(PC) Hodges v. Sharon, et al., No. 1:2013cv00654 - Document 71 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 56 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART; GRANTING 41 SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART AND DENYING IT IN PART AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 66 MOTION TO STRIKE signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/3/2016. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYRE’ID O.I. HODGES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:13-cv-00654-DAD-SAB v. JERALD SHARON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART; GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART AND DENYING IT IN PART; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE (Doc. Nos. 41, 56, 66) 17 18 Plaintiff is appearing pro se1 and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 19 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 21 2000 (“RLUIPA”). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 30, 2015, defendants filed a motion for 23 summary judgment. (Doc. No. 41). 24 25 26 27 28 1 On August 24, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order appointing counsel on behalf of plaintiff for the limited purpose of assisting plaintiff in preparing for and participating in a settlement conference in this action which is now scheduled before another magistrate judge on November 29, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 60, 64.) The Clerk of the Court is directed to correct the docket in this action to reflect that plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action and that appointed counsel is appearing on his behalf for this limited purpose only. 1 1 On July 28, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 2 recommending that defendants motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in 3 part. (Doc. No. 56.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 4 notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days 5 (30) days from the date of service. On August 15, 2016, plaintiff filed objections to the findings 6 and recommendations. (Doc. No. 59.) On August 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a document styled as 7 his “additional objections” to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 61.) On August 26, 8 2016, defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 62.)2 On 9 September 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a declaration and a motion to strike defendants’ objections to 10 the findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 65, 66.)3 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 12 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds 13 the findings and recommendations to be largely supported by the record and by proper analysis. 14 However, given developments occurring after the findings and recommendations were served on 15 the parties, apparently resulting in substantive changes to what were represented to be the 16 undisputed material facts on summary judgment, the undersigned cannot adopt the findings and 17 recommendations in full. Accordingly, those findings and recommendations are adopted, save 18 and except as discussed below. 19 I. The Shabbat Worship Claim 20 In his complaint plaintiff alleged that his ability to celebrate Shabbat was being 21 substantially burdened for a variety of reasons. Defendants moved for summary judgment in their 22 favor on this claim based upon evidence that accommodations intended to ameliorate these 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 In addition, on July 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a statement concerning Shabbat services and on August 30, 2016, he filed a notice regarding his removal from the kosher diet program. (Doc. Nos. 57, 63.) 3 The findings and recommendations was served on defendants electronically on July 28, 2016, and provided notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. Defendants timely filed their objections on August 26, 2016. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ objections (Doc. No. 66) is denied. 2 1 burdens had been in place at the time of the motion for more than a year. (Doc. No. 41-1 at 20.) 2 In the findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge noted these accommodations and 3 recommended that summary judgment be granted in defendants favor with respect to plaintiff’s 4 Shabbat worship claim on that basis. (Doc. No. 56 at 25–26.) The two undisputed facts 5 underlying the magistrate judge’s recommendation as to this claim were: (1) the Messianic Jewish 6 inmates were scheduled to have religious services in the Facility A main chapel on Saturday (the 7 day for celebrating Shabbat) from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and had been so scheduled for more 8 than a year; and (2) Chaplain Haroun was present to assist the inmates if needed during the 9 Shabbat services. (Id.) Based upon this evidence presented on summary judgment, the 10 magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff could not show any policy, practice, or procedure 11 instituted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) had 12 substantially burdened his access to Shabbat services. (Id.) 13 In his objections, plaintiff asserts there is no longer a chaplain working on Saturdays and 14 that he is no longer receiving Shabbat services on Saturday mornings. (Doc. No. 59 at 1–2.) 15 Further, according to plaintiff, the Messianic Jewish inmates are no longer permitted to have 16 religious services in the main chapel during that time, but are required to conduct services 17 outside. (Id.) According to plaintiff, this change inhibits the religious practice in two ways: (1) 18 the Messianic Jewish inmates can no longer use TVs or DVD players in their services because 19 they are outside; and (2) plaintiff is forced to place the religious items used during worship on the 20 ground, which “is a defilement of our religious items.” (Id.) In his objections, plaintiff has also 21 come forward with evidence of this change in practice, specifically an inmate request form in 22 which J. Moore, the community resources manager at Corcoran Substance Abuse Treatment 23 Facility advises that Chaplain Haroun “does not work weekends” and that services on Saturday 24 can be “scheduled in the outdoor religious grounds.” (Doc. No. 59 at 6.) J. Moore’s signature on 25 this form is dated August 3, 2016, approximately one week after the findings and 26 recommendations recommending that summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants were 27 issued. 28 ///// 3 1 Thus, it now appears that the two factual circumstances noted by the magistrate judge in 2 concluding that summary judgment was appropriate on this claim have substantially changed. 3 Since these accommodations were the only basis upon which defendants moved for summary 4 judgment on this claim, and those accommodations are no longer being provided, the undersigned 5 does not adopt the recommendation that defendants be granted summary judgment in their favor 6 as to plaintiff’s Shabbat worship claim.4 The undersigned expresses no opinion as to whether the 7 current accommodations, whatever they may be, are such that a triable issue of fact on plaintiff’s 8 Shabbat worship claim exists or not. 9 II. The Kosher Diet Claims 10 Defendants also initially moved for summary judgment in their favor on any claim related 11 to the alleged failure to provide plaintiff a kosher diet based on their presentation of evidence that 12 plaintiff had, in fact, been receiving kosher meals since February 13, 2014. (Doc. No. 41-1 at 13 20.) The magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be 14 granted because it was undisputed that plaintiff was now receiving kosher meals, thereby mooting 15 the issue. (Doc. No. 56 at 27–29.) It now appears plaintiff was removed from the kosher diet 16 program on August 19, 2016, after the findings and recommendations were issued, because he 17 was charged with at least one and possibly two prison rule violations for purchasing non-kosher 18 items from the canteen. (Doc. Nos. 61, 68.) Because it is now clear that the undisputed material 19 facts presented to the assigned magistrate judge are no longer true, the undersigned does not 20 adopt the recommendation that defendants be granted summary judgment with respect to 21 plaintiff’s kosher diet claim. Again, the undersigned expresses no opinion as to whether, based 22 upon the current evidence, plaintiff’s religious practices are being subjected to a substantial 23 burden. 24 ///// 25 4 26 27 28 The timing of these apparent changes to the accommodations being extended to plaintiff is somewhat troubling. Perhaps the court is not aware of all of the surrounding circumstances. However, regardless of the reasons for the changes, the undersigned would have expected defendants to advise the court if the undisputed material facts on summary judgment had changed at any point during the pendency of this lawsuit and especially while their motion for summary judgment was still under submission. 4 Defendants’ Objections 1 III. 2 Defendants moved for summary judgment on any claim that they be required to hire a 3 Messianic Jewish chaplain, asserting there was no legal obligation for CDCR to hire such an 4 employee and that the failure to do so did not impose a “substantial burden” on plaintiff. (Doc. 5 No. 41-1 at 16–18.) The magistrate judge recommended denying defendants’ motion for 6 summary judgment with respect to this claim, noting that plaintiff had presented some evidence 7 that due to confusion amongst the prison chaplains about the differences between traditional and 8 Messianic Judaism, the prison chaplains were compelling prisoners to use inappropriate religious 9 items in their services and to celebrate religious holidays in inappropriate ways. (Doc. No. 56 at 10 20.) Defendants believe this recommendations should be rejected for much the same reason as 11 initially argued, namely, that they have no obligation to hire a Messianic Jewish chaplain or 12 supply inmates with religious items for their personal use. (Doc. No. 62 at 1–5.) The 13 undersigned is not persuaded by these arguments, which largely miss the point. 14 The magistrate judge found a genuine dispute of material fact because these two failures 15 by prison chaplains—requiring prisoners to use inappropriate religious items and celebrate 16 holidays in inappropriate ways—could constitute evidence of a substantial burdening of 17 plaintiff’s practice of his religion. (Doc. No. 56 at 20.) While defendants might not be required 18 to provide plaintiff’s choice of a religious chaplain as a general rule, the evidence presented by 19 plaintiff on summary judgment indicates that this failure in this particular circumstance may be 20 leading to a Hobson’s choice wherein plaintiff either celebrates holidays in an inappropriate 21 manner for his religion or is barred from celebrating them at all. See Greene v. Solano Cty. Jail, 22 513 F.3d 982, 987–88 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that the Ninth Circuit had previously found that the 23 “false choice” between complying with a regulation or having privileges revoked for the failure to 24 do so was no defense to an RLUIPA claim) (discussing Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 25 (9th Cir. 2005)). 26 Further, to the extent defendants seek rejection of the magistrate judge’s finding that there 27 is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether plaintiff is being accommodated with two 28 annual special religious meals on Passover and Yom Kippur, they do so by disputing plaintiff’s 5 1 evidence. This is no basis upon which to reject the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Rather, 2 the argument itself establishes the correctness of the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the 3 evidence on summary judgment establishes the existence of disputed issues of material fact 4 precluding the granting of summary judgment as to this claim. 5 For the reasons set forth above: 6 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to correct the docket to reflect that plaintiff is 7 proceeding pro se in this action and that appointed counsel is appearing on his behalf only for the 8 limited purpose of assisting plaintiff in connection with the upcoming settlement conference;. 2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ objections as untimely (Doc. No. 66) is denied; 9 10 11 3. The findings and recommendations filed July 28, 2016 (Doc. No. 56) are adopted in part; 4. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 41) is granted in part and denied 12 13 in part as follows: 14 a. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff‘s third 15 party claims is granted; 16 b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s RLUIPA 17 claims for Messianic Jewish religious personal items and approval of plaintiff’s 18 designated vendors is granted; 19 c. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s RLUIPA 20 claims for a Messianic Jewish chaplain, two special religious meals per year, 21 Saturday morning Shabbat services, three kosher meals daily, and Messianic 22 Jewish items for corporate worship is denied; and 5. This action is now proceeding against defendants on plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims for a 23 24 Messianic Jewish chaplain, two special religious meals per year, Saturday morning Shabbat 25 services, three kosher meals daily, Messianic Jewish items for corporate worship, and a religious 26 designation for Messianic Judaism to be officially accepted and endorsed by CDCR, and claims 27 ///// 28 ///// 6 1 for violation of the First Amendment; and against defendant Jerald Sharon on plaintiff’s 2 individual equal protection claim. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: November 3, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
