Jackson v. Patzkowski

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 21, 2022
• Docket: 2:18-cv-01508
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 KYNTREL JACKSON, 8 CASE NO. C18-1508-RSM-MLP Plaintiff 9 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 10 v. RECOMMENDATION

11 SHAWNA PATZKOWSKI, et al.,

12 Defendants.

14 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the 15 Honorable Michelle L. Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. #180, as well as the 16 Objections filed by Plaintiff, Dkt. #181, and Defendants, Dkt. #182. The Court finds no basis in 17 Plaintiff’s Objections to deviate from the detailed recommendations of Judge Peterson. She 18 appropriately evaluated Plaintiff’s Free Exercise Claims under the factors set forth in Turner v. 19 Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987) and other cited Ninth Circuit case law. As Plaintiff is proceeding 20 21 only against individual Defendants, he cannot obtain monetary damages against any Defendant 22 based on RLUIPA and those claims are moot. 23 Judge Peterson properly evaluated all the evidence presented on summary judgment 24 under the appropriate standards, resulting in the recommended dismissal of claims where Plaintiff 25 lacked the quantum of evidence needed to satisfy his burden at trial. As the R&R correctly states, 26 allegations that are based merely on Plaintiff’s belief are insufficient to oppose summary 27 judgment, as are unsupported conjecture and conclusory statements. See Dkt. #180 at 21 (citing 1 2 cases). 3 Judge Peterson’s recommendation on the spoliation of evidence claim is adopted. The 4 Court will not consider different evidence or argument on this issue raised in Plaintiff’s 5 Objections that could have reasonably been raised earlier, or which was raised in a previous 6 motion denied by Judge Peterson. Objections to an R&R ruling on a summary judgment motion 7 are not an invitation to appeal prior discovery rulings. 8 Turning to Defendants’ Objections, the Court again finds that they fail to demonstrate 9 10 error in Judge Peterson’s recommendations. Judge Peterson recommends that the court deny 11 summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims that Ms. Hubbs made racist comments and 12 used racist examples in the A2A class and issued infractions against Plaintiff because of his race 13 and for retaliatory reasons. Defendants essentially say that Plaintiff’s claims are based on his 14 own word, and that Ms. Hubbs will testify to the contrary. Defendants cannot obtain summary 15 judgment dismissal of claims where Plaintiff has sufficient evidence to satisfy his burden at trial 16 but where Defendants fail to adequately present an argument or facts supporting dismissal. 17 18 Defendants cannot supplement with additional facts and argument in their Objections. 19 Defendants acknowledge “[t]he Magistrate Judge is correct that defendants did not move to 20 dismiss Plaintiff’s infraction claim for failure to exhaust the prison grievance system.” Dkt. #182 21 at 3. It appears to be a question of fact whether the infractions were issues for legitimate 22 penological goals or were retaliatory. 23 Having reviewed the above R&R, the Objections filed by Plaintiff Jackson and 24 25 Defendants, and the remaining record, the Court FINDS and ORDERS: 26 (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 27 (2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 138) is GRANTED in part and 1 2 DENIED in part. Specifically, the Motion is: 3 a. DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s racial discrimination and retaliation claims 4 against Ms. Hubbs based on her conduct while teaching the A2A class and the 5 December 28, 2017 infraction; 6 b. DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against 7 CUS Pease; 8 c. GRANTED based on a failure to exhaust Plaintiff’s rape/sexual harassment 9 10 claims against Officer Gonzalez, CPM Sundberg, CUS Buttice, CUS Pease, and 11 Officer Dunleavy; denial of food claims against Ms. Hubbs, CUS Buttice, CPM 12 Sundberg, and Mr. Thrasher; religious discrimination claim against Ms. Hubbs; 13 racial discrimination and retaliation claims against Ms. Hubbs based on the 14 alleged use of racial slurs and threat to poison Plaintiff’s food; and retaliation 15 claim against Kara Hubbs; and 16 d. GRANTED with respect to all remaining claims. 17 18 (3) The claims that Plaintiff failed to exhaust are DISMSISED without prejudice, and the 19 other claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 20 (4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge Peterson. 21 DATED this 21st day of April, 2022. 22 23 A 24 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 25 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE