Jesse Washington v. A. Lakowski

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 22, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00619
• Status: Unknown

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