rejecting First Amendment challenge to 26 prison policy against inmate ministers leading religious services (citing Turner v. 27 Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987); O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 28 351-52 (1987))
How later courts described this case
- rejecting First Amendment challenge to 26 prison policy against inmate ministers leading religious services (citing Turner v. 27 Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987); O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 28 351-52 (1987))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JESSE WASHINGTON, Case No. 2:22-cv-00619-FMO-JC
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
14 A. LASKOWSKI, et al., RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
Defendants.
16
17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions
18 in connection with Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”), along
19 with all of the records herein, including the June 11, 2024 Report and
20 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report and
21 Recommendation” or “R&R”) and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and
22 Recommendation (“Objections”). The Court has also considered Defendants’
23 response to the Objections and Plaintiff’s reply to the response. The Court has
24 further made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and
25 Recommendation to which objection is made.
26 The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ Motion be granted as to
27 Claims Two through Five of Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint
28 (alternatively, “FAC”) and denied as to Claim One, against Defendant Laskowski,
so that this action proceeds solely as against Defendant Laskowski on Claim One.
1 Plaintiff’s Objections dispute the Magistrate Judge’s findings as to Claims Two
2 and Five only. (See Objections at 2, 7-11; see also Objections at 1 n.1 (“Plaintiff
3 does not contest Claims Three and Four . . . .”).
4 Claim Two asserts that Defendant Laskowski violated the Free Exercise
5 Clause of the First Amendment by removing Plaintiff from his positions as a
6 Ramadan meal server and coordinator in 2020. (See FAC at 5, 5E). The
7 Magistrate Judge determined that the claim failed because the evidence, viewed in
8 the light most favorable to Plaintiff, did not show that Plaintiff’s mere inability to
9 participate in the preparation, service, and coordination of Ramadan meals
10 substantially burdened his religious beliefs, nor was Plaintiff otherwise prevented
11 from substantially participating in any practice consistent with his beliefs. (R&R
12 at 18-19). Plaintiff contends that his constitutional religious rights were violated
13 because, as one of the three assigned inmate ministers, his roles as Ramadan meal
14 server and coordinator were a “duty (Religious obligation/Belief) to the Muslim
15 Inmate Community” of the prison. (Objections at 8). However, Plaintiff has no
16 absolute constitutional right to engage in religious practices. Notwithstanding his
17 removal from certain religious leadership duties, Plaintiff has not demonstrated
18 that Defendant Laskowski substantially burdened his sincerely held religious
19 beliefs. Cf. Anderson v. Angelone, 123 F.3d 1197, 1199 (9th Cir. 1997) (rejecting
20 First Amendment challenge to state ban on inmate-led religious services due to
21 institutional security concerns; noting that although inmate could not lead the
22 religious services, there were “other ways for [inmate] to exercise his rights”
23 because ban did not foreclose him from practicing his religion, and he was also still
24 “welcome to assist the prison chaplain in leading religious activities”); Davis v.
25 Flores, 592 F. App’x 569 (9th Cir. 2015) (rejecting First Amendment challenge to
26 prison policy against inmate ministers leading religious services (citing Turner v.
27 Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987); O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342,
28 351-52 (1987))). In any event, Laskowski is entitled to qualified immunity
2
1 because, as the Magistrate Judge found, Plaintiff fails to establish that Defendant’s
2 actions violated a federal right that was clearly established at the time.
3 Claim Five asserts that Defendant Jones violated Plaintiff’s First
4 Amendment right to be free from retaliation by removing him from his position as
5 as a Ramadan food service coordinator on May 1, 2020, and as an ADA worker on
6 October 11, 2021. (See FAC at 5-5A, 5E-5I). The Magistrate Judge found that the
7 evidence fails to demonstrate that Defendant Jones had a retaliatory motive for his
8 actions. (R&R at 22-24). Plaintiff disputes this finding as to his removal from the
9 ADA position on October 11, 2021 (see Objections at 10-11), but he fails to
10 identify any evidence, direct or circumstantial, which plausibly suggests that Jones
11 acted with a retaliatory motive. Plaintiff points, for example, to his allegation that
12 Defendant Jones gave false testimony against Plaintiff on June 9, 2020, regarding
13 Plaintiff’s grievance against Laskowski about the Ramadan meal service.
14 (Objections at 10; see FAC at 5F). Yet, that was more than a year before
15 Plaintiff’s removal from the ADA job. Plaintiff also notes that on October 6, 2021,
16 Jones made Plaintiff fill out an additional application and accept a pay reduction
17 for the ADA job, but then had Plaintiff removed from the position just a few days
18 later. (Objections at 10-11; see FAC at 5G-5H). As such actions bear no apparent
19 connection to protected First Amendment conduct by Plaintiff, they do not
20 establish a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional right to be free from retaliation.
21 See Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 259 (2006); McCollum v. Cal. Dep’t of
22 Corr. & Rehab., 647 F.3d 870, 882 (9th Cir. 2011).
23 Plaintiff thus fails to undermines the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions in any
24 respect. Accordingly, the Court overrules the Objections and agrees with,
25 approves, and accepts the Report and Recommendation.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
3
1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
2 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to Claims
3 Two through Five of the operative First Amended Complaint and
4 denied as to Claim One of the operative First Amended Complaint;
5 2. Claims Two through Five of the operative First Amended Complaint
6 are dismissed with prejudice;
7 3. This action is dismissed as against Defendant C.M. Jones;
8 4. This action will proceed solely on Claim One of the operative First
9 Amended Complaint as against Defendant Laskowski.
10 IT IS SO ORDERED
11
DATED: August 22, 2024
12
_______________/s/_______________________
13
HONORABLE FERNANDO M. OLGUIN
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4