901 F. Supp. 2d 1196
S.D. Cal.2012Background
- Davis, a state prisoner at Calipatria, filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting First Amendment and RLUIPA claims in count one related to a total ban on prayer oil for about 14 months.
- Count two alleges equal protection and retaliation regarding DOM supplement 54030.7.1 addenda issued September 16, 2009 and September 25, 2010, affecting Muslim inmates' religious items and vendor choices.
- August 11, 2009 Davis was authorized eight ounces of prayer oil per quarter; October 2009 Halalco Books shipment was not delivered and oil was later banned as a hazard, with later MSDS-based justification by defendants.
- A September 16, 2009 addendum counted Muslim religious items as quarterly packages; a later October 25, 2010 addendum altered counting for Union Supply orders, allegedly disadvantaging Davis's preferred vendor.
- Magistrate Judge Brooks issued a Report and Recommendation granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss; the district court adopted the Report and entered a final order partially granting and partially denying the motion.
- The court characterized 3190(i)(4) as not creating an independent private right of action and addressed pro se pleadings, amendment scope, and the standards for Rule 12(b)(6) and leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the September 16, 2009 addendum violates equal protection | Davis alleges the addendum targets Muslims and imposes a burden not borne by other faiths. | Small/others contend the addendum is facially neutral and serves penological interests such as efficiency and safety. | Equal protection claim regarding Sept. 16, 2009 addendum denied for other defendants; Small’s denial upheld for Sept. 16 context, but Davis’s claim against Small proceeds at this stage. |
| Whether the October 25, 2010 addendum burdened religious exercise or was retaliatory | Ordering from Union Supply would not count as quarterly, disadvantaging Muslim inmates; alleged retaliation. | Policy is facially neutral and does not impose a substantial burden; alternatives existed. | Retaliation and equal protection claims tied to Oct. 25, 2010 addendum dismissed as futile and not properly alleged; claim not properly asserted against all defendants. |
| Whether 3190(i)(4) imposes an independent private right of action | Section 3190(i)(4) supports religious item purchases; plaintiff seeks relief for regulatory violations. | There is no implied private right of action under Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 15 § 3190(i). | Count two dismissal granted for 3190(i)(4) claim without leave to amend. |
| Whether the conspiracy claims against Powell, Borem, and Ours were properly pleaded | All defendants conspiratorially forced prayer oil purchases from their vendor. | Conspiracy allegations are conclusory and lack specific facts linking each defendant. | Conspiracy claims against Powell, Borem, and Ours dismissed; potential conspiracy against Small addressed separately. |
| Whether the First Amendment and RLUIPA claims in count one survive against all defendants | Total ban on prayer oil violated Free Exercise and RLUIPA; not reasonably related to penological interests. | Temporary ban was rationally related to safety and to determining flammability, with least-restrictive means explored. | Count one First Amendment and RLUIPA claims against all defendants survive to some extent; several individual claims resolved by qualified immunity analysis at later stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (U.S. (2003)) (Turner framework governs prison regulation reasonableness)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. (1987)) (prison regulations require reasonable relation to penological interests)
- O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (U.S. (1987)) (prison schedule accommodations must be reasonably related to penological interests)
- Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (U.S. (2006)) (four Turner factors for evaluating prison regulations)
- Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. (2008)) (free exercise rights; need for substantial burden and legitimate penological interests)
- Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (U.S. (1972)) (protects religious exercise; government must accommodate religious practices)
- Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. (1997)) (equal protection in religious accommodations; strict scrutiny applicable to religion)
- Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. (1995)) (discriminatory intent shown by actions suggestive of invidious purpose)
- Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (U.S. (2005)) (strict scrutiny for race-based classifications; not required to be narrowly tailored for all contexts)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. (2001)) (facially neutral policies may still violate equal protection with discriminatory impact and intent)