Basra v. Morgan et al

Filing 49

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 47 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by Paramjit Singh Basra; granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 39 ; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN) Modified on 1/3/2018 (DN). (cc to pltf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9

PARAMJIT SINGH BASRA,
Plaintiff,

10

12

RICHARD MORGAN, et al.,
Defendant.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.

11

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-06005-RBL-JRC

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J.
Richard Creatura, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining
record, does hereby find and ORDER:
(1)

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2)

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 39) is granted in part and

denied in part, as follows:
(1) RLUIPA and the First Amendment:
a. The restriction on regular contact visitation with plaintiff’s daughter is the least
restrictive means of furthering safety and security and summary judgment is
granted as to this claim brought pursuant to RLUIPA, the Court denies

24
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION - 1

1

defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the claim regarding the

2

restriction on all means of communication with her brought pursuant to RLUIPA.

3

b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claim that prohibiting

4

plaintiff in person visitation violates the First Amendment is granted on the basis

5

of qualified immunity.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

c. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that the dietary
restrictions violate RLUIPA is denied.
d. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that the dietary
restrictions violate the First Amendment is denied.
(2) Retaliation: Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claim that
defendants retaliated against him is granted.
(3) Due Process: Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted as to plaintiff’s

13

allegations that his due process rights have been violated by being denied visitation with

14

his daughter and by defendants’ failure to allow contact when a court has recalled a no

15

contact order.

16

(4) Equal Protection: Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claim of

17

denial of Equal Protection in that he is being discriminated against on the basis of his

18

religion is granted as to the restriction against contact visitation, but is denied as to the

19

requirement that plaintiff make Commissary purchases if he wishes to follow his

20

religious diet requiring dairy but including no meat.

21
22
23

(5) Personal participation insufficiently alleged:
a. The Court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims
against defendants Morgan, Herzog, Wall, and Allison.

24
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION - 2

1
2

b. The Court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims
against defendant Howell.

3
4

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2018.

5

A

6

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION - 3