)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
RICHARD CHAD RANDALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 4:19-cv-38-DN
STATE OF UTAH, et al.,
District Judge David Nuffer
Defendants.
Plaintiff Richard Chad Randall, appearing pro se, seeks relief from Defendants' refusal to
allow him access to Tarot Compendium, a text he purchased to assist in the practice of his
Wiccan faith. This court has previously dismissed several of Plaintiff's related claims. See, ECF
No. 44 (Dismissing all claims except claims based on Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA). 42 U.S.C.S. §2000cc, et seq. against Defendants in their official
capacities.)
Defendants move for summary judgment of Petitioner's RLUIPA claim, arguing that
Defendants' refusal to deliver Tarot Compendium does not violate RLUIPA as a matter of law.
(ECF No. 58, at 16-26.) Defendants also move to dismiss Plaintiff's claim specifically against
Defendant Caldwell because Defendant Caldwell is no longer an employee of the prison, and his
successor cannot grant the requested relief. (ECF No. 58, at 15-16).
Two other motions are pending before the court: Defendants' unopposed motion to seal
corrections records filed as exhibits in this proceeding. (ECF No. 51.) and Defendants'
unopposed motion to substitute defendants based on the fact that the Defendant Nelson and
Defendant Gehrke are no longer employed in their former capacities and their successors should
1
be substituted as Defendants in their place pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25. (ECF
No. 57; 59)
Having considered the issues and the file in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the
non-moving party, the court finds that Defendants fail to establish that they are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion for summary
judgment is therefore DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Richard Chad Randall (Plaintiff) is incarcerated in the Central Utah Correctional
Facility (CUCF) because of convictions in 2011 for child kidnapping and aggravated sex abuse
of a child. Plaintiff is an adherent of the Wiccan faith.
In August 2018, Plaintiff ordered a text, Tarot Compendium, from a prison approved
bookseller. On or around August 22, 2018, Plaintiff received a Property Disposition form
notifying him that Tarot Compendium was "Denied for Nudity." See, ECF No. 3-6.
Neither party has argued that Tarot Compendium contains sexually explicit material, but
it is undisputed that Tarot Compendium contains "upwards of fifty nude images of men, women,
and children." (ECF No. 58, at 6.) Plaintiff has argued that depictions of nudity like those
contained in Tarot Compendium are essential elements his religious practice. See ECF No. 3-12,
at 4 ("There are no decks of Tarot cards which contain the symbolic teachings/meanings of the
Tarot that do not contain depictions of the naked human body. This is because the naked body is
the symbol of many ancient concepts."(emphasis in original)).
The approved bookseller's listing for the Tarot Compendium reads
*6803652 Tarot Compendium. By Giordano Berti et al.
Everything you need to know about using the Tarot to explore deep
metaphysical systems, the nature [illegible] the universe, the
personal psyche and [illegible] psyche of others are found in
2
[illegible] comprehensive reference. This volume is preceded by
Tarot Fundamentals and Tarot Experience. Fully illus. in color. 656
pages. Lo Scarabeo. Import. Pub at $39.95 $29.95
(ECF No. 3-3, at 2.) Adjacent to the text is a low-quality image off what appears to be a book
cover. The image appears to portray a clothed female figure, possibly wearing an elaborate
headdress and holding some kind of placard in front of her. See Id. However, the copy in the
record is of insufficient quality to discern additional detail. See Id. Neither party has suggested
that the advertisement indicates that Tarot Compendium contains depictions of nudity or sexually
explicit conduct.
Plaintiff grieved the denial and was informed that Tarot Compendium violated prison
policies because it "features nudity." (ECF No. 3-6, at 14.) Plaintiff argued that Tarot
Compendium that the prison's refusal to deliver his copy of Tarot Compendium was unlawful
because the text did not "feature nudity" as defined in Utah law. (ECF No. 3-6, at 4-5 citing
U.C.A. § 64-13-41(1)(b)(i)(A) ("Features nudity" means the information or material … promotes
itself based upon depictions of nudity or sexually explicit conduct.").) After unsuccessfully
attempting to obtain delivery of the text through the prison grievance process, Plaintiff filed suit
in this court.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 26) asserted causes of actions founded in the
Due Process, Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech clauses of the Constitution, as well
as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). See U.S. Const. amends.
I, V; 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 2000cc-2000cc-5 (2024). This court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss
with regard to the Constitutional claims, but denied the motion with regard to the RLUIPA
claim. See, ECF No. 44.
Plaintiff's sole surviving claim asserts that Defendants violated the RLUIPA because the
3
denial of Tarot Compendium substantially burdens the exercise of his religion and is not the least
restrictive means of accomplishing compelling government interests. Id. at 4-5, 12-13. Plaintiff
continues to argue that Tarot Compendium should not have been denied because it does not meet
the definition of a publication which "features nudity" as that term is defined in Utah law and the
prison's prohibited mail policy. Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that even if Tarot Compendium
"features nudity" it should nevertheless be allowed because it qualifies for an exception to the
prohibited mail policy under FD03/03.04(C) ("Material that is of a news or information type,
may be admitted on a case-by-case basis if the material: 1. is not primarily for sexual arousal; 2.
Is not primarily for prurient reasons; and 3. Does not threaten the safety, security and
management of the prison.")
For the purposes of this motion for summary judgment, Defendants concede that the
denial of Tarot Compendium substantially burdens Plaintiff's sincerely held practice of his
Wiccan faith. (ECF No. 58, at 17.) However, Defendants contend that they have "met their
burden to show that the denial of the Tarot Compendium serves a compelling government
interest, and Defendants' offers to provide sufficiently similar texts without nudity is the least
restrictive means furthering the governmental interests." (ECF No. 58, at 17-18, citing
Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301, 1318 (10th Cir. 2010).)
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[A] mere
factual dispute will not preclude summary judgment; instead there must be a genuine issue of
material fact.” Cooperman v. David, 214 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 2000). To prevail at
4
summary judgment, a movant is "obliged to show merely that a reasonable fact finder could rule
his way when viewing the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to him." Yellowbear
v. Lampert, 741 F.3d 48, 56 (10th Cir. 2014). “As to materiality, the substantive law will identify
which facts are material. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under
the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The court “look[s] at the factual record and the
reasonable inferences to be drawn from the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.” Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 1230 (10th Cir. 2006).
The movant has the initial burden to show “an absence of evidence to support an essential
element of the non-movant’s case.” Johnson v City of Bountiful, 996 F. Supp. 1100, 1102 (D.
Utah 1998). Once movant satisfies this burden, “the burden then shifts to the non-movant to
make a showing sufficient to establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the
existence of that element.” Id. The non-movant must then “go beyond the pleadings and ‘set
forth specific facts’ that would be admissible in evidence in the event of a trial from which a
rational trier of fact could find for the nonmovant.” Lopez v. LeMaster, 172 F.3d 756, 759 (10th
Cir. 1999).
B. Prohibited Mail Policy
The Utah Department of Corrections (UDC) is statutorily prohibited from allowing
inmate access to material which "features nudity" as that term is defined in Utah law. See U.C.A.
§§ 64-13-41(2) ("State funds may not be used to distribute … any commercially published
information or material to an offender when the state employee … who has the authority to
expend the funds knows that the commercially published information or material is sexually
explicit or features nudity."); 64-13-41(1)(b)(i)(A) ("'Features nudity' means information or
5
material: (A) that in the case of a one-time publication or issue, promotes itself based upon
depictions of nudity or sexually-explicit conduct.") UDC has discretion to make exceptions for
"material containing nudity that is illustrative of medical, educational, or anthropological
content" U.C.A. § 64-13-41(1)(b)(ii). Accordingly, the prison mail policy provides the following
exception to its prohibited mail policy:
Sexually-explicit information or material containing nudity that is
illustrative of medical, educational or anthropological content may
be accepted for distribution on a case-by-case basis, (e.g., National
Geographic, Our Bodies, Our Selves, etc.), if the material:
1. is not primarily for sexual arousal;
2. is not primarily for prurient reasons (having too much
interest with sexual matters);
3. is not of questionable literary value; and
4. does not threaten the safety, security, and management of
the prison.
FD03.03/04(B) (ECF 52-1, at 23.)
III. ANALYSIS
Defendants fail to establish whether the statutory definition of "features nudity" applies to
Tarot Compendium as an undisputed material fact. Defendants' statement of undisputed material
facts elides the distinction between materials that meet the statutory definition of "feature nudity"
and materials which merely contain nudity. Defendants assert that
6. On or about August 22, 2018, delivery of Tarot Compendium was
denied because it contained nudity. Tarot Compendium contains
upwards of fifty nude images of men, women, and children.
….
21. When screening inmate mail and incoming personal property,
the Department of Corrections is tasked with ensuring that certain
materials do not enter CUCF, including materials featuring nudity.
22. If the inmate mail or incoming property feature nudity, the
Department of Corrections may deny that mail or personal property
if it decides that such material will "threaten the safety, security, and
management of the prison.
23. The Department of Corrections prohibits nudity to serve its
legitimate penological interest in safety, security, and inmate
6
rehabilitation….
ECF No. 58, at 9 (emphasis added) (citations omitted.)
The distinction between "features nudity" and "contains nudity" is important because
Defendants' authority (and responsibility) to refuse delivery of Tarot Compendium derives from
Utah statute which provides the statutory definition of "features nudity." See U.C.A. §§ 64-1341(1)(b)(i)(A) ("State funds may not be used to distribute … material to an offender when the
state employee, contractor, or private provider who has the authority to expend the funds knows
that the commercially published information or material is sexually explicit or features nudity.");
64-13-41(1)(b)(i)(A) ("'features nudity' means the information or material … promotes itself
based upon depictions of nudity or sexually-explicit conduct.")
Significantly, the statute designates a different definition for "features nudity" in the
context of a one-time publication or issue compared to a periodical. When applied to a "one-time
publication or issue" "features nudity" means "the information or material … promotes itself
based upon depictions of nudity or sexually explicit conduct." U.C.A. § 64-13-41(1)(b)(i)(A). In
contrast, the legislature created a lower "contains nudity" standard to be applied to periodicals:
"in the case of information or material other than under Subsection (1)(b)(i)(A)" "features
nudity" means the information or material "contains depictions of nudity or sexually explicit
conduct on a routine or regular basis." U.C.A. § 64-13-41(1)(b)(i)(B). Unlike "features nudity,"
"Contains nudity" is not defined. Neither party contends that the depictions in Tarot
Compendium meet the definition of "sexually explicit" which is common to both categories. See
U.C.A. § 64-13-41(1)(e). ("'Sexually explicit' means a pictorial depiction of actual or simulated
sexual acts, including sexual intercourse, sodomy, or masturbation.")
Therefore, interpreting "features nudity" as applied to a single publication like Tarot
7
Compendium merely to mean that the publication "contains nudity" destroys the legislative
distinction between one-time publications and periodicals.
Defendants nevertheless argue that Tarot Compendium meets the definition for "features
nudity." (ECF No. 62, at 7.) To reach this conclusion, Defendants superimpose a dictionary
definition of "feature" Id. (observing that "Merriam Webster's Dictionary defines 'feature' as 'a
prominent part or characteristic.'") Defendants argue that "Tarot Compendium" includes upward
of 50 pages with nude imagery of men, women, and children. As such nudity is a 'prominent part
of characteristic' of Tarot Compendium and it facially promotes itself based upon depictions of
nudity" Id. at 7-8.
However, the dictionary definition of "feature" is inapposite to the statutory definition of
"features nudity." Therefore, Defendants can only establish that Tarot Compendium "features
nudity" if they can show that it "promotes itself based upon depictions of nudity or sexually
explicit conduct."
Based on evidence in the record, considered in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a fact
finder might reasonably conclude that Tarot Compendium does not market itself based on
depictions of nudity and therefore does not "feature nudity." The record includes the listing used
by the prison-authorized bookseller to market Tarot Compendium. The listing contains no
indication that Tarot Compendium contains depictions of nudity or sexually explicit conduct.
Again, the advertisement for Tarot Compendium reads:
*6803652 Tarot Compendium. By Giordano Berti et al.
Everything you need to know about using the Tarot to explore deep
metaphysical systems, the nature [illegible] the universe, the
personal psyche and [illegible] psyche of others are found in
[illegible] comprehensive reference. This volume is preceded by
Tarot Fundamentals and Tarot Experience. Fully illus. in color. 656
pages. Lo Scarabeo. Import. Pub at $39.95 $29.95
8
(ECF No. 3-3, at 2.) Adjacent to the text is an image off what appears to be a book cover. The
image appears to portray a clothed female figure, possibly wearing an elaborate headdress and
holding some kind of placard in front of her. See Id. However, the copy in the record is of
insufficient quality to make out any more detail. See Id. Neither party has suggested that the
listing markets Tarot Compendium based on depictions of nudity or sexually explicit conduct.
Therefore, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Tarot Compendium does not "feature
nudity" because it does not market itself based on depictions of nudity.
However, in order to defeat summary judgment, the non-movant must also establish that
an undisputed fact is material. Cooperman v. David, 214 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 2000). (“[A]
mere factual dispute will not preclude summary judgment; instead there must be a genuine issue
of material fact.”)
Whether Tarot Compendium "features nudity" is material to the proceedings because that
definition the fundamental legal basis for Defendants' authority to refuse to deliver Tarot
Compendium. Defendants effectively concede that they ban all nudity, not just publications which
"feature nudity" as defined in the Utah law. See ECF No. 58, at 9 ("The Department of Corrections
prohibits nudity to serve its legitimate penological interest in safety, security, and inmate
rehabilitation."); Declaration of James Hudspeth (ECF No. 52-17 ("As a standard practice the
prison does not allow nude imagery into the facility.").) However, they have not offered any
authority by which they could refuse delivery of Tarot Compendium if it does not "feature nudity."
Whether Tarot Compendium "features nudity" is a material disputed fact because it might affect
the outcome of the suit under governing law.
IV. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AGAINST DEFENDANT CALDWELL
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Caldwell because he is no
9
longer employed by UDC and can therefore, no longer provide relief in an RLUIPA action. (ECF
No. 58, at 15-16.) Petitioner opposes the motion. Neither the motion to dismiss, nor the reply in
support explains why Defendant Caldwell's successor cannot be substituted in under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 25(d) and local rule 7-1(a)(2)(D). Therefore, Defendants fail to establish that
they are entitled to the requested relief.
V. CONCLUSION
For the purposes of this motion, Defendants concede that they have imposed a substantial
burden on Plaintiff's sincerely held religious exercise. (ECF No. 58, at 17.) However,
Defendants, as the moving party, have failed to meet their burden to establish the absence of a
genuine dispute of material fact which would entitle them to judgment as a matter of law. The
court need not reach RLUIPA's requirement that the government establish that refusal of Tarot
Compendium is the least restrictive means of achieving a substantial government interest.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 58) is DENIED.
2.
Defendant's motion to dismiss claims against Defendant Caldwell is DENIED.
3.
Defendants' Motion to Seal is GRANTED (ECF No. 51) as unopposed.
4.
Defendants' Motion to Substitute Parties (ECF No. 57; 59) is GRANTED as
unopposed.
10
5.
Defendants have thirty days in which to SHOW CAUSE why Defendant
Caldwell's successor should not be substituted as a Defendant in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) and local DU7-1(a)(2)(D).
DATED this 26th day of March, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________________
JUDGE DAVID NUFFER
United States District Court
11
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?