(PC) Adler v. Gonzalez et al, No. 1:2011cv01915 - Document 77 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 74 Findings and Recommendations to DENY Defendants' 64 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/6/2015. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 14 BRENT ADLER, Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 17 F. GONZALEZ, et al., Defendants. 18 19 20 CASE NO. 1:11-cv-1915-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 74) Plaintiff is a former state prisoner who initiated this civil rights action pro se and in forma pauperis on November 17, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has since been released 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 from prison and obtained counsel. (ECF Nos. 36 & 51.) This action proceeds against Defendants on Plaintiff’s First Amendment Free Exercise claim. (ECF Nos. 37, 38, 59, 62.) On June 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations to deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 74.) Defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations on July 14, 2015. (ECF No. 76.) 1 2 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 4 proper analysis. 5 6 The Court rejects Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff has not adequately linked 7 them to his claims. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied any opportunity for religious 8 expression, including both chapel services and cell-front guidance. Because there 9 remain disputed factual issues regarding Plaintiff’s access to both of these religious 10 11 activities, and Defendants admit their role in temporarily suspending Plaintiff’s access to chapel services (ECF No. 76, at 3), Plaintiff has adequately linked them to his claims. 12 13 14 The Court also rejects Defendants’ objection that their suspension of religious services during modified programming was constitutional because it was justified by 15 security concerns. Plaintiff has alleged not only that he was denied access to chapel 16 during modified programming, but also during normal programming. Disputes of fact 17 remain as to whether there were alternatives to the complete suspension of chapel 18 19 services, and whether chapel services continued to be suspended both after security threats had ceased and after normal programming had resumed. 20 21 Finally, the Court disagrees that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. As 22 stated above, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to all opportunities for religious 23 expression for two years and that Defendants were aware of the deprivation. As the 24 Court previously noted, the unconstitutionality of a total ban on religious services is 25 clearly established, so, taking Plaintiff’s version of the facts as true, it would have been 26 clear to a reasonable official in Defendants’ position that such deprivation was unlawful. 27 See Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1209 (9th Cir. 2008).. 28 2 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1) The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed June 30, 2015 (ECF 3 4 No. 74) in full; 2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 64) is DENIED. 5 6 7 8 9 3) The case is to remain open. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill August 6, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.