Silva v. Bacon

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 11 RAMON SAUL SILVA, 12

Plaintiff, 13 Case No. 2:19-cv-00619-RAJ v. 14 ORDER ADOPTING MODIFIED REPORT AND TROY BACON, et al., 15 RECOMMENDATION

Defendants. 16 17 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ objections to the Report 18 and Recommendation (“Report”) of Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson (Dkt. ## 98, 19 99), objections and responses thereto, and the remaining record, hereby finds and 20 ORDERS: 21 (1) In the Report, Judge Peterson determined that Defendants failed to 22 “specifically address Plaintiff’s request for scented oils in the First Amendment 23 context.” Dkt. # 96 at 19. In their objections to the Report, Defendants have 24 since shown and persuaded the Court that there is indeed a legitimate 25 penological interest in denying Plaintiff scented prayer oil. Dkt. # 99 at 2-4. 26 To the extent that Judge Peterson “expresse[d] no opinion on Plaintiffs First 27 Amendment claim as it pertains to scented oils,” the Court now exercises its 1 discretion to consider new facts and argument and MODIFIES the Report. 2 See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court 3 holds that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to 4 Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim as it pertains to scented prayer oil. 5 (2) The Report (Dkt. # 96) as modified above is ADOPTED. 6 (3) Plaintiff’s motions for partial summary judgment (Dkt. ## 39, 54) are 7 DENIED. 8 (4) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 73) is GRANTED with 9 respect to all claims except for those pertaining to Plaintiff’s request for 10 scented prayer oil under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons 11 Act (“RLUIPA”). 12 (5) Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. # 8) and this action are DISMISSED with 13 prejudice with respect to all claims except those pertaining to Plaintiff’s 14 request for scented prayer oil under the RLUIPA. 15 (6) Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Dkt. # 81) is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s 16 motion seeking a ruling on his dispositive motions (Dkt. # 90) is DENIED as 17 moot. 18 (7) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, to counsel for 19 Defendants, and to Judge Peterson.

20 DATED this 17th day of August, 2020. 21

22 A 23 24 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 25 United States District Judge 26