The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 KEITH JEROME WRIGHT, Case No. 1:22-cv-01082-JLT-CDB (PC)
12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING THE PARTIES’ CROSS
13 v. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
14 SANDOVAL, (Docs. 37 & 41)
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff Keith Jerome Wright is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
18 in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19 I. INTRODUCTION
20 The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on September 13, 2024. (Doc. 28.)
21 Relevant here, the deadline for filing dispositive motions was July 24, 2025. (Id.)
22 On June 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 37.) On July 17,
23 2025, Defendant Sandoval filed his opposition brief to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
24 (Doc. 39.)
25 On July 24, 2025, Defendant filed his motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 41.) On
26 August 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed his reply brief in support of his motion for summary judgment in a
27 document titled “Opposition to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
1 The Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file an opposition brief to Defendant’s
2 motion for summary judgment (Doc. 45), and on August 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed his opposition
3 brief (Doc. 46). On August 29, 2025, Defendant filed his reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to
4 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 47.)
5 II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
6 Motions for Summary Judgment
7 Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there “is no genuine
8 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
9 Civ. P. 56(a). A party asserting that a fact cannot be disputed must support the assertion by
10 “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents,
11 electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for
12 purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials....” Fed. R.
13 Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).
14 Summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion,
15 against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
16 essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See
17 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an
18 essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”
19 Id. If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party
20 to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
21 Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to establish the existence of this factual
22 dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the allegations or denials of their pleadings but is
23 required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery
24 material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists or shows that the materials cited by
25 the movant do not establish the absence of a genuine dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);
26 Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in contention
27 is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. See
1 Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, the opposing party must also
2 demonstrate that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
3 return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433,
4 1436 (9th Cir. 1987). In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing
5 party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the
6 claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing
7 versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the “purpose of summary
8 judgment is to ‘pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a
9 genuine need for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory
10 committee's note on 1963 amendments).
11 In resolving the summary judgment motion, the evidence of the opposing party is to be
12 believed. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. All reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the
13 facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. See Matsushita, 475
14 U.S. at 587. Nevertheless, “inferences are not drawn out of thin air,” and it is the opposing party’s
15 obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See Richards v.
16 Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th
17 Cir. 1987). Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party “must do more than simply
18 show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.... Where the record taken as a
19 whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine
20 issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted).
21 Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection
22 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that persons who are
23 similarly situated be treated alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432,
24 439 (1985). The Equal Protection Clause does not, however, require that “all prisoners must
25 receive identical treatment and resources.” Hartmann v. Cal. Dep't of Corrs. & Rehab., 707 F.3d
26 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). An incarcerated adherent of a minority religion has
27 an equal protection right to “a reasonable opportunity of pursuing his faith comparable to the
1 Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972)
2 (internal quotation marks omitted).). There is no requirement that “every sect or group within a
3 prison” have “identical facilities or personnel.” Allen v. Toombs, 827 F.2d 563, 568 (1987) (citing
4 Cruz, 405 U.S. at 322 n.2); accord Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1123-24 (finding Wiccan inmates did
5 not have equal protection right to paid chaplain when they had access to a volunteer chaplain).
6 To demonstrate a plausible equal protection claim, an inmate plaintiff must show either:
7 that Defendant intentionally discriminated against him based upon membership in a protected
8 class, see Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1123; Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th
9 Cir. 2005), or that he received disparate treatment compared to adherents of other religions, see
10 Rouser v. White, 630 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2009). If proceeding under the disparate
11 treatment theory, plaintiff must show the following: (1) he is a member of an identifiable class;
12 (2) he was intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated; and (3) there is no
13 rational basis for the difference in treatment. Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564
14 (2000); Rouser, 630 F. Supp. 2d at 1199. A plaintiff may satisfy this burden by tendering
15 evidence of disparate treatment sufficient to raise an inference of discriminatory purpose.
16 Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737-39 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by
17 Shakur, 514 F.3d at 884–85; see Allen, 827 F.2d at 569 (adopting same approach).
18 III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS & SCREENING FINDINGS
19 Plaintiff is an inmate at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) in Corcoran,
20 California. (Doc. 1 at 7.) Plaintiff alleges he is of Muslim faith and has embraced its tenets. (Id. at
21 9.) He contends he is entitled to receive Ramadan meals as a part of his religious practice. (Id.)
22 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated his rights by refusing to provide to Plaintiff and permit
23 him to consume his Ramadan meal, on May 1, 2022, “which was not related to a legitimate
24 penological interest.” (Id. at 9-10.) Plaintiff contends Defendant is responsible for preparing and
25 issuing inmate meals. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff asserts his religion requires him “to practice and eat his
26 Ramadan meal that is similar to Jewish and Christian, such as Passover and 40 days Lent
27 respectively.” (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff further alleges he is being treated unequally because Defendant
1 disparate treatment is without any rational basis. (Id. at 9, 11.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant has
2 prevented him from engaging in his sincerely held religious beliefs. (Id.)
3 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has violated his equal protection rights and seeks
4 declaratory relief “that he is entitled to receive his religious meals while he is a California
5 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) inmate.”1 (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff asserts he
6 “was similarly situated to Jewish and Christian and inmates but was being treated unequally.”
7 (Id.)
8 At screening, the Court found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment
9 claim against Defendant Sandoval. (Doc. 11 at 5.) The Court then issued an Order Finding
10 Service Appropriate of Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 12.)
11 IV. SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ BRIEFING
12 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 37)
13 Plaintiff argues that: (1) “Defendant intentionally threw away Plaintiff’s Ramadan meals
14 which consist of morning, lunch, and dinner;” (2) “Plaintiff demonstrated by his evidence that
15 Defendant violated his constitutional rights to religious meals;” and (3) “Defendant is not entitled
16 to qualified immunity.”2 (Doc. 37 at 2.)
17 In his motion, Plaintiff asserts “Defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law
18 because he violated Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment” and later added handwritten notes stating, “8th
19 Amendment and RLUIPA Act [Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act].” (Id.) In
20 support of his motion, Plaintiff attaches his declaration, along with an August 2, 2022
21 memorandum from SATF Office of Grievances, Associate Warden P. Llamas to SATF Warden
22 T. Cisneros and Central Kitchen timesheet from August 15, 2022 (collectively, Exhibit A), Staff
23 Misconduct Findings definitions (Exhibit B), chart entitled Ramadan Daily Beginning & Ending
24 Time – April/May 2022 (Exhibit C), “Closure Chrono – Staff Misconduct Allegation” dated
25 August 4, 2022 (Exhibit D), and Affidavit of Inmate Hubley (Exhibit E). (Id. at 4-17.)
26
1 For readability, minor alterations, like changing capitalization, have been made to some of Plaintiff’s
27 quotations without indicating each change.
1 Defendant’s Opposition
2 In his opposition to summary judgment, Defendant first argues that Plaintiff did not assert
3 a claim for violations of the Eighth Amendment or RLUIPA in his Complaint. (Doc. 39 at 8-9.)
4 Defendant notes that the Court’s Screening Order found that Plaintiff only stated a cognizable
5 claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 9 (citing Doc. 11 at 5).) Defendant further
6 contends that Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion should be denied because Plaintiff fails to
7 present evidence that he was treated differently than any other religious group or that Defendant
8 intentionally discriminated against him because of his religion. (Id. at 9-12.) Finally, Defendant
9 objects to the affidavit of Inmate Hubley as impermissible hearsay. (Id. at 12-13.)
10 Defendant attaches his declaration (Doc. 39-2), the declaration of Correctional Food
11 Manager II D. O’Donaughy (Doc. 39-3), and the declaration of defense counsel (Doc. 39-4),
12 which includes the “Closure Chrono – Staff Misconduct Allegation” dated August 4, 2022, with
13 allegation inquiry report, and August 2, 2022 memorandum from SATF Office of Grievances,
14 Associate Warden P. Llamas to SATF Warden T. Cisneros (collectively, Exhibit 1).
15 Plaintiff’s Reply
16 In his reply to Defendant’s opposition, Plaintiff does not address his notation of Eighth
17 Amendment or RLUIPA violations but centers his argument on his equal protection claim under
18 the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. 43.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant fed “Christian, Jewish, non-
19 denomination inmates, which were approximately 900 inmates, but when it came to the Muslims,
20 he deprived Plaintiff of his meals.” (Id. at 1.) Because Defendant had a calendar when Ramadan
21 commenced and ended, Plaintiff argues that “Defendant knowingly deprived Muslims of
22 Ramadan” meals. (Id.) Plaintiff states that “Plaintiff and a group of Muslim inmates spoke to
23 Defendant about not receiving their meals and Defendant stated, ‘Ramadan is over and I am not
24 inquiring about it.’” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff contends that his grievance about the missed meal was
25 sustained by the warden; and therefore, he has presented sufficient evidence that Defendant
26 violated the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id.)
27 Plaintiff attached additional copies of the chart entitled Ramadan Daily Beginning &
1 misconduct findings definitions. (Id. at 6-10.) Plaintiff also attached the Ramadan menu for April
2 1, 2022 -May 1, 2022. (Id. at 7.)
3 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 41)
4 Defendant confirms that 2022 Ramadan participants received Halal meals instead of
5 mainline meals provided to other inmates, notes that the “Central Kitchen was responsible for
6 providing each facility at SATF with a cart of Ramadan meals for Ramadan participants,” but
7 argues that “Defendant Sandoval did not work in the Central Kitchen on May 1, 2022 …[and]
8 was not responsible for preparing the cart containing Ramadan meals for Ramadan participants at
9 SATF on May 1, 2022.” (Doc. 41 at 8.) Defendant asserts that “[t]he only occasion in which a
10 mistake occurred concerning providing Ramadan meals at SATF during Ramadan 2022 was on
11 the evening of May 1, 2022.” (Id. at 9.)
12 Defendant argues that he is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s equal protection
13 claim because Plaintiff cannot present evidence that Defendant treated him differently from other
14 religious groups. (Id. at 12-13.) Defendant argues that “Muslim, Christian, and Jewish
15 Communities are not similarly situated” as those observing Ramadan “because observance is
16 markedly different.” (Id.) Even if Plaintiff were similarly situated to inmates observing Passover
17 and Lent, Defendant argues that he did not deliberately intend to discriminate against Plaintiff
18 because of his religion and “Plaintiff’s belief that others were treated better is purely a conclusory
19 statement unsupported by facts.” (Id. at 14-15.) Defendant argues that he offered Plaintiff an
20 alternative Halal meal once Defendant realized the Ramadan meal cart did not come from the
21 Central Kitchen, but even if he had not offered an alternative meal, “the error still lies with the
22 Central Kitchen, not Defendant, as they were responsible for providing each facility with a cart of
23 Ramadan meals for Ramadan participants.” (Id. at 16-17.) Defendant argues that he “mistakenly
24 believe[ed] the hot cart was coming on the last day of Ramadan, as it had all month, [which] is
25 not intentional discrimination” but “a one-time error.” (Id. at 17.)
26 Finally, Defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he “did not
27 intentionally discriminate against Plaintiff or treat him differently than other similarly situated
1 alternative meal” but “Plaintiff refused this alternative accommodation” and therefore, “there was
2 no constitutional violation” because a “reasonable person would have believed these actions were
3 lawful.” (Id.) “An error that prevented Plaintiff from receiving a single Ramadan meal is also not
4 clearly established as a violation of the Constitution.” (Id.)
5 In support of his motion, Defendant attached his declaration (Doc. 41-5), the declaration
6 of Correctional Food Manager II D. O’Donaughy (Doc. 41-3), the declaration of SATF
7 Community Resource Manager J. Bragg (Doc. 41-4), and the declaration of defense counsel
8 (Doc. 41-6), which includes the “Closure Chrono – Staff Misconduct Allegation” dated August 4,
9 2022 with allegation inquiry report and August 2, 2022 memorandum from SATF Office of
10 Grievances Associate Warden P. Llamas to SATF Warden T. Cisneros, and February 1, 2022
11 memorandum from the Director Gipson of the Division of Adult Institutions regarding “Inmate
12 Participation in Ramadan April 2, 2022 through May 2, 2022” and March 9, 2022 memo from
13 Protestant Chaplain Alvarez regarding “Inmate Participation in Ramadan 2022” with the
14 attachment entitled “Ramadan Daily Beginning & Ending Time - April/May 2022” (collectively,
15 Exhibit 2), and excerpts from Plaintiff’s deposition transcript (Exhibit 3).
16 Plaintiff’s Opposition
17 Plaintiff disputes that Defendant provided a second meal for Ramadan participants,
18 “[c]ausing Plaintiff to suffer through the night of evil intent and breaking his religious
19 obligations.” (Doc. 46 at 2.) Plaintiff argues that “not feeding the Ramadan participants was
20 deliberate by Defendant through his evil intent.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends that the SATF warden
21 conducted a staff misconduct inquiry and “found that on May 1, 2022, Correctional Cook N.
22 Sandoval intentionally thew away Plaintiff’s religious diet meal for the day.” (Id.) Plaintiff
23 disputes that Defendant made a mistake because Defendant “has been trained in numerous hours
24 of food services.” (Id.) Plaintiff argues that “Defendant was the Supervisor cook with complete
25 authority and sole responsibility of food preparation in ‘F’ yard at SATF on May 1, 2022” and
26 because “Defendant was acting under the color of law,” he is excluded from any qualified
27 immunity. (Id.)
1 Plaintiff re-attaches the “Closure Chrono – Staff Misconduct Allegation” and staff
2 misconduct findings (collectively, Exhibit A), the chart titled Ramadan Daily Beginning &
3 Ending Time - April/May 2022 and the Ramadan menu from April 1, 2022 to May 1, 2022
4 (collectively, Exhibit B). (Id. at 6-10.) Plaintiff also attaches his declaration in support of his
5 opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, declaration of inmate Leonard
6 Henderson, and declaration of inmate P. Lewis. (Id. at 14-19.)
7 Defendant’s Reply
8 Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to present evidence that Ramadan participates were
9 treated differently than Lent or Passover participants. (Doc. 47 at 5-6.) Plaintiff “does not dispute
10 that the Central Kitchen was responsible for creating the evening meal for Ramadan participants
11 on May 1, 2022, not Defendant Sandoval.” (Id. at 6.) Defendant argues that the declarations
12 attached to Plaintiff’s opposition are a sham and should be disregarded because they are a copy of
13 Plaintiff’s own declaration, which is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s prior testimony, lack personal
14 knowledge, and are based on inadmissible hearsay. (Id. at 7-10.)
15 Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to meet his burden on the issue of qualified immunity.
16 Defendant argues that of the three cases cited by Plaintiff to establish that Defendant’s actions
17 violated clearly established authority, only one mentions the Fourteenth Amendment but none of
18 the three cases address prisoners or religious diets. (Id. at 10-12.) As such, Plaintiff fails “to
19 provide any authority which would have put Defendant on notice that they were violating
20 Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” (Id. at 10.)
21 Defendant attaches the declaration of defense counsel (Doc. 47-1), which attached the
22 2022 Ramadan List of Participants by facility (Exhibit 1), March 9, 2022 memo from Protestant
23 Chaplain Alvarez regarding “Inmate Participation in Ramadan 2022” (Exhibit 2), and excerpts
24 from Plaintiff’s deposition transcript (Exhibit 3).
25 V. PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
26 In his summary judgment motion, Plaintiff lists the following as undisputed facts:
27 1. Sandoval did throw away additional food. See Exhibit A.
1 not receiving their meal. See Exhibit A.
2 3. Definition of sustained. See Exhibit B.
3 4. Sandoval was [to] provide a Ramadan Daily Beginning & Ending Time – April/May
4 2022. Exhibit C.3
5 5. On May 1, 2022, Sandoval intentionally threw away Plaintiff’s religious diet meal for
6 the day. See Exhibit D.
7 6. On August 2, 2022, the Warden (T. Cisneros) allegation inquiry was completed in
8 regards to AASTS Log# 20015196/Grievance Log# 254159, and the finding was
9 Sustained. See Exhibit D.
10 7. Sandoval knew that the Plaintiff and the Ramadan inmates have not ate yet, but he still
11 instructed Correctional Officer Ayon to throw away the food. See Exhibit E.
12 (Doc. 37 at 3 (bold emphasis omitted).)
13 VI. DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
14 Defendant identifies the following as undisputed facts in support of his motion for
15 summary judgment:
16 1. Ramadan is a holiday observed for one month every year by Muslims around the
17 world. (Plaintiff’s Deposition Transcript (Pl.’s Dep. Tr.) at 42:21-23.)
18 2. Every year, the Ramadan beginning and ending dates vary based on the location and
19 first sighting of the new moon. (Declaration of D. O’Donaughy (O’Donaughy Decl.)
20 at ¶¶ 7, 8.
21 3. Ramadan participants fast during the day, and only eat between sunset and sunrise.
22 (O’Donaughy Decl. at ¶¶ 7, 8.)
23 4. The sighting of the moon changes every day, and the time Muslims break their fast in
24 the evening gets later throughout the month. (Declaration of C. Ryan (Ryan Decl.) at
25 Exhibit 2.)
26 5. The meal Muslims consume in the evening, upon the first sighting of the moon, is
27
3 Plaintiff misnumbered his list of undisputed facts by repeating the number 3. (Doc. 37 at 3.) The Court
1 called Iftar. (Ryan Decl. at Exhibit 2.)
2 6. The pre-dawn meals are called Suhoor (sometimes spelled Suhur). (Ryan Decl. at
3 Exhibit 2.)
4 7. In 2022, the month of Ramadan started April 1, 2022 and ended at sundown on May 1,
5 2022. (O’Donaughy Decl. at ¶ 6.) (See Doc. 65-2.)
6 8. Before Ramadan, a memorandum was sent to SATF staff concerning the start and end
7 dates for Ramadan, which erroneously stated Ramadan ended on May 2. (O’Donaughy
8 Decl. at ¶¶ 5, 6; Ryan Decl. at Exhibit 2.)
9 9. At SATF, Ramadan participants are provided a Suhoor bag on the first evening of
10 Ramadan which contains their breakfast and lunch meals, so that they can eat the
11 meals in their cells during the night. (Pl.’s Dep. Tr. at 25:22-25, 26:1-18, 27:10-25,
12 28:1-3, 28:7-23; O’Donaughy Decl. at ¶¶ 7, 8.)
13 10. Ramadan participants are also provided Iftar (their dinner meal) to consume at chapel
14 after the sighting of the moon. (Pl.’s Dep. Tr. at 25:22-25, 26:1-18; O’Donaughy Decl.
15 at ¶ 8.)
16 11. The Suhoor and Iftar meals were delivered to the different SATF Facility Kitchens
17 from the SATF Central Kitchen in a hot cart, containing the specific number of meals
18 for the number of Ramadan participants at that Facility. (Pl.’s Dep. Tr. at 25:22-25,
19 26:1-18.)
20 12. These carts would arrive during or shortly after the service of dinner to rest of the
21 incarcerated persons (mainline meal). (Declaration of N. Sandoval (Sandoval Decl.) at
22 ¶ 4.)
23 13. The Central Kitchen was responsible for providing each Facility at SATF with a cart
24 of Ramadan meals for Ramadan participants. (ECF No. 40. at 6 deeming Defendant’s
25 Request for Admissions Set One ¶ 13 admitted.)
26 14. Ramadan participants would arrive at the Facility Kitchen after their evening prayer
27 around 7:00 p.m. to get their Suhoor bag and Iftar meal and leave with both at
1 15. This continued every day during Ramadan, through April 30, 2022. (O’Donaughy
2 Decl. at ¶ 9.)
3 16. On May 1, 2022, the last day of Ramadan, Defendant Sandoval was working as a food
4 cook in Facility F kitchen at SATF, where Plaintiff was housed. (Sandoval Decl. at ¶
5 6.)
6 17. On May 1, 2022, the evening meal was served between 5:30 – 6:30 p.m. The first
7 sighting of the moon for Ramadan participants to break their fast occurred at 7:37 p.m.
8 (Sandoval Decl. at ¶ 4; Ryan Decl. at Exhibit 2.)
9 18. Once the dinner meal for all other incarcerated persons was finished, Defendant
10 cleaned up, throwing away excess food, because he believed the Ramadan meals were
11 still coming on the hot cart from the Central Kitchen. (Sandoval Decl. at ¶¶ 6, 8.)
12 19. Defendant Sandoval did not work in the Central Kitchen on May 1, 2022. (ECF No.
13 40 at 6 deeming Defendant’s Request for Admissions Set One ¶ 14 admitted.)
14 20. Defendant Sandoval was not responsible for preparing the cart containing Ramadan
15 meals for Ramadan participants at SATF on May 1, 2022. (ECF No. 40. at 6 deeming
16 Defendant’s Request for Admissions Set One ¶ 11 admitted.)
17 21. The Ramadan participants, including Plaintiff, arrived at the Facility F kitchen around
18 7:00 p.m., looking for their last Ramadan evening meal. (Sandoval Decl. at ¶ 9.)
19 22. Because the hot cart had not arrived, Plaintiff called his supervisor. (Sandoval Decl. at
20 ¶ 9.)
21 23. Defendant Sandoval learned that a hot cart was not coming on the last day, because no
22 Suhoor bag was needed for the following day; Ramadan participants would be joining
23 other inmates for breakfast the next morning. (Sandoval Decl. at ¶ 9, O’Donaughy
24 Decl. at ¶¶ 11, 12.)
25 24. The Central Kitchen intended for Ramadan participants to eat from the mainline meal,
26 but this was not communicated with Defendant Sandoval. (Sandoval Decl. at ¶¶ 6 - 9,
27 O’Donaughy Decl. at ¶¶ 11, 12.)
1 25. When Defendant Sandoval learned this, he stayed to create Halal meals for the
2 Ramadan participants, but the Ramadan participants declined to eat the meals he
3 made. (Sandoval Decl. ¶¶ 10 – 12.)
4 26. The only occasion in which a mistake occurred concerning providing Ramadan meals
5 at SATF during Ramadan 2022 was on the evening of May 1, 2022. (ECF No. 40. at 6
6 deeming Defendant’s Request for Admissions Set One ¶ 21 admitted.)
7 27. Plaintiff did not speak to or hear any conversations with Defendant on May 1, 2022.
8 (Pl.’s Dep. Tr. at 47-53:17-6; 56:5-7.)
9 28. Plaintiff does not recall any conversations with Defendant. (Pl.’s Dep. Tr. at 83-
10 84:23-1.)
11 29. In 2022, Defendant was new to working at the SATF Facility kitchen. (Sandoval Decl.
12 at ¶ 1.)
13 30. Defendant is a Spanish speaker, and English is somewhat difficult for him. (Sandoval
14 Decl. at ¶ 2; Ryan Decl. at ¶ 4.)
15 31. Defendant Sandoval has no issues with the Muslim community, and he treats all
16 inmates equally. (Sandoval Decl. at ¶¶ 13, 16.)
17 32. Defendant has never said anything discriminatory against Muslims, and on May 1,
18 2022, he did not clean up the mainline meal for any reason to discriminate against
19 Muslims. (Sandoval Decl. at ¶¶ 13, 16.)]
20 LENT
21 33. At SATF, in the last three years there are no known inmates who requested a special
22 diet for Lent. (Declaration of J. Bragg (Bragg Decl.) at ¶ 4.)
23 34. If an inmate were to request a different diet for Lent, it is very different than the
24 Ramadan meals. A specialized Lent diet would consist of not eating meat on Good
25 Friday, Ash Wednesday, and the five other Fridays during the 40 days of Lent. (Bragg
26 Decl. at ¶ 5.)
27 35. This vegetarian diet is not difficult or costly for the prison institution to accommodate,
1 offer a variety of vegetarian options already. (Bragg Decl. at ¶ 6.)
2 36. A specialized Lent diet would also consist of eating one full meal and two smaller
3 meals, instead of three full meals on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday. (Bragg Decl.
4 at ¶ 5.)
5 37. This is also not difficult for the institution to accommodate because inmates would eat
6 at the normal meal hours and would simply choose to eat less during two of their
7 meals. (Bragg Decl. at ¶ 6.)
8 PASSOVER
9 38. Passover is a religious holiday celebrated by Jewish individuals around the world.
10 There are eight days in this holiday. (Bragg Decl. at ¶ 7.)
11 39. The first and seventh day the Jewish inmates consume cold food. (Bragg Decl. at ¶ 9.)
12 40. For participants observing this holiday, eating, possessing, or working with any foods
13 containing yeast is prohibited for the entire eight days. (Bragg Decl. at ¶ 10.)
14 41. Therefore, at SATF inmates receive specialized “Kosher for Passover” meals that are
15 ordered several months in advance. (Bragg Decl. at ¶ 10.)
16 42. At SATF, inmates still receive their meals at the same time as other inmates, however,
17 on two of the evenings, participating inmates may take their meals from the dining hall
18 to their religious service. (Bragg Decl. at ¶ 11.)
19 (Doc. 41-2 at 2-8.)
20 VII. FINDINGS REGARDING UNDISPUTED FACTS
21 In ruling on the cross motions for summary judgment and in its recitation of the
22 undisputed facts below, the Court has only considered the evidence that it has determined
23 reasonably could be presented in admissible form at trial and is not in dispute.4 Where these
24
4 See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To
survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not
25
sweeping conclusory allegations”); Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007)
26 (same); Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Conclusory, speculative
testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat
27 summary judgment.”); Coverdell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 834 F.2d 758, 762 (9th Cir. 1987)
(same); Burch v. Regents of Univ. of California, 433 F. Supp.2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (same); see
also Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Because the diary’s contents could be
1 findings cite evidence to which a party has objected, the objection is impliedly overruled. The
2 Court declines to rule on objections to evidence on which it did not rely.5
3 The undersigned identifies the following facts as undisputed (hereinafter “UDF”):
4 1. Ramadan is a holiday observed for one month every year by Muslims around the
5 world.
6 2. Every year, the Ramadan beginning and ending dates vary based on the location
7 and first sighting of the new moon.
8 3. Ramadan participants fast during the day and only eat between sunset and sunrise.
9 4. The sighting of the moon changes every day, and the time Muslims break their fast
10 in the evening gets later throughout the month.
11 5. The meal Muslims consume in the evening, upon the first sighting of the moon, is
12 called Iftar.
13 6. The pre-dawn meals are called Suhoor (sometimes spelled Suhur).
14 7. In 2022, the month of Ramadan started April 1, 2022 and ended at sundown on
15 May 1, 2022.
16 8. Before Ramadan, a memorandum was sent to SATF staff concerning the start and
17 end dates for Ramadan, which erroneously stated Ramadan ended on May 2.
18 9. At SATF, Ramadan participants are provided a Suhoor bag on the first evening of
19 Ramadan which contains their breakfast and lunch meals, so that they can eat the
20 meals in their cells during the night.
21 10. Ramadan participants are also provided Iftar (their dinner meal) to consume at
22 chapel after the sighting of the moon.
23 11. The Suhoor and Iftar meals were delivered to the different SATF Facility Kitchens
24 from the SATF Central Kitchen in a hot cart, containing the specific number of
25
26 judgment motion.”).
27 5 “In motions for summary judgment with numerous objections, it is often unnecessary and impractical for
a court to methodically scrutinize each objection and give a full analysis of each argument raised.” Capitol
Records, LLC v. BlueBeat, Inc., 765 F. Supp.2d 1198, 1200 n.1 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (citation omitted).
1 meals for the number of Ramadan participants at that Facility.
2 12. These carts would arrive during or shortly after the service of dinner to the rest of
3 the incarcerated persons (mainline meal).
4 13. The Central Kitchen was responsible for providing each Facility at SATF with a
5 cart of Ramadan meals for Ramadan participants.
6 14. Ramadan participants would arrive at the Facility Kitchen after their evening
7 prayer around 7:00 p.m. to get their Suhoor bag and Iftar meal and leave with both
8 at approximately 7:15 p.m.
9 15. This continued every day during Ramadan, through April 30, 2022.
10 16. On May 1, 2022, the last day of Ramadan, Defendant Sandoval was working as a
11 food cook in Facility F kitchen at SATF, where Plaintiff was housed.
12 17. On May 1, 2022, the evening meal was served between 5:30 – 6:30 p.m. The first
13 sighting of the moon for Ramadan participants to break their fast occurred at 7:37
14 p.m.
15 18. Once the dinner meal for all other incarcerated persons was finished, Defendant
16 cleaned up, throwing away excess food.
17 19. Defendant Sandoval was not responsible for preparing the cart containing
18 Ramadan meals for Ramadan participants at SATF on May 1, 2022.
19 20. The Ramadan participants, including Plaintiff, arrived at the Facility F kitchen
20 around 7:00 p.m., looking for their last Ramadan evening meal.
21 21. Because the hot cart had not arrived, Plaintiff called his supervisor.
22 22. Defendant Sandoval learned that a hot cart was not coming on the last day,
23 because no Suhoor bag was needed for the following day; Ramadan participants
24 would be joining other inmates for breakfast the next morning.
25 23. The Central Kitchen intended for Ramadan participants to eat from the mainline
26 meal, but this was not communicated with Defendant Sandoval.
27 24. The only occasion in which a mistake occurred concerning providing Ramadan
1 25. In 2022, Defendant was new to working at the SATF Facility kitchen.
2 26. Spanish is Defendant’s preferred language.
3 27. At SATF, in the last three years there are no known inmates who requested a
4 special diet for Lent.
5 28. If an inmate were to request a different diet for Lent, it is very different than the
6 Ramadan meals. A specialized Lent diet would consist of not eating meat on Good
7 Friday, Ash Wednesday, and the five other Fridays during the 40 days of Lent.
8 29. This vegetarian diet is not difficult or costly for the prison institution to
9 accommodate, because the inmates would eat at normal mealtimes and the
10 institution is prepared to offer a variety of vegetarian options already.
11 30. A specialized Lent diet would also consist of eating one full meal and two smaller
12 meals, instead of three full meals on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday.
13 31. This is also not difficult for the institution to accommodate because inmates would
14 eat at the normal meal hours and would simply choose to eat less during two of
15 their meals.
16 32. Passover is a religious holiday celebrated by Jewish individuals around the world.
17 There are eight days in this holiday.
18 33. The first and seventh day the Jewish inmates consume cold food.
19 34. For participants observing this holiday, eating, possessing, or working with any
20 foods containing yeast is prohibited for the entire eight days.
21 35. Therefore, at SATF inmates receive specialized “Kosher for Passover” meals that
22 are ordered several months in advance.
23 36. At SATF, Jewish inmates still receive their meals at the same time as other
24 inmates, however, on two of the evenings, participating inmates may take their
25 meals from the dining hall to their religious service.
26 VIII. DISCUSSION
27 A. Preliminary Matters
1 (Docs. 1, 11 at 5.) To the extent Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment argues as much, those
2 arguments are not relevant, and thus do not create genuine issues of material fact. As noted above,
3 this action proceeds only on Plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
4 Fourteenth Amendment. (See Doc. 11.)
5 B. Defendant Did Not Violate Plaintiff’s Equal Protection Rights
6 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
7 In conducting the requisite equal protection inquiry, the Court has considered the record
8 evidence and concludes that Plaintiff is a member of an identifiable class. It is undisputed that
9 Plaintiff is an adherent of the Muslim faith and participated in Ramadan in 2022. (UDF 20.)
10 The Court next considers whether Defendant intentionally treated Plaintiff differently
11 from others who were similarly situated. Village of Willowbrook, 528 U.S. at 564. In his motion
12 for summary judgment, Plaintiff did not provide evidence, or even argue, that he was treated
13 differently from members of other religious sects. Even after Defendant noted this lack of
14 evidence in his opposition, Plaintiff still failed to produce admissible evidence under Fed. R. Civ.
15 P. 56 that he was treated differently from similarly-situated religious adherents. Rather, Plaintiff
16 made the conclusory statement in the argument section of his reply brief that Defendant fed
17 “Christian, Jewish, non-denomination inmates, which were approximately 900 inmates, but when
18 it came to the Muslims, he deprived Plaintiff of his meals.” (Doc. 43 at 2.)
19 While it is undisputed that the hot cart did not provide meals to Ramadan participants on
20 May 1, 2022, Plaintiff has presented no facts or evidence bearing on Defendant’s treatment of
21 inmates who participated in other religious observances. Plaintiff’s mere generalized statement
22 that “Christian, Jewish, non-denomination inmates” were treated differently is insufficient to
23 satisfy the evidence requirement of Rule 56. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (“party asserting that a
24 fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion … citing to particular parts of
25 materials in the record”); see Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 106.
26 Plaintiff filed a prison grievance regarding the missed meal, and the SATF grievance
27 investigation found the complaint to be “substantiated.” (Id. at 9.) However, the same
1 was not prepared for the Ramadan inmates. There was a discrepancy with the Ramadan meal
2 resulting in Ramadan participants not receiving their meal.” (Doc. 37 at 8.) The memorandum
3 does not mention members of other religious sects or describe how Plaintiff was treated
4 differently than other religious adherents. Likewise, the “Closure Chrono – Staff Misconduct
5 Allegation” note does not mention other religious adherents or religious observance. (Doc. 43 at
6 2.)
7 Plaintiff includes the timecard for Central Kitchen workers dated August 15, 2022. (Id. at
8 9.) This information appears unrelated to the events of May 1, 2022. Plaintiff also submits the
9 chart for Ramadan Daily Beginning & Ending Time – April / May 2022, along with the Ramadan
10 2022 menu. (Doc. 37 at 13; Doc. 43 at 7.) Again, the chart and menu do not reference other
11 religious sects or observances.
12 Lastly, Plaintiff includes the affidavit of inmate Hubley in support of his motion for
13 summary judgment. (Doc. 37 at 17.) In reviewing the affidavit, the Court notes that it can only
14 consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Orr v. Bank of
15 America, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir.2002). A court must determine admissibility by applying the
16 Federal Rules of Evidence. Id. at 778 (unauthenticated documents cannot be considered).
17 “Authentication is a ‘condition precedent to admissibility’ ... We have repeatedly held that
18 unauthenticated documents cannot be considered in a motion for summary judgment.” Id. (citing
19 to Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) requires that affidavits submitted
20 in support of a motion for summary judgment must: (1) be made on the personal knowledge of an
21 affiant who is competent to testify to the matters stated therein, (2) must state facts that would be
22 admissible in evidence, and (3) if the affidavit refers to any document or item, a sworn or certified
23 copy of that document or item must be attached to the affidavit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Orr, 285
24 F.3d at 774 n. 9.
25 Furthermore, a declarant must show personal knowledge and competence to testify about
26 the facts stated. Bank Melli Iran v. Pahlavi, 58 F.3d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir.1995) (declarations on
27 information and belief are entitled to no weight where declarant lacks personal knowledge). The
1 hearsay. Id. A declarant’s mere assertions that he or she possesses personal knowledge and
2 competency to testify are not sufficient. Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Ass'n, 897 F.2d 999 (9th
3 Cir.1990). Personal knowledge and competence to testify may be “reasonably inferred” by
4 describing “the nature of the declarant’s position and nature of participation in matter.” Id. at
5 1018.
6 Hearsay is a statement that “the declarant does not make while testifying at the current
7 trial or hearing; and a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Fed. R.
8 Evid. 801(c). In the absence of a procedural rule or statute, hearsay is inadmissible unless it is
9 defined as non-hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d) or falls within a hearsay exception
10 under Rules 803, 804 or 807. See Fed. R. Evid. 802; Orr, 285 F.3d at 778. The proponent of the
11 evidence has “the burden of establishing a foundation from which to conclude that the statement
12 was within the hearsay exclusion.” Los Angeles News Serv. v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 305 F.3d
13 924, 934 as amended at 313 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2002).
14 Here, Hubley’s affidavit speculates generally that “Sandoval intentionally and deliberately
15 threw out the Muslims’ Ramadan meals.” (Doc. 37 at 17.) He then states that he told Correctional
16 Officer Ayon that Muslim inmates had not eaten yet because “Ramadan is not over” and
17 “Correctional Officer Ayon stated, ‘I know, but Sandoval said to throw away the food.’” (Id.)
18 Hubley’s inference that Defendant threw away the food to discriminate against Muslim inmates is
19 speculative and is therefore inadmissible. Statements purportedly made to and by Correctional
20 Officer Ayon are hearsay and the Court is unable to conclude that the contents of the statement
21 could be presented in admissible form at trial. Hubley does not mention other religious sects or
22 observances.
23 Thus, without supporting evidence, Plaintiff is asking this Court to speculate as to who are
24 similarly-situated religious adherents and further speculate that they were treated differently from
25 the Plaintiff. The Court is not permitted to engage in such speculation under Rule 56.
26 Plaintiff offers no evidence to show he was treated differently from other similarly-
27 situated people or that he was discriminated against because of his religious faith or observance of
1 and he is not entitled to summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A); Celotex Corp., 477
2 U.S. at 322.
3 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
4 Concerning Defendant’s summary judgment motion, it is supported by sufficient
5 evidence, including the declarations of Defendant, O’Donaughy, Bragg, and defense counsel,
6 which attaches the allegation inquiry report, memorandum regarding the staff complaint, and
7 excerpts from Plaintiff’s deposition transcript. Through this evidence supporting the undisputed
8 facts, Defendant has established that he was new to the F Facility kitchen in 2022. (UDF 25.) It is
9 undisputed that the Central Kitchen provided the hot cart with Ramadan meals, that Defendant
10 was not working in the Central Kitchen on May 1, 2022, and that Defendant was not responsible
11 for preparing or transporting the hot meal cart at any time during Ramadan 2022. (UDF 11-13,
12 16, 19.) Defendant has also established that, before Ramadan, a memorandum was sent to SATF
13 staff concerning the start and end dates for Ramadan, which erroneously stated Ramadan ended
14 on May 2. (UDF 8.) However, the Central Kitchen intended for Ramadan participants to eat from
15 the mainline meal on May 1, 2022, but this was not communicated with Defendant Sandoval.
16 (UDF 23.) The only occasion in which a mistake occurred regarding the 2022 Ramadan meals
17 was on the evening of May 1, 2022. (UDF 24.)
18 Regarding inmates of other religious sects, at SATF, in the last three years there are no
19 known inmates who requested a special diet for Lent. (UDF 27.) If an inmate were to request a
20 different diet for Lent, it is very different than the Ramadan meals. (UDF 28.) A specialized Lent
21 diet would consist of not eating meat on Good Friday, Ash Wednesday, and the five other Fridays
22 during the 40 days of Lent, resulting in inmates eating at normal mealtimes from a variety of
23 vegetarian options already provided by the institution. (UDF 29-30.)
24 For inmates observing the religious holiday of Passover for eight days, SATF inmates
25 receive specialized “Kosher for Passover” meals that are ordered several months in advance.
26 (UDF 35.) At SATF, Jewish inmates still receive their meals at the same time as other inmates,
27 however, on two of the evenings, participating inmates may take their meals from the dining hall
1 With the evidence supporting the undisputed facts, Defendant has met his initial
2 responsibility, and the burden shifts to Plaintiff to establish that a genuine issue of material fact
3 exists. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586.
4 In opposition to summary judgment, Plaintiff attached his declaration, the declaration of
5 inmate Leonard Henderson, declaration of inmate P. Lewis, the closure chrono from Warden
6 Cisneros regarding Plaintiff’s staff misconduct allegation, and a chart showing Ramadan Daily
7 Beginning & Ending Time – April/May 2022. The Court examines each attachment in turn.
8 First, Defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s declaration is a sham.
9
The general rule in the Ninth Circuit is that a party cannot create an issue of
10 fact by an affidavit contradicting his prior deposition testimony. This sham
affidavit rule prevents a party who has been examined at length on
11 deposition from rais[ing] an issue of fact simply by submitting an affidavit
contradicting his own prior testimony, which would greatly diminish the
12 utility of summary judgment as a procedure for screening out sham issues of
fact…. But the sham affidavit rule should be applied with caution because it
13
is in tension with the principle that the court is not to make credibility
14 determinations when granting or denying summary judgment. In order to
trigger the sham affidavit rule, the district court must make a factual
15 determination that the contradiction is a sham, and the inconsistency
between a party's deposition testimony and subsequent affidavit must be
16 clear and unambiguous to justify striking the affidavit.
17 Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations and internal quotation marks
18 omitted) (first alteration in original). A declaration may be considered “to be a sham when it
19 contains facts that the affiant previously testified he could not remember.” (Id. at 1080-81.)
20 However, “newly-remembered facts, or new facts, accompanied by a reasonable explanation,
21 should not ordinarily lead to the striking of a declaration as a sham.” (Id. at 1081). “[T]he non-
22 moving party is not precluded from elaborating upon, explaining or clarifying prior testimony
23 elicited by opposing counsel on deposition and minor inconsistencies that result from an honest
24 discrepancy, a mistake, or newly discovered evidence afford no basis for excluding an opposition
25 affidavit.” (Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).)
26 Here, in his declaration of August 7, 2025, Plaintiff attests: “Defendant stated he didn’t
27 care that Muslim[s] didn’t have meal[s] for Ramadan, its[sic] over and done with.” (Doc. 46 at
1 “Defendant Sandoval may have never said anything discriminatory against Muslim[s], but on
2 May 1, 2022, he did clean up the mainline meal for the sole reason to discriminate against
3 Muslims.” (Id.) These assertions are contrary to Plaintiff’s his earlier deposition taken on April
4 22, 2025. (Doc. 41-6 at 19-42). Plaintiff testified that he never spoke to Defendant or heard what
5 Defendant said. Instead, Plaintiff spoke to other inmates and assumed that Defendant’s actions
6 were directly related to Ramadan:
Q. So it was around 7:15 on May 1st, 2022 when you went to the
7
dining area. You maybe got there within a couple minutes, you
8 said it took to you walk there. And then that's when you realized
that all the food had been thrown away?
9
A. Well, when we got there, like I said, we had some people
10 designated to speak to the kitchen staff. And so they went back there
to see if they were ready to -- because we always let Islamic person --
11
so the person went back there and was told. And then we were
12 informed at the -- afterwards.
13 Q. Who was that designated person that talked to kitchen staff
on May 1st, 2022?
14
A. Lee. Yeah. Lee.
15
16 Q. And so Lee talked to kitchen staff. Do you know which
kitchen staff he talked to? Was it inmates? Was it defendant
17 Sandoval? Was it someone else?
18 A. Because I wasn't within this -- privileged to be in this
conversation, I'm going to assume it's Sandoval. I'm not -- I was not
19
there during the conversation.
20
Q. So you don't know actually who Mr. Lee talked to on May 1st,
21 2022 when he went to go talk to kitchen staff?
22 A. Well, he told us it was Sandoval. He told us it was Sandoval. We
seen him speaking to Sandoval, you know what I mean. I mean, I
23
was like in the kitchen, but I wasn't side-by-side to hear the
24 conversation.
25 (Doc. 41-6 at 32-33.)
Q. How do you know that Mr. -- or inmate Lee and defendant
26 Sandoval spoke if you didn't see them speak?
27
A. No, I seen them speak. I just didn't hear the conversation. I told
you I wasn't on the side of them to hear the conversation.
1 (Id. at 35.)
Q. Did Lee or Sandoval give you a reason why the food was
2
thrown out?
3
A. That they, I guess -- he said the Ramadan was over. That was the
4 only reason why I'm assuming. I don't recall who told me. It was a lot
of Muslims in there. We all have a conversation about the same time.
5 It was 2022. I don't know who said what about that. But, you know...
6 (Id. at 37.)
Q. And you don't know anything that defendant Sandoval said
7
on May 1st, 2022. Correct?
8
A. Heard statements. Heard statements by kitchen workers saying he
9 didn't care. It was "Ramadan was over." And warning, you know. So,
basically, he was warned. Before the food was thrown out, he was
10 warned and he still didn't care.
11 (Id. at 39.)
12 Plaintiff’s deposition testimony establishes that he did not speak to Defendant or hear any
13 conversation Defendant had on May 1, 2022 and did not know what Defendant said, which
14 directly contradicts his declaration statements purporting to repeat what Defendant said. (See
15 Doc. 46 at 15.) Despite having the opportunity to do so, Plaintiff has provided no explanation as
16 to why his version of events has changed throughout the course of this litigation. Thus, the Court
17 finds that the version of events in Plaintiff’s declaration is a sham and should be disregarded.
18 In considering the declarations of inmates Leonard Henderson and P. Lewis, the Court
19 again notes that it can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary
20 judgment. Orr, 285 F.3d at 778. The content of each declaration is an exact copy of Plaintiff’s
21 declaration, except for the exclusion of paragraph 5. (Doc. 46 at 14-19.) In fact, Henderson and
22 Lewis both state “I am the Plaintiff in this instant case and is [sic] currently houses [sic] at
23 Substance Abuse Treatment Facility State Prison.” (Id. at 16, 18.) Neither Henderson nor Lewis
24 state that they were present on May 1, 2022 when the Ramadan participants arrived at the kitchen
25 for their meals or that they spoke with Defendant at any time. Plaintiff does not otherwise
26 describe the position or participation of Henderson or Lewis in the events of May 1, 2022, and
27 thus, the Court cannot reasonably infer that Henderson or Lewis have personal knowledge or
1 testified at deposition that only one inmate representative, named Lee, spoke with Defendant on
2 May 1, 2022. (Doc. 41-6 at 32-33.) Thus, the declaration statements from Henderson and Lewis
3 about Defendant’s statements and intent are based on hearsay.
4 Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that the declarations of Henderson and Lewis are
5 based on personal knowledge or that their statements fall within a hearsay exception.
6 Accordingly, the declarations are not admissible evidence and cannot demonstrate a genuine
7 dispute of material fact.
8 The Court looks to the remaining documents attached to Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to
9 summary judgment. Plaintiff appears to argue that the excerpt from the Closure Chrono – Staff
10 Misconduct Allegation conclusively establishes an equal protection violation because his
11 grievance was sustained. (Doc. 46 at 6.) However, while the warden confirmed that the meals
12 were thrown away, he did not state that Defendant discarded the food with an intent to
13 discriminate against Ramadan participants. (Id.) To the contrary, in reviewing the remainder of
14 the allegation inquiry report underlying the chrono closure form, the inquiry note states:
15
Based on the combined interviews and documentation, the Complainant’s
16 allegation[] has been substantiated. It was determined Correctional Cook N.
Sandoval did throw away the additional food after evening meal was
17 completed but the aforementioned food was not prepared for Ramadan
participants. The Ramadan participants’ evening meals would normally be
18 transported in a cart separated from the original carts but on May 1, 2022,
the separate Ramadan cart was not delivered … Although the Ramadan
19
meals were not prepared, all efforts to accommodate the Ramadan
20 participants were conducted and at no time were any individuals
discriminated against.
21
22 (Doc. 41-6 at 7-8). Plaintiff also attached the Ramadan menu and the Ramadan Daily Beginning
23 and Ending Time – April / May 2022. None of the documents presented by Plaintiff demonstrate
24 that Defendant was responsible for the meal cart to Ramadan participants, that he intended to
25 discriminate against Plaintiff, or that he treated other religious sects differently. Accordingly,
26 Plaintiff has failed in his burden to present evidence that a genuine dispute of material fact exists
27 as to his equal protection claim. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. Thus, Defendant is entitled to
summary judgment. Id. at 587; Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.
1 C. Defendant is Entitled to Qualified Immunity
2 Lastly, Defendant contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Defendant argues
3 that he did not intentionally discriminate against Plaintiff or treat him differently than other
4 similarly situated individuals. (Doc. 41 at 18.) Defendant contends that the “hot cart containing
5 the Ramadan Iftar meal on May 1, 2022 never arrived at Facility F” and that “Defendant made
6 efforts to accommodate Plaintiff by providing an alternative meal ... [but] Plaintiff refused this
7 alternative accommodation.” (Id.) Defendant argues that, because there was no constitutional
8 violation, a reasonable person would have believed these actions were lawful.” (Id.) “An error
9 that prevented Plaintiff from receiving a single Ramadan meal is also not clearly established as a
10 violation of the Constitution.” (Id.) Thus, Defendant argues he is entitled to qualified immunity.
11 Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s position by stating “Defendant was acting under the color of
12 law excluding Defendant from any qualified immunity.” (Doc. 46 at 2.) Plaintiff cites Willingham
13 v. Loughnan, 321 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2003), Griffin Indus, Inc. v. Irvin, 496 F.3d 1189,
14 1199 (11th Cir. 2007), and Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961) and argues that “[a]ll you need
15 to show is that the person you sue was working for the prison system or some other part of state
16 or city government at the time of the acts you’re suing about.” (Doc. 46 at 2.)
17 Applicable Legal Standards
18 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from damages unless their conduct
19 violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
20 have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The plaintiff bears the burden of
21 proving that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; if the
22 plaintiff meets this burden, then the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the defendant
23 reasonably believed the alleged conduct was lawful. See Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969
24 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff must show that the facts, taken in a light most favorable to him,
25 demonstrate (1) the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was
26 clearly established. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). The district court has discretion to
27 determine which of the first two Saucier factors to analyze first. See O’Doan v. Sanford, 991
1 “Clearly established” means that “the right must be sufficiently clear that every
2 reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Mullenix v.
3 Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11 (2015) (per curium) (quoting Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664
4 (2012)); Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202. The determination of whether a right is clearly established
5 must be “particularized” to the facts of the case. White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 79 (2017) (per
6 curiam) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). Although “[the Supreme]
7 Court’s caselaw does not require a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established,
8 existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”
9 Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 104 (2018) (quoting White, 580 U.S. at 79). In the absence of a
10 case directly on point, the court may compare relevant “specific factors” to determine whether a
11 reasonable officer would have known that the conduct in question was unlawful. Isayeva v.
12 Sacramento Sheriff’s Dep’t, 872 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2017). Even if the plaintiff has alleged a
13 violation of a clearly established right, the official is protected by qualified immunity if he
14 “reasonably but mistakenly believed that his . . . conduct did not violate that right.” Jackson v.
15 City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646, 651 (9th Cir. 2001); see Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205. In general,
16 qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the
17 law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).
18 Analysis
19 Here, as discussed above, the evidence in the record does not raise a triable issue of fact
20 that there were violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The inquiry typically ends, and
21 Defendant prevails on his qualified immunity defense.
22 Even so, concerning Plaintiff’s equal protection claim, it is well established that inmates
23 who adhere to a minority religion must be afforded a “reasonable opportunity of pursuing his
24 faith comparable to the opportunity afforded fellow prisoners who adhere to conventional
25 religious precepts.” Cruz, 405 U.S. at 322. Here, there is no genuine dispute of material fact to
26 indicate Defendant prevented Plaintiff from pursuing his faith as compared to others or that he
27 intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff based upon his beliefs. It is undisputed that Plaintiff
1 to Ramadan participants by a hot cart, sent after the mainline meal was finished. The evidence
2 shows that prison guidance memos were in conflict as to the end date of Ramadan that year.
3 (UDF 8.) The record supports a finding that, while he was mistaken, Defendant reasonably
4 believed that the hot cart would provide the Ramadan meal on May 1, 2022, and his conduct was
5 not unlawful. Sorrels, 290 F.3d at 969; Jackson, 268 F.3d at 651 (official is protected by qualified
6 immunity if he reasonably, but mistakenly, believed his conduct did not violate plaintiff’s rights).
7 The Court has considered the case law cited by Plaintiff. In Willingham v. Loughnan, the
8 Eleventh Circuit considered a plaintiff’s claims of excessive force after being shot by police
9 officers and held that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate
10 clearly established federal law in 1987. Willingham, 321 F.3d at 1304. In Griffin Indus, Inc. v.
11 Irvin, the Eleventh Circuit considered a chicken rendering plant’s claims of due process and equal
12 protection violations after state and local officials allegedly subjected the plant to more rigorous
13 environmental regulation than its competitor. Griffin Indus, Inc., 496 F.3d at 1194-98, 1202-03.
14 The circuit held that the plant did not establish a constitutional violation because it failed to prove
15 a competitor was similarly situated. Id. at 1207. The circuit also held that, even assuming a
16 constitutional violation, officials did not violate clearly established rights and were entitled to
17 qualified immunity. Id. at 1210. Finally, Plaintiff cites Monroe v. Pape, but the United States
18 Supreme Court overruled Monroe in Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S.
19 658, 690, 700 (1978), holding that Congress intended municipalities and other local government
20 units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies.
21 None of the cases cited by Plaintiff address equal protection for religious adherents or
22 otherwise sets forth relevant “specific factors” to determine if a reasonable prison cook would
23 have known that Defendant’s conduct was unlawful.
24 Accordingly, this Court finds Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s
25 Fourteenth Amendment claim.
26 D. Summary of Summary Judgment Findings
27 The undersigned finds Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion should be denied, and
1 | qualified immunity on Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim.
2 IX. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
3 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS:
4 1. Plaintiff's summary judgment motion (Doc. 37) be DENIED;
5 2. Defendant’s summary judgment motion (Doc. 41) be GRANTED; and
6 3. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and the Clerk of the Court be directed
7 to close this case.
8 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
9 | Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days
10 | after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written
11 | objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to
12 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without
13 | leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the
14 |} Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the
15 | exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise
16 | reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be
17 | disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28
18 | U.S.C. § 636(b)()(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result
19 | in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).
20 | ITIS SO ORDERED.
| Dated: _ March 23, 2026 | Wr ba
22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
99