Jones v. Williams, No. 12-35131 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a former inmate at the Penitentiary, as well as a Muslim and a member of the Nation of Islam, appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of fifteen employees of the Department on several civil rights claims filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-2000cc-5. The court concluded that plaintiff's RLUIPA claims for monetary relief are foreclosed by Sossamon v. Texas and Wood v. Yordy and plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are moot because he has been released from custody; plaintiff's section 1983 free exercise claims, all stemming from his religious beliefs against consuming and handling pork, are affirmed except that the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for plaintiff's claim that he was required to cook pork as part of his job duties; and, in regards to the First Amendment retaliation claim, the court concluded that there were genuine issues as to whether a food services manager retaliated against plaintiff for his complaints of discrimination and his threat to sue. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's equal protection claim based on allegations of racial discrimination in the disciplinary proceedings following an altercation. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment and remanded in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by a Muslim inmate whose 4 JONES V. WILLIAMS religious beliefs forbid him from consuming or handling pork. Affirming the district court’s’ summary judgment in favor of appellees on the claims brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the panel held that under Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651, 1658–59 (2011), and Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 903–04 (9th Cir. 2014), appellant could not obtain the monetary relief he sought. The panel further determined that the claims for injunctive relief were moot because appellant had been released. Addressing appellant’s three free exercise claims brought under § 1983, the panel first affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of appellees on the claim arising from the events of May 31, 2007. The panel held that appellant’s evidence was not sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether a tamale pie contained pork or whether the prison’s food service coordinator ordered cooks to add pork to the dish. The panel reversed the grant of summary judgment on a § 1983 claim arising from the events of July 8, 2007, and held that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity from appellant’s claim that he was ordered to cook pork loins as part of his job duties in the kitchen. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of appellees on appellant’s claim challenging the prison’s method of cleaning grills on which meats served to inmates are cooked. Addressing appellant’s First Amendment retaliation claim, the panel held that there were genuine issues as to whether a food services manager retaliated against appellant for his complaints of discrimination and his threat to sue. JONES V. WILLIAMS 5 The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials on appellant’s equal protection claim arising from an altercation. The panel determined that appellant pointed to no evidence that his placement in disciplinary segregation and subsequent proceedings against him were motivated by the fact that he is African-American.
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.