Elmajzoub v. Davis

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 14, 2022
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00196
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 SAID ELMAJZOUB, Case No. 3:19-cv-00196-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 SCOTT DAVIS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Said Elmajzoub, who is represented by counsel, brings this action against 12 Defendants Scott Davis, Marc LaFleur, Tara Carpenter, Renee Baker, Kim Tobias 13 Thomas, Charles Daniels, Harold Wickham, and Tim Garrett under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 14 (ECF No. 41.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United 15 States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 72), recommending the Court grant 16 in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 61), deny Defendants’ motion 17 for summary judgment1 (ECF No. 60), and order supplemental briefing on whether 18 Plaintiff has received the requested injunctive relief for his Religious Land Use and 19 Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) claim. Objections to the R&R were due May 27, 20 2022. To date, neither party has objected to the R&R. For this reason, and as explained 21 below, the Court adopts the R&R in full, and will grant in part Plaintiff’s motion, deny 22 Defendants’ motion, and order supplemental briefing. 23 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 24 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 25 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 26

27 1The motion for summary judgment was only brought by Defendants Renee Baker, Tara Carpenter, Scott Davis, Marc LaFleur, and Kim Thomas. (ECF No. 60 at 1 (hereafter, “Defendants”).) Defendants and Plaintiff filed responses and replies to the motions for 1 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 2 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 3 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 4 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 5 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 6 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 7 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 8 Because there were no objections, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 9 and is satisfied that Judge Denney did not clearly err. First, Judge Denney correctly found 10 that the Court should grant summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor for his RLUIPA claim. 11 (ECF No. 72 at 21.) There is no dispute that Plaintiff had a sincerely held belief that he 12 must perform Jumu’ah prayer services during early Friday afternoons; that Defendants 13 substantially burdened Plaintiff’s exercise of his religion by preventing him from 14 conducting Jumu’ah during the requested timeframe; and that even if Defendants had 15 compelling safety and security interests for the prohibition, those interests were not 16 achieved by the least restrictive means, particularly given the feasible alternatives. (Id. at 17 11, 17-19.) See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a); Johnson v. Baker, 23 F.4th 1209, 1215 (9th Cir. 18 2022); Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 362 (2015); Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 707 F.3d 19 1114, 1125 (9th Cir. 2013). Moreover, Judge Denney noted that similar NDOC facilities 20 were able to accommodate inmates for Friday Jumu’ah services in the early afternoon. 21 (Id. at 20-21.) See Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 890 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff is 22 therefore entitled to summary judgment on his RLUIPA claim. 23 Second, Judge Denney properly found that Plaintiff and Defendants’ motions 24 should be denied as to the First Amendment Free Exercise claim because both parties 25 failed to address the reasonableness factors under Turner v. Safley in their motions. (Id. 26 at 23.) See 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987). The Court will similarly deny the motions as to the 27 Equal Protection claim, since the parties failed to address the Turner factors in their 28 motions, as well as to Plaintiff’s Nevada Constitution claim since neither party addresses 1 this claim. (Id. at 26.) See id.; Shakur, 514 F.3d at 891. Plaintiff and Defendants’ motions 2 are also denied as to the Establishment Clause claim because Defendants failed to 3 address the claim in their motion, and a question of fact remains as to whether 4 Defendants’ actions and policies evince a preference or endorsement of one religion over 5 another. (Id. at 24-25.) See Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1125. 6 Third, Judge Denney properly found that Defendants are not entitled to qualified 7 immunity because a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Defendants’ conduct 8 violated Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. (Id. at 27-28.) See Gordon v. 9 Cnty. of Orange, 6 F.4th 961, 967-68 (9th Cir. 2021). 10 Finally, the Court adopts Judge Denney’s recommendation that further briefing is 11 required to determine whether Plaintiff has received the requested injunctive relief for his 12 RLUIPA claim.2 In their motion, Defendants maintain that Jumu’ah services were 13 reinstated in August 2020, as part of a settlement for another case, and now take place 14 on Fridays from 12:30-1:45 p.m. (ECF No. 60 at 5.) However, Plaintiff contends that those 15 services were terminated again in October 2020 due to “recurring spikes of positive 16 COVID-19 cases.” (ECF Nos. 41 at 18, 61 at 13, 67 at 6.) Thus, it is unclear whether 17 Friday early afternoon Jumu’ah services have been restored and are currently ongoing at 18 Lovelock Correctional Center (“LCC”). 19 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 20 No. 72) is accepted and adopted in full. 21 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 61) is 22 granted in part as to his RLUIPA claim. 23 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 61) is denied in part as to his 24 claims under the First Amendment Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, the Equal 25 Protection Clause, and Article 1, Section 4 of the Nevada Constitution. 26 /// 27 2Under RLUIPA, Plaintiff may only sue Defendants in their official capacities for 28 injunctive relief and may not recover monetary damages. See Jones v. Slade, 23 F.4th 1 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 60) 2 || is denied. 3 It is further ordered that additional briefing is necessary to determine whether 4 || Plaintiff has received the requested injunctive relief for his RLUIPA claim. Defendants are 5 || directed to file a status report within 14 days from the date of this order regarding whether 6 || Jumu’ah services have been reinstated at LCC during early Friday afternoons. Plaintiff 7 || may file a response within 14 days of the date the report is filed. 8 DATED THIS 14!" Day of June 2022. 9 —~

11 MIRANDA M. DU 40 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28