Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

CLOSED,JURYDEMAND

U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:18-cv-00837-RSM

Roberts et al v. Sinclair et al Assigned to: Judge Ricardo S. Martinez Case in other court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 19-
35846 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Date Terminated: 09/06/2019 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Demario Roberts Inmate #398950

represented by Ahmed Mohamed CAIR New York 46-01 20TH AVENUE QUEENS, NY 11105 646-665-7599 Email: ahmedmohamed@cair.com TERMINATED: 03/20/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Carolyn M Homer Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 637-2200 Fax: (202) 637-2201 Email: Carolyn.Homer@lw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gadeir Abbas CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 453 NEW JERSEY AVE., SE WASHINGTON, DC 20003 202-742-6420 Email: gabbas@cair.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Mohamed Mohamed Inmate# 384454

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F Masri CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 453 NEW JERSEY AVE., SE WASHINGTON, DC 20003 202-742-6420 Email: lmasri@cair.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Nicole Misasi CAIR-WASHINGTON 1511 THIRD AVE STE 701 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206-367-4081 Email: amisasi@cair.com TERMINATED: 05/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay W Gairson GAIRSON LAW 4606 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY S SEATTLE, WA 98108 206-357-4218 Email: jay@gairson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ahmed Mohamed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/20/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Carolyn M Homer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gadeir Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff
Jeremy Livingston Inmate #381036

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F Masri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Nicole Misasi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay W Gairson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ahmed Mohamed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/20/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Carolyn M Homer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gadeir Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F Masri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Nicole Misasi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2019

Plaintiff Naim Lao Inmate #400248
Plaintiff John James V.

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay W Gairson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ahmed Mohamed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/20/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Carolyn M Homer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gadeir Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F Masri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Nicole Misasi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay W Gairson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lena F Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Stephen Sinclair in his official capacity as Secretary of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant Julie Martin in her official and individual capacities as Deputy Secretary of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant Robert Herzog in his official and individual capacities as Assistant Secretary of the Prisons Division of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018 Defendant Belinda Stewart in her official and individual capacities as Corrections Program Administrator of the Washington Department of Corrections

represented by Timothy J Feulner ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (40116-OLY) PO BOX 40116 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0116 360-586-1445 Email: tim.feulner@atg.wa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (40116-OLY) PO BOX 40116 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0116 360-586-1445 Fax: 360-664-8716 Email: timothyl@atg.wa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jamie Dolan in his official and individual capacities as Food Service Administrator of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant Bea Blowers in her individual capacity as Assistant Food Services Administrator of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant Bryan King in his individual capacity as Assistant Food Services Administrator of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant Brad Simpson in his individual capacity as Assistant Food Services Administrator of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant Mike Obenland in his official and individual capacities as Superintendent of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant

represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey A Uttecht in his individual capacity as Superintendent of the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant David Sherman in his official and individual capacities as Head Chaplain of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant Eric Askren in his individual capacity as Head Chaplain of the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant Henri Fischer in his individual capacity as Chaplain of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant Peter Maxson in his official and individual capacities as Grievance Coordinator at the Washington State Reformatory of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant Lt. Asin in his individual capacity as

represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address)

Lieutenant at the Washington State Reformatory of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant
Sgt. Jones in his individual capacity as Sergeant at the Washington State Reformatory of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant
Sgt. Robinson in his individual capacity as Sergeant at the Washington State Reformatory of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant
Sgt. Parks in his individual capacity as Sergeant at the Washington State Reformatory of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant
Sgt. Rose in his individual capacity as Sergeant at the Washington State Reformatory of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant
EK in his individual capacity as Corrections Officer at the

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Washington State Reformatory of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant
Unidentified Chaplain in his individual capacity as Head Chaplain of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington State Department of Corrections

Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/10/2018
06/10/2018 06/10/2018 06/10/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against defendant(s) Asin, Eric Askren, Bea Blowers, Jamie Dolan, EK, Henri Fischer, Robert Herzog, Jones, Bryan King, Julie Martin, Pete Maxson, Mike Obeland, Parks, Robinson, Rose, David Sherman, Brad Simpson, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeff Uttecht with JURY DEMAND (Receipt # 0981-5350389) Attorney Jay W. Gairson added to party Naim Lao(pty:pla), Attorney Jay W. Gairson added to party Jeremy Livingston(pty:pla), Attorney Jay W. Gairson added to party Mohamed Mohamed(pty:pla), Attorney Jay W. Gairson added to party Demario Roberts(pty:pla), filed by Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, Jeremy Livingston, Naim Lao. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(Gairson, Jay) (Entered: 06/10/2018)
2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Ahmed M. Mohamed in Support of Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order And/Or Preliminary Injunction) Noting Date 6/10/2018, (Gairson, Jay) (Entered: 06/10/2018)
3 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Lena F. Masri FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 09815350399 (Gairson, Jay) Correct secondary email for Attorney Lena Masri is 1353@ecf.pacerpro.com 6/11/2018 (DS). (Entered: 06/10/2018)
4 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Gadeir I. Abbas FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 09815350400 (Gairson, Jay) (Entered: 06/10/2018)

06/10/2018 06/10/2018 06/11/2018 06/11/2018 06/11/2018 06/11/2018
06/11/2018
06/11/2018

5 DECLARATION of Gadeir Abbas Regarding Rule 65 Notice filed by Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Gairson, Jay) (Entered: 06/10/2018)
6 ORDER granting 2 Motion for TRO signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(LAL) (Entered: 06/10/2018)
Judge Ricardo S Martinez and Hon. Brian A Tsuchida added. (ST) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
7 Summons(es) Electronically Issued as to defendant(s) Stephen Sinclair. (Filer submitted 20 summons(es) to be issued, however, each summons form was addressed to Mr. Sinclair and not to any of the other defendants.) (ST) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
8 NOTICE TO FILER: re 1 Complaint,,,. Notice of Filing Deficiency ** Action Required ** See Attached Letter for More Information and Instructions. (ST) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
9 ORDER re 3 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Lena F Masri for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed and Demario Roberts, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
10 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS by Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts (Attachments: # 1 Summons Sergeant EK, # 2 Summons Julie Martin, # 3 Summons Robert Herzog, # 4 Summons Belinda Steward, # 5 Summons Jamie Dolan, # 6 Summons Bea Blowers, # 7 Summons Bryan King, # 8 Summons Brad Simpson, # 9 Summons Mike Obeland, # 10 Summons Jeffrey Uttecht, # 11 Summons David Sherman, # 12 Summons Eric Askren, # 13 Summons Henri Fischer, # 14 Summons Pete Maxson, # 15 Summons Lieutenant Asin, # 16 Summons Sgt Jones, # 17 Summons Sgt Robinson, # 18 Summons Sgt Parks, # 19 Summons Sgt Rose)(Gairson, Jay) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
11 ORDER re 4 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Gadeir Abbas for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed and Demario Roberts, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the

06/12/2018
06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018

applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
12 Summons(es) Electronically Issued as to defendant(s) Asin, Eric Askren, Bea Blowers, Jamie Dolan, EK, Henri Fischer, Robert Herzog, Jones, Bryan King, Julie Martin, Pete Maxson, Mike Obeland, Parks, Robinson, Rose, David Sherman, Brad Simpson, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeff Uttecht. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons, # 13 Summons, # 14 Summons, # 15 Summons, # 16 Summons, # 17 Summons, # 18 Summons)(ST) (Entered: 06/12/2018)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Timothy J Feulner on behalf of Defendant Stephen Sinclair. (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Timothy Norman Lang on behalf of Defendant Stephen Sinclair. (Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction , filed by Defendant Stephen Sinclair. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 6/15/2018, (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
16 DECLARATION of Belinda Stewart filed by Defendant Stephen Sinclair re 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 8-44)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
17 DECLARATION of Peter Maxson filed by Defendant Stephen Sinclair re 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 8-65)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
18 DECLARATION of Ogechi Njoku filed by Defendant Stephen Sinclair re 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
19 DECLARATION of Eric Hernandez filed by Defendant Stephen Sinclair re 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
20 DECLARATION of Denise Vaughan filed by Defendant Stephen Sinclair re 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary

06/13/2018 06/15/2018 06/15/2018 06/15/2018 06/15/2018
06/15/2018 06/19/2018 06/21/2018

Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 4-21)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
21 DECLARATION of Matthew Blair filed by Defendant Stephen Sinclair re 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 5-25)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
22 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint on Stephen Sinclair on 6/14/2018, filed by Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service by hand on Defendant Stephen Sinclair, # 2 Certificate of Service by hand on the Washington Attorney General)(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
Set Telephonic Hearing: Motion to Dissolve TRO Hearing set for 6/15/2018 at 02:00 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo S. Martinez via telephonic conference. Parties shall call the Court's conference line at 1888-251-2909 and enter ACCESS CODE: 1307658 # . (SSM) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
23 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, to 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction . (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
24 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo S. Martinez; CRD: Paul Pierson; Plaintiffs' Counsel: Gadeir Abbas, Lena Masri & Carolyn Homer; Defendants' Counsel: Timothy Feulner & Timothy Lang; CR: Not present; Time of Hearing: 2:00 p.m.; Courtroom: In Chambers;Motion Hearing was held on 6/15/2018 re 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction filed by Stephen Sinclair. The case was called and counsel stated their appearance. The Court briefly reviewed the procedural history, pleadings filed and inquired of counsel regarding recent developments. The Court advised counsel that a written order shall issue later today. (PP) Modified on 6/18/2018 to edit typo only (KB). (Entered: 06/15/2018)
25 ORDER denying as moot Defendant Sinclair's 15 Motion to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
26 DEMAND for JURY TRIAL by Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts (Gairson, Jay) (Entered: 06/19/2018)
27 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND JOINT STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report due by 8/2/2018, FRCP 26f

07/05/2018 07/20/2018 07/26/2018 07/26/2018 07/27/2018
07/27/2018
08/02/2018 08/02/2018

Conference Deadline is 7/19/2018, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 7/26/2018, by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (LW) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
28 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, with JURY DEMAND by Stephen Sinclair.(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Amanda Nicole Misasi on behalf of Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. (Misasi, Amanda) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
30 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Carolyn M. Homer FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 09815411316 (Misasi, Amanda) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
31 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Ahmed M. Mohamed FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5411374 (Misasi, Amanda) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
32 ORDER re 30 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Carolyn M Homer for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, and for Demario Roberts, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
33 ORDER re 31 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Ahmed Mohamed for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, and Demario Roberts, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
34 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Timothy J Feulner on behalf of Defendants Asin, Eric Askren, Bea Blowers, Jamie Dolan, EK, Henri Fischer, Robert Herzog, Jones, Bryan King, Julie Martin, Pete Maxson, Mike Obeland, Parks, Robinson, Rose, David Sherman, Brad Simpson, Belinda Stewart, Jeff Uttecht. (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
35 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Timothy Norman Lang on behalf of Defendants Asin, Eric Askren, Bea Blowers, Jamie Dolan, EK, Henri

08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018

Fischer, Robert Herzog, Jones, Bryan King, Julie Martin, Pete Maxson, Mike Obeland, Parks, Robinson, Rose, David Sherman, Brad Simpson, Belinda Stewart, Jeff Uttecht. (Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
36 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant EK mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
37 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Asin mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
38 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Eric Askren mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
39 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Bea Blowers mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
40 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Jamie Dolan mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
41 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Henri Fischer mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
42 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Robert Herzog mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
43 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Jones mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
44 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Bryan King mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
45 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Julie Martin mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
46 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Pete Maxson mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
47 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Mike Obeland mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
48 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Parks mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
49 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Robinson mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
50 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Rose mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
51 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant David Sherman mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
52 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Brad Simpson mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/15/2018
09/04/2018 09/04/2018 09/12/2018
09/25/2018 09/28/2018

53 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Belinda Stewart mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
54 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Jeff Uttecht mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
55 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: 47. (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
Pursuant to the parties' 55 Joint Status Report, and no consent received, the Hon. Brian A Tsuchida is no longer assigned to the case. (TF) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
56 ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. Length of Trial: *4-7 days*. Jury Trial is set for 10/7/2019 at 09:00 AM before Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. Joinder of Parties due by 9/12/2018, Amended Pleadings due by 9/12/2018, Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 4/10/2019, Motions due by 5/10/2019, Discovery completed by 6/10/2019, Dispositive motions due by 7/9/2019, 39.1 mediation to be completed by 8/23/2019, Motions in Limine due by 9/9/2019, Pretrial Order due by 9/25/2019, Trial briefs to be submitted by 10/2/2019, Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 10/2/2019. (LC) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
57 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, with JURY DEMAND by Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Pete Maxson, Mike Obeland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Belinda Stewart, Jeff Uttecht.(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
58 MOTION to Dismiss , filed by Defendants Asin, Bea Blowers, EK, Robert Herzog, Jones, Bryan King, Julie Martin, Robinson, Brad Simpson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 17-20, # 2 Proposed Order) Noting Date 9/28/2018, (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
59 AMENDED COMPLAINT for Declaratory Injunctive Relief and Damages against defendant(s) Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Pete Maxson, Mike Obeland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeff Uttecht, Unidentified Chaplain with JURY DEMAND Attorney Lena F Masri added to party John James(pty:pla), filed by Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, Jeremy Livingston, Naim Lao, John James.(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
60 ANSWER to 59 Amended Complaint, with JURY DEMAND by Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Pete Maxson, Mike Obeland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeff Uttecht.(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
61 REPLY, filed by Defendants Asin, Bea Blowers, EK, Robert Herzog, Jones, Bryan King, Julie Martin, Robinson, Brad Simpson, TO RESPONSE to 58 MOTION to Dismiss (Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

10/03/2018
03/20/2019 05/13/2019 06/10/2019 06/17/2019 06/21/2019 06/21/2019 06/28/2019

62 MINUTE ORDER, Motions terminated: 58 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Bryan King, Robert Herzog, Bea Blowers, EK, Brad Simpson, Asin, Julie Martin, Jones, Robinson.The following MINUTE ORDER is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief United States District Judge: On September 4, 2018, certain Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. #58. Eight days later, on September 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. #59. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 states that a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of original service, or 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is procedurally valid and renders the pending Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #58, moot. The Court hereby STRIKES that Motion. (COB) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
63 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Ahmed Mohamed for Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. (Mohamed, Ahmed) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
64 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Amanda Nicole Misasi for Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. (Misasi, Amanda) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
65 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery , filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht. Noting Date 6/10/2019, (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
66 ORDER granting 65 Stipulated Motion to Extend Discovery Cutoff; Discovery completed by 6/24/2019. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
67 MOTION to Amend Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B (Sherman Deposition Excerpts), # 3 Exhibit C (Maxson Deposition Excerpts), # 4 Exhibit D (Stewart Deposition Excerpts), # 5 Courtesy Redline of First to Second Amended Complaints, # 6 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/12/2019, (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
68 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery - limited supplemental written discovery only, filed by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/12/2019, (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
69 REQUEST by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts for Telephonic Conference per

07/01/2019
07/08/2019 07/08/2019 07/09/2019 07/09/2019 07/09/2019 07/09/2019

L.R. 7(i) re 56 Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates,, (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
70 MINUTE ORDER re: 69 Request filed by Jeremy Livingston, Naim Lao, Demario Roberts, Mohamed Mohamed, John James The following MINUTE ORDER is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief United States District Judge: The Court DECLINES the above request for a telephonic motion. Plaintiffs are free to move for an extension of the dispositive motion deadline even though such a motion would be noted for consideration after the deadline. The motion would need to show good cause for the delay in filing. The Court can permit the filing of dispositive motions or supplemental briefing after the existing deadline if good cause is shown. (COB) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
71 RESPONSE, by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht, to 68 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery - limited supplemental written discovery only, 67 MOTION to Amend Complaint. (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
72 DECLARATION of Counsel filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 68 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery - limited supplemental written discovery only, 67 MOTION to Amend Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 6-54)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
73 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/2/2019, (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
74 DECLARATION of Bryan King filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 817)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
75 DECLARATION of Counsel filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 4126)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
76 DECLARATION of Lynda Heise filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David

07/09/2019 07/09/2019 07/09/2019
07/09/2019 07/11/2019 07/29/2019 07/29/2019

Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
77 DECLARATION of David Sherman filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 712)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
78 Second DECLARATION of Peter Maxson filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 7-29)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
79 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23) Noting Date 8/2/2019, (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
80 EXHIBIT 24-35 re 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 25, # 2 Exhibit 26, # 3 Exhibit 27, # 4 Exhibit 28, # 5 Exhibit 29, # 6 Exhibit 30, # 7 Exhibit 31, # 8 Exhibit 32, # 9 Exhibit 33, # 10 Exhibit 34, # 11 Exhibit 35, # 12 Proposed Order)(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
81 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, TO RESPONSE to 68 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery - limited supplemental written discovery only, 67 MOTION to Amend Complaint (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
82 RESPONSE, by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht, to 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment . (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
83 Second DECLARATION of counsel filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 321)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/29/2019)

07/29/2019 07/29/2019 07/29/2019 08/01/2019 08/02/2019
08/02/2019 08/02/2019

84 DECLARATION of Brad Simpson filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 531)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
85 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, to 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Oral Argument Requested. (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
86 RESPONSE (Corrected), by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, to 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Oral Argument Requested. (Masri, Lena) Modified docket text on 7/30/2019 (SWT). (Entered: 07/29/2019)
87 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 67 Motion to Amend Complaint; denying Plaintiffs' 68 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SWT) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
88 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, TO RESPONSE to 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 2 (Excerpted), # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 3 (Excerpted), # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 6 (Excerpted), # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 7 (Excerpted), # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 8 (Excerpted), # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 9 (Excerpted), # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 10 (Excerpted), # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 12 (Excerpted), # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 13 (Excerpted), # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 14 (Excerpted), # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 15 (Excerpted), # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 20 (Excerpted), # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 21 (Excerpted), # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 22 (Excerpted), # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 23 (Excerpted), # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 24 (Excerpted), # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 25 (Excerpted), # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 26 (Excerpted), # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 27 (Excerpted), # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 28 (Excerpted), # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 29 (Excerpted), # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 30 (Excerpted), # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 32 (Excerpted), # 24 Exhibit Exhibit 33 (Excerpted), # 25 Exhibit Exhibit 34 (Excerpted), # 26 Exhibit Exhibit 35 (Excerpted))(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
89 REPLY, filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht, TO RESPONSE to 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
90 DECLARATION of Counsel filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 443)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2019)

09/05/2019 09/06/2019 09/06/2019
09/27/2019 09/27/2019 10/04/2019
10/04/2019 10/14/2019 10/18/2019

91 Stipulated MOTION and Order to Strike October 7, 2019 Trial Date Pending Ruling on Dispositive Motions, filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht. Noting Date 9/5/2019, (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
92 ORDER granting Defendants' 73 Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing all of Plaintiffs' claims; denying Plaintiffs' 79 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot Defendants' Motion to Strike contained in responsive briefing. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
93 JUDGMENT BY COURT. THE COURT HAS ORDERED THAT: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 73 ) is GRANTED. All of Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 79 ) is DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Strike contained in responsive briefing is DENIED as MOOT.This case is CLOSED. (PM) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
94 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS , filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/18/2019, (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
REFERRING Defendants' 94 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS to: Deputy in Charge Joe Whiteley. (PM) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
95 NOTICE OF APPEAL (19-35846) to Ninth Circuit re 87 Order on Motion to Amend, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, 93 Judgment by Court, 92 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Stipulated Motion, by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. $505, receipt number 0981-5952660. (cc: USCA) (Masri, Lena) Modified on 10/4/2019 to add CCA# (GT). (Entered: 10/04/2019)
96 TIME SCHEDULE ORDER ( #19-35846) as to 95 Notice of Appeal, filed by Jeremy Livingston, Naim Lao, Demario Roberts, Mohamed Mohamed, John James. (GT) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
97 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, to 94 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS . Oral Argument Requested. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 10/14/2019)
98 REPLY, filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht, TO RESPONSE to 94 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 10/18/2019)

10/18/2019 10/22/2019 10/29/2019 11/08/2019 11/15/2019 11/19/2019 12/29/2020 01/20/2021

99 DECLARATION of Counsel filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 94 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 526)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 10/18/2019)
100 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 94 Defendant's Motion for Bill of Costs signed by Deputy in Charge Joe Whiteley.(JW) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
101 MOTION Retax re 100 Order on Motion for Bill of Costs , filed by Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/15/2019, (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 10/29/2019)
102 RESPONSE, by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht, to 101 MOTION Retax re 100 Order on Motion for Bill of Costs . (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 11/08/2019)
103 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, TO RESPONSE to 101 MOTION Retax re 100 Order on Motion for Bill of Costs (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
104 ORDER granting in part Plaintiffs' 101 Motion to Retax. The Clerk's 100 Taxation of Costs shall be reduced by 50 percent. Costs are now taxed at $3,081.46. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (LW) (Entered: 11/19/2019)
105 MEMORANDUM FROM USCA (19-35846) (NOT THE MANDATE) as to 95 Notice of Appeal, filed by Jeremy Livingston, Naim Lao, Demario Roberts, Mohamed Mohamed, John James. AFFIRMED. (CDA) (Entered: 12/29/2020)
106 MANDATE OF USCA (19-35846) as to 95 Notice of Appeal, filed by Jeremy Livingston, Naim Lao, Demario Roberts, Mohamed Mohamed, John James, 105 Memorandum/Opinion from USCA. The Judgment from USCA takes effect this date. This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Costs are taxed against the appellant in the amount of $138.00. AFFIRMED (CDA) (Entered: 01/22/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt
03/25/2021 08:02:06

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 17

Cost:

Exempt flag: Not Exempt

Exempt reason:

Hill
2:18-cv-00837RSM 1.70
Not Exempt

 
 Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

CLOSED,JURYDEMAND

U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:18-cv-00837-RSM

Roberts et al v. Sinclair et al Assigned to: Judge Ricardo S. Martinez Case in other court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 19-
35846 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 06/10/2018 Date Terminated: 09/06/2019 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Demario Roberts Inmate #398950

represented by Ahmed Mohamed CAIR New York 46-01 20TH AVENUE QUEENS, NY 11105 646-665-7599 Email: ahmedmohamed@cair.com TERMINATED: 03/20/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Carolyn M Homer Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 637-2200 Fax: (202) 637-2201 Email: Carolyn.Homer@lw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gadeir Abbas CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 453 NEW JERSEY AVE., SE WASHINGTON, DC 20003 202-742-6420 Email: gabbas@cair.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Mohamed Mohamed Inmate# 384454

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F Masri CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 453 NEW JERSEY AVE., SE WASHINGTON, DC 20003 202-742-6420 Email: lmasri@cair.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Nicole Misasi CAIR-WASHINGTON 1511 THIRD AVE STE 701 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206-367-4081 Email: amisasi@cair.com TERMINATED: 05/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay W Gairson GAIRSON LAW 4606 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY S SEATTLE, WA 98108 206-357-4218 Email: jay@gairson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ahmed Mohamed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/20/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Carolyn M Homer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gadeir Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff
Jeremy Livingston Inmate #381036

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F Masri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Nicole Misasi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay W Gairson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ahmed Mohamed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/20/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Carolyn M Homer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gadeir Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F Masri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Nicole Misasi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2019

Plaintiff Naim Lao Inmate #400248
Plaintiff John James V.

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay W Gairson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ahmed Mohamed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/20/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Carolyn M Homer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gadeir Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F Masri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Nicole Misasi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay W Gairson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lena F Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Stephen Sinclair in his official capacity as Secretary of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant Julie Martin in her official and individual capacities as Deputy Secretary of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant Robert Herzog in his official and individual capacities as Assistant Secretary of the Prisons Division of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018 Defendant Belinda Stewart in her official and individual capacities as Corrections Program Administrator of the Washington Department of Corrections

represented by Timothy J Feulner ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (40116-OLY) PO BOX 40116 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0116 360-586-1445 Email: tim.feulner@atg.wa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (40116-OLY) PO BOX 40116 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0116 360-586-1445 Fax: 360-664-8716 Email: timothyl@atg.wa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jamie Dolan in his official and individual capacities as Food Service Administrator of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant Bea Blowers in her individual capacity as Assistant Food Services Administrator of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant Bryan King in his individual capacity as Assistant Food Services Administrator of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant Brad Simpson in his individual capacity as Assistant Food Services Administrator of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant Mike Obenland in his official and individual capacities as Superintendent of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant

represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey A Uttecht in his individual capacity as Superintendent of the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant David Sherman in his official and individual capacities as Head Chaplain of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant Eric Askren in his individual capacity as Head Chaplain of the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant Henri Fischer in his individual capacity as Chaplain of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant Peter Maxson in his official and individual capacities as Grievance Coordinator at the Washington State Reformatory of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant Lt. Asin in his individual capacity as

represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address)

Lieutenant at the Washington State Reformatory of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant
Sgt. Jones in his individual capacity as Sergeant at the Washington State Reformatory of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant
Sgt. Robinson in his individual capacity as Sergeant at the Washington State Reformatory of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant
Sgt. Parks in his individual capacity as Sergeant at the Washington State Reformatory of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant
Sgt. Rose in his individual capacity as Sergeant at the Washington State Reformatory of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections
Defendant
EK in his individual capacity as Corrections Officer at the

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy J Feulner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Washington State Reformatory of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 09/12/2018
Defendant
Unidentified Chaplain in his individual capacity as Head Chaplain of the Monroe Correctional Complex of the Washington State Department of Corrections

Timothy Norman Lang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/10/2018
06/10/2018 06/10/2018 06/10/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against defendant(s) Asin, Eric Askren, Bea Blowers, Jamie Dolan, EK, Henri Fischer, Robert Herzog, Jones, Bryan King, Julie Martin, Pete Maxson, Mike Obeland, Parks, Robinson, Rose, David Sherman, Brad Simpson, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeff Uttecht with JURY DEMAND (Receipt # 0981-5350389) Attorney Jay W. Gairson added to party Naim Lao(pty:pla), Attorney Jay W. Gairson added to party Jeremy Livingston(pty:pla), Attorney Jay W. Gairson added to party Mohamed Mohamed(pty:pla), Attorney Jay W. Gairson added to party Demario Roberts(pty:pla), filed by Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, Jeremy Livingston, Naim Lao. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(Gairson, Jay) (Entered: 06/10/2018)
2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Ahmed M. Mohamed in Support of Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order And/Or Preliminary Injunction) Noting Date 6/10/2018, (Gairson, Jay) (Entered: 06/10/2018)
3 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Lena F. Masri FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 09815350399 (Gairson, Jay) Correct secondary email for Attorney Lena Masri is 1353@ecf.pacerpro.com 6/11/2018 (DS). (Entered: 06/10/2018)
4 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Gadeir I. Abbas FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 09815350400 (Gairson, Jay) (Entered: 06/10/2018)

06/10/2018 06/10/2018 06/11/2018 06/11/2018 06/11/2018 06/11/2018
06/11/2018
06/11/2018

5 DECLARATION of Gadeir Abbas Regarding Rule 65 Notice filed by Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Gairson, Jay) (Entered: 06/10/2018)
6 ORDER granting 2 Motion for TRO signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(LAL) (Entered: 06/10/2018)
Judge Ricardo S Martinez and Hon. Brian A Tsuchida added. (ST) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
7 Summons(es) Electronically Issued as to defendant(s) Stephen Sinclair. (Filer submitted 20 summons(es) to be issued, however, each summons form was addressed to Mr. Sinclair and not to any of the other defendants.) (ST) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
8 NOTICE TO FILER: re 1 Complaint,,,. Notice of Filing Deficiency ** Action Required ** See Attached Letter for More Information and Instructions. (ST) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
9 ORDER re 3 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Lena F Masri for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed and Demario Roberts, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
10 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS by Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts (Attachments: # 1 Summons Sergeant EK, # 2 Summons Julie Martin, # 3 Summons Robert Herzog, # 4 Summons Belinda Steward, # 5 Summons Jamie Dolan, # 6 Summons Bea Blowers, # 7 Summons Bryan King, # 8 Summons Brad Simpson, # 9 Summons Mike Obeland, # 10 Summons Jeffrey Uttecht, # 11 Summons David Sherman, # 12 Summons Eric Askren, # 13 Summons Henri Fischer, # 14 Summons Pete Maxson, # 15 Summons Lieutenant Asin, # 16 Summons Sgt Jones, # 17 Summons Sgt Robinson, # 18 Summons Sgt Parks, # 19 Summons Sgt Rose)(Gairson, Jay) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
11 ORDER re 4 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Gadeir Abbas for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed and Demario Roberts, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the

06/12/2018
06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018 06/13/2018

applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
12 Summons(es) Electronically Issued as to defendant(s) Asin, Eric Askren, Bea Blowers, Jamie Dolan, EK, Henri Fischer, Robert Herzog, Jones, Bryan King, Julie Martin, Pete Maxson, Mike Obeland, Parks, Robinson, Rose, David Sherman, Brad Simpson, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeff Uttecht. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons, # 13 Summons, # 14 Summons, # 15 Summons, # 16 Summons, # 17 Summons, # 18 Summons)(ST) (Entered: 06/12/2018)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Timothy J Feulner on behalf of Defendant Stephen Sinclair. (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Timothy Norman Lang on behalf of Defendant Stephen Sinclair. (Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction , filed by Defendant Stephen Sinclair. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 6/15/2018, (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
16 DECLARATION of Belinda Stewart filed by Defendant Stephen Sinclair re 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 8-44)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
17 DECLARATION of Peter Maxson filed by Defendant Stephen Sinclair re 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 8-65)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
18 DECLARATION of Ogechi Njoku filed by Defendant Stephen Sinclair re 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
19 DECLARATION of Eric Hernandez filed by Defendant Stephen Sinclair re 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
20 DECLARATION of Denise Vaughan filed by Defendant Stephen Sinclair re 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary

06/13/2018 06/15/2018 06/15/2018 06/15/2018 06/15/2018
06/15/2018 06/19/2018 06/21/2018

Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 4-21)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
21 DECLARATION of Matthew Blair filed by Defendant Stephen Sinclair re 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 5-25)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
22 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint on Stephen Sinclair on 6/14/2018, filed by Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service by hand on Defendant Stephen Sinclair, # 2 Certificate of Service by hand on the Washington Attorney General)(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
Set Telephonic Hearing: Motion to Dissolve TRO Hearing set for 6/15/2018 at 02:00 PM before Chief Judge Ricardo S. Martinez via telephonic conference. Parties shall call the Court's conference line at 1888-251-2909 and enter ACCESS CODE: 1307658 # . (SSM) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
23 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, to 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction . (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
24 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Chief Judge Ricardo S. Martinez; CRD: Paul Pierson; Plaintiffs' Counsel: Gadeir Abbas, Lena Masri & Carolyn Homer; Defendants' Counsel: Timothy Feulner & Timothy Lang; CR: Not present; Time of Hearing: 2:00 p.m.; Courtroom: In Chambers;Motion Hearing was held on 6/15/2018 re 15 MOTION to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting TRO re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction filed by Stephen Sinclair. The case was called and counsel stated their appearance. The Court briefly reviewed the procedural history, pleadings filed and inquired of counsel regarding recent developments. The Court advised counsel that a written order shall issue later today. (PP) Modified on 6/18/2018 to edit typo only (KB). (Entered: 06/15/2018)
25 ORDER denying as moot Defendant Sinclair's 15 Motion to Dissolve Ex Parte Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
26 DEMAND for JURY TRIAL by Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts (Gairson, Jay) (Entered: 06/19/2018)
27 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND JOINT STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report due by 8/2/2018, FRCP 26f

07/05/2018 07/20/2018 07/26/2018 07/26/2018 07/27/2018
07/27/2018
08/02/2018 08/02/2018

Conference Deadline is 7/19/2018, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 7/26/2018, by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (LW) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
28 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, with JURY DEMAND by Stephen Sinclair.(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Amanda Nicole Misasi on behalf of Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. (Misasi, Amanda) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
30 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Carolyn M. Homer FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 09815411316 (Misasi, Amanda) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
31 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Ahmed M. Mohamed FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5411374 (Misasi, Amanda) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
32 ORDER re 30 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Carolyn M Homer for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, and for Demario Roberts, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
33 ORDER re 31 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Ahmed Mohamed for Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, and Demario Roberts, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.
NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
34 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Timothy J Feulner on behalf of Defendants Asin, Eric Askren, Bea Blowers, Jamie Dolan, EK, Henri Fischer, Robert Herzog, Jones, Bryan King, Julie Martin, Pete Maxson, Mike Obeland, Parks, Robinson, Rose, David Sherman, Brad Simpson, Belinda Stewart, Jeff Uttecht. (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
35 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Timothy Norman Lang on behalf of Defendants Asin, Eric Askren, Bea Blowers, Jamie Dolan, EK, Henri

08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018

Fischer, Robert Herzog, Jones, Bryan King, Julie Martin, Pete Maxson, Mike Obeland, Parks, Robinson, Rose, David Sherman, Brad Simpson, Belinda Stewart, Jeff Uttecht. (Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
36 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant EK mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
37 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Asin mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
38 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Eric Askren mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
39 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Bea Blowers mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
40 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Jamie Dolan mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
41 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Henri Fischer mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
42 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Robert Herzog mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
43 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Jones mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
44 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Bryan King mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
45 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Julie Martin mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
46 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Pete Maxson mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
47 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Mike Obeland mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
48 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Parks mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
49 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Robinson mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
50 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Rose mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
51 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant David Sherman mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
52 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Brad Simpson mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/02/2018 08/15/2018
09/04/2018 09/04/2018 09/12/2018
09/25/2018 09/28/2018

53 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Belinda Stewart mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
54 WAIVER OF SERVICE of summons upon defendant Jeff Uttecht mailed on 7/5/2018 (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
55 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: 47. (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
Pursuant to the parties' 55 Joint Status Report, and no consent received, the Hon. Brian A Tsuchida is no longer assigned to the case. (TF) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
56 ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. Length of Trial: *4-7 days*. Jury Trial is set for 10/7/2019 at 09:00 AM before Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. Joinder of Parties due by 9/12/2018, Amended Pleadings due by 9/12/2018, Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 4/10/2019, Motions due by 5/10/2019, Discovery completed by 6/10/2019, Dispositive motions due by 7/9/2019, 39.1 mediation to be completed by 8/23/2019, Motions in Limine due by 9/9/2019, Pretrial Order due by 9/25/2019, Trial briefs to be submitted by 10/2/2019, Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 10/2/2019. (LC) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
57 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, with JURY DEMAND by Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Pete Maxson, Mike Obeland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Belinda Stewart, Jeff Uttecht.(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
58 MOTION to Dismiss , filed by Defendants Asin, Bea Blowers, EK, Robert Herzog, Jones, Bryan King, Julie Martin, Robinson, Brad Simpson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 17-20, # 2 Proposed Order) Noting Date 9/28/2018, (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
59 AMENDED COMPLAINT for Declaratory Injunctive Relief and Damages against defendant(s) Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Pete Maxson, Mike Obeland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeff Uttecht, Unidentified Chaplain with JURY DEMAND Attorney Lena F Masri added to party John James(pty:pla), filed by Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, Jeremy Livingston, Naim Lao, John James.(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
60 ANSWER to 59 Amended Complaint, with JURY DEMAND by Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Pete Maxson, Mike Obeland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeff Uttecht.(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
61 REPLY, filed by Defendants Asin, Bea Blowers, EK, Robert Herzog, Jones, Bryan King, Julie Martin, Robinson, Brad Simpson, TO RESPONSE to 58 MOTION to Dismiss (Lang, Timothy) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

10/03/2018
03/20/2019 05/13/2019 06/10/2019 06/17/2019 06/21/2019 06/21/2019 06/28/2019

62 MINUTE ORDER, Motions terminated: 58 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Bryan King, Robert Herzog, Bea Blowers, EK, Brad Simpson, Asin, Julie Martin, Jones, Robinson.The following MINUTE ORDER is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief United States District Judge: On September 4, 2018, certain Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. #58. Eight days later, on September 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. #59. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 states that a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days of original service, or 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is procedurally valid and renders the pending Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #58, moot. The Court hereby STRIKES that Motion. (COB) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
63 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Ahmed Mohamed for Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. (Mohamed, Ahmed) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
64 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Amanda Nicole Misasi for Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. (Misasi, Amanda) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
65 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery , filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht. Noting Date 6/10/2019, (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
66 ORDER granting 65 Stipulated Motion to Extend Discovery Cutoff; Discovery completed by 6/24/2019. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
67 MOTION to Amend Complaint, filed by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B (Sherman Deposition Excerpts), # 3 Exhibit C (Maxson Deposition Excerpts), # 4 Exhibit D (Stewart Deposition Excerpts), # 5 Courtesy Redline of First to Second Amended Complaints, # 6 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/12/2019, (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
68 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery - limited supplemental written discovery only, filed by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/12/2019, (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
69 REQUEST by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts for Telephonic Conference per

07/01/2019
07/08/2019 07/08/2019 07/09/2019 07/09/2019 07/09/2019 07/09/2019

L.R. 7(i) re 56 Order Setting Trial Date and Related Dates,, (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
70 MINUTE ORDER re: 69 Request filed by Jeremy Livingston, Naim Lao, Demario Roberts, Mohamed Mohamed, John James The following MINUTE ORDER is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief United States District Judge: The Court DECLINES the above request for a telephonic motion. Plaintiffs are free to move for an extension of the dispositive motion deadline even though such a motion would be noted for consideration after the deadline. The motion would need to show good cause for the delay in filing. The Court can permit the filing of dispositive motions or supplemental briefing after the existing deadline if good cause is shown. (COB) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
71 RESPONSE, by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht, to 68 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery - limited supplemental written discovery only, 67 MOTION to Amend Complaint. (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
72 DECLARATION of Counsel filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 68 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery - limited supplemental written discovery only, 67 MOTION to Amend Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 6-54)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
73 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/2/2019, (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
74 DECLARATION of Bryan King filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 817)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
75 DECLARATION of Counsel filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 4126)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
76 DECLARATION of Lynda Heise filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David

07/09/2019 07/09/2019 07/09/2019
07/09/2019 07/11/2019 07/29/2019 07/29/2019

Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
77 DECLARATION of David Sherman filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 712)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
78 Second DECLARATION of Peter Maxson filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 7-29)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
79 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23) Noting Date 8/2/2019, (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
80 EXHIBIT 24-35 re 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 25, # 2 Exhibit 26, # 3 Exhibit 27, # 4 Exhibit 28, # 5 Exhibit 29, # 6 Exhibit 30, # 7 Exhibit 31, # 8 Exhibit 32, # 9 Exhibit 33, # 10 Exhibit 34, # 11 Exhibit 35, # 12 Proposed Order)(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
81 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, TO RESPONSE to 68 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery - limited supplemental written discovery only, 67 MOTION to Amend Complaint (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
82 RESPONSE, by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht, to 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment . (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
83 Second DECLARATION of counsel filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 321)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/29/2019)

07/29/2019 07/29/2019 07/29/2019 08/01/2019 08/02/2019
08/02/2019 08/02/2019

84 DECLARATION of Brad Simpson filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 531)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
85 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, to 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Oral Argument Requested. (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
86 RESPONSE (Corrected), by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, to 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Oral Argument Requested. (Masri, Lena) Modified docket text on 7/30/2019 (SWT). (Entered: 07/29/2019)
87 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 67 Motion to Amend Complaint; denying Plaintiffs' 68 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SWT) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
88 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, TO RESPONSE to 79 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 2 (Excerpted), # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 3 (Excerpted), # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 6 (Excerpted), # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 7 (Excerpted), # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 8 (Excerpted), # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 9 (Excerpted), # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 10 (Excerpted), # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 12 (Excerpted), # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 13 (Excerpted), # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 14 (Excerpted), # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 15 (Excerpted), # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 20 (Excerpted), # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 21 (Excerpted), # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 22 (Excerpted), # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 23 (Excerpted), # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 24 (Excerpted), # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 25 (Excerpted), # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 26 (Excerpted), # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 27 (Excerpted), # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 28 (Excerpted), # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 29 (Excerpted), # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 30 (Excerpted), # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 32 (Excerpted), # 24 Exhibit Exhibit 33 (Excerpted), # 25 Exhibit Exhibit 34 (Excerpted), # 26 Exhibit Exhibit 35 (Excerpted))(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
89 REPLY, filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht, TO RESPONSE to 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
90 DECLARATION of Counsel filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 443)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 08/02/2019)

09/05/2019 09/06/2019 09/06/2019
09/27/2019 09/27/2019 10/04/2019
10/04/2019 10/14/2019 10/18/2019

91 Stipulated MOTION and Order to Strike October 7, 2019 Trial Date Pending Ruling on Dispositive Motions, filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht. Noting Date 9/5/2019, (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
92 ORDER granting Defendants' 73 Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing all of Plaintiffs' claims; denying Plaintiffs' 79 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot Defendants' Motion to Strike contained in responsive briefing. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
93 JUDGMENT BY COURT. THE COURT HAS ORDERED THAT: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 73 ) is GRANTED. All of Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 79 ) is DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Strike contained in responsive briefing is DENIED as MOOT.This case is CLOSED. (PM) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
94 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS , filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/18/2019, (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
REFERRING Defendants' 94 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS to: Deputy in Charge Joe Whiteley. (PM) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
95 NOTICE OF APPEAL (19-35846) to Ninth Circuit re 87 Order on Motion to Amend, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, 93 Judgment by Court, 92 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Stipulated Motion, by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. $505, receipt number 0981-5952660. (cc: USCA) (Masri, Lena) Modified on 10/4/2019 to add CCA# (GT). (Entered: 10/04/2019)
96 TIME SCHEDULE ORDER ( #19-35846) as to 95 Notice of Appeal, filed by Jeremy Livingston, Naim Lao, Demario Roberts, Mohamed Mohamed, John James. (GT) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
97 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, to 94 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS . Oral Argument Requested. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 10/14/2019)
98 REPLY, filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht, TO RESPONSE to 94 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 10/18/2019)

10/18/2019 10/22/2019 10/29/2019 11/08/2019 11/15/2019 11/19/2019 12/29/2020 01/20/2021

99 DECLARATION of Counsel filed by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht re 94 MOTION FOR BILL OF COSTS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit pp. 526)(Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 10/18/2019)
100 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 94 Defendant's Motion for Bill of Costs signed by Deputy in Charge Joe Whiteley.(JW) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
101 MOTION Retax re 100 Order on Motion for Bill of Costs , filed by Plaintiffs Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/15/2019, (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 10/29/2019)
102 RESPONSE, by Defendants Eric Askren, Jamie Dolan, Henri Fischer, Peter Maxson, Mike Obenland, Parks, Rose, David Sherman, Stephen Sinclair, Belinda Stewart, Jeffrey A Uttecht, to 101 MOTION Retax re 100 Order on Motion for Bill of Costs . (Feulner, Timothy) (Entered: 11/08/2019)
103 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs John James, Naim Lao, Jeremy Livingston, Mohamed Mohamed, Demario Roberts, TO RESPONSE to 101 MOTION Retax re 100 Order on Motion for Bill of Costs (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
104 ORDER granting in part Plaintiffs' 101 Motion to Retax. The Clerk's 100 Taxation of Costs shall be reduced by 50 percent. Costs are now taxed at $3,081.46. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (LW) (Entered: 11/19/2019)
105 MEMORANDUM FROM USCA (19-35846) (NOT THE MANDATE) as to 95 Notice of Appeal, filed by Jeremy Livingston, Naim Lao, Demario Roberts, Mohamed Mohamed, John James. AFFIRMED. (CDA) (Entered: 12/29/2020)
106 MANDATE OF USCA (19-35846) as to 95 Notice of Appeal, filed by Jeremy Livingston, Naim Lao, Demario Roberts, Mohamed Mohamed, John James, 105 Memorandum/Opinion from USCA. The Judgment from USCA takes effect this date. This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Costs are taxed against the appellant in the amount of $138.00. AFFIRMED (CDA) (Entered: 01/22/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt
03/25/2021 08:02:06

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 17

Cost:

Exempt flag: Not Exempt

Exempt reason:

Hill
2:18-cv-00837RSM 1.70
Not Exempt

 
 Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 1 of 25

1

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT SEATTLE

9 DEMARIO ROBERTS, et al.,

NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

10

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

12 STEPHEN SINCLAIR, et al.,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: August 2, 2019

13

Defendants.

14 Defendants STEPHEN SINCLAIR, ERIC ASKREN, JAMIE DOLAN, HENRI
15 FISCHER, PETE MAXSON, MIKE OBENLAND, JAMES PARKS, STEFAN ROSE,
16 DAVID SHERMAN, BELINDA STEWART, and JEFF UTTECHT,1 by and through their
17 attorneys, respectfully move for an order granting summary judgment and dismissing
18 Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.
19
I. INTRODUCTION & RELIEF REQUESTED 20
Plaintiffs are five individuals who are currently or were previously in Washington
21 Department of Corrections (DOC) custody. Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated their
22 constitutional rights and RLUIPA by denying them the opportunity to participate in the
23 Ramadan meal program and having a Ramadan meal program that requires individuals to sign
24

25

1 Plaintiffs’ amended complaint lists an “Unidentified Chaplain” as a Defendant. ECF No. 59, at 3 & 7. It

26

is unclear who Plaintiffs are referencing. Because the arguments raised in this motion would apply equally to this unidentified person and this person has not been served, dismissal of all claims is still appropriate.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

1

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 2 of 25

1 up months in advance of Ramadan. Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims. Contrary to

2 the statements in Plaintiffs’ complaint and ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order,

3 the original four plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and John James did

4 not exhaust until after Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. As such, all of Plaintiffs’

5 claims can be dismissed for failure to exhaust.2

6

On the merits, Plaintiffs’ challenge to DOC’s Ramadan policy fails as a matter of law.

7 Requiring inmates to complete and submit a simple form to participate in a religious event

8 does not impose any substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. To the extent that

9 completing a form that takes less than five minutes imposes a substantial burden, the sign-up

10 process serves compelling government interests. As such, Plaintiffs do not have viable

11 RLUIPA claims. Furthermore, any claims for injunctive relief—to the extent such claims are

12 viable—are now moot. Finally, because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the

13 constitutional claims and there is no monetary liability on RLUIPA claims, all claims for

14 monetary damages must also be dismissed. Therefore, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’

15 claims with prejudice

16 17 A. 18

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS DOC’s Food Service Program DOC's food service program is unlike any other. DOC has to account for the dietary

19 needs of all 18,000 individuals in its custody. Declaration of Bryan King (King Dec.), at ¶ 1.

20 This requires sourcing, preparing, and providing 50,000 meals each day. King Dec., at ¶ 1.

21 DOC accomplishes this task within the unique confines of prison, where activities and

22 movement of inmates are highly regulated to ensure the safety and security of DOC staff and

23
2 When this case was first filed, the parties focused on Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding their weight loss.

24 As explained in Defendants’ motion to dissolve and their response to Plaintiffs’ motion to amend and motion to
extend discovery, there are many reasons to be skeptical of Plaintiffs’ claims of weight loss. For purposes of

25

Defendants’ summary judgment motion, however, these allegations are not material because they do not affect the legal analysis and there is no indication that any Defendant was aware of their claimed weight loss prior to the

26

filing of this lawsuit. Defendants reserve the right to file an appropriate motion in the future regarding these claims of weight loss that appear to be unsupported.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

2

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 3 of 25

1 incarcerated individuals. Id. DOC offers five standard diets (mainline, a vegetarian mainline

2 alternative, a milk mainline alternative, Kosher, and Halal) as well as a variety of medically

3 prescribed therapeutic diets (Consistent Carbohydrate (Diabetic), Lower Protein, Low K+

4 (Renal), Mechanical Soft, No Gluten, No Peanut, No Tomato, Metabolic (lighter fare), Puree,

5 and Liquid diets). King Declaration, at ¶ 2. To provide these diets and ensure consistency

6 across facilities, DOC plans the diets centrally, and they are reviewed by the Dietary Services

7 Manager to ensure they meet dietary guidelines. Id.; Declaration of Counsel (Counsel Dec.),

8 Ex. 1, Brent Carney Deposition, at 19:18-25, 23:12-21. DOC’s menu is intended to meet

9 nutritional standards identified in DOC policy that are based on the Dietary Guidelines for

10 Americans. Counsel Dec., Ex. 1, at 26:2-17, 31:1-12, 31:22-32:4; King Dec., at ¶ 2.

11

Although DOC facilities do not establish their own menus, they are responsible for

12 ordering the food needed to serve the menus. King Dec., at ¶ 4. The Monroe Correctional

13 Complex (MCC), where Plaintiffs were housed in 2018, serves approximately 2,400 inmates in

14 the five separate prison facilities. Declaration of Linda Heise (Heise Dec.), at ¶ 1. Because of

15 the volume of food that MCC provides (approximately 7,000 meals per day), the number of

16 special diets that require accommodation, and the fact that DOC needs to meet the nutritional

17 and dietary needs of those in its custody, strict adherence to policy is required. Id.

18 B. 19

DOC’s Ramadan Meal Program DOC has a longstanding practice of accommodating the religious beliefs and practices

20 of its incarcerated population, including by providing meals to Muslim inmates who fast during

21 Ramadan. ECF No. 16, Declaration of Belinda Stewart (Stewart Dec.), at ¶ 3 & Ex. 1. At

22 various times over the years, DOC has sought the input of Muslim community members,

23 including CAIR Washington, regarding the development of a halal diet and the Ramadan meal

24 program. ECF No. 16, Stewart Dec., at ¶ 8; King Dec., at ¶ 3. In the tightly controlled prison

25 environment, accommodating religious practices requires that incarcerated individuals follow

26 established process and procedure so that DOC knows who wishes to participate in a particular

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

3

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 4 of 25

1 religious event and can make necessary custody, food service, and other plans for the event.

2 ECF No. 16, Stewart Dec., at ¶¶ 5 & 7.

3

DOC’s Ramadan meal program accommodates Muslim inmates who wish to fast for

4 Ramadan by providing meals for Muslim inmates to break their fast. Heise Dec., at ¶ 6; King

5 Dec., at ¶ 6. As with other meals, DOC centrally develops a Ramadan menu to ensure

6 consistency and DOC staff perform a nutritional analysis to ensure that the menu meets dietary

7 guidelines. Counsel Dec., Ex. 1, at 23:18-21. DOC’s Ramadan menu meets the daily caloric

8 requirements for inmates of 2,600 to 2,900 calories. Counsel Dec., Ex. 1, at 31:22-32:6. The

9 caloric and nutritional content in the Ramadan menu is comparable to the nutritional and

10 caloric content of DOC’s mainline menu. Counsel Dec., Ex. 1, at 62:24-64:3.

11

The Ramadan meals are Halal and consist of a fasting tray and a microwavable hot

12 meal. Heise Dec., at ¶ 6; King Dec., at ¶ 6. The fasting tray includes: two sandwiches (turkey

13 or bologna and peanut butter and jelly), a whole grain muffin, whole grain cookies, an oatmeal

14 packet, powdered milk, chips, a breakfast bar, dates, and condiments. Heise Dec., at ¶ 6; King

15 Dec., at ¶ 6. The tray also includes supplements of hard-boiled eggs, fresh fruit, and veggie

16 sticks. King Dec., at ¶ 6. The microwavable hot meal is manufactured “TV dinner” style and

17 contains a protein entrée, hot vegetable, and starch. Id. For example, the microwavable hot

18 meal may contain breaded fish, Halal chicken patty, Halal turkey casserole, or Halal beef with

19 gravy. Heise Dec., at ¶ 6. All meals come with a starch, fresh vegetables, and a fresh fruit. Id.

20 Although the microwavable hot meal is the same hot meal offered to inmates on the Halal diet,

21 production of the Halal meals is on a much greater scale leading up to Ramadan because there

22 typically are 500 or more inmates who participate in Ramadan, but only 100 or so who are on

23 the Halal diet at any given time. King Dec., at ¶ 6. Also, the fasting trays contain items that are

24 not served year round. Id.

25

DOC’s Ramadan meal program is designed to ensure that all inmates receive the same

26 Ramadan meals. DOC has not traditionally provided alternative meals to inmates in place of

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

4

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 5 of 25

1 the Ramadan meals. Instead, when an inmate is on a medical/therapeutic diet, the medical diet

2 supersedes any religious diet absent an inmate signing a form to refuse the medical diet. King

3 Declaration, at ¶ 11. As such, DOC typically provides the medical diet over the religious diet.

4 Id. DOC has also not created hybrid medical/religious diets. Id. Blending therapeutic and

5 religious diets would raise significant health and logistical concerns. Id. Not only would it be

6 difficult to logistically manage, it creates the risk that kitchen staff make an error in providing

7 the inmate an meal suited to his individual medical needs. Id.

8

DOC puts significant planning into the Ramadan meal program in order to accomplish

9 the task of providing nutritionally adequate Ramadan meals while also meeting the needs of

10 the entirety of the DOC’s population. ECF No. 16, Stewart Dec., at ¶ 7. To accommodate the

11 provision of fasting trays, DOC’s Correctional Industries sources and purchases the food from

12 vendors and then assembles the meals in time to ensure that the meals are available for

13 Ramadan. King Dec., at ¶ 7. This requires DOC to prepare and have ready more than 30,000

14 special meals for the month-long Ramadan observance. King Dec., at ¶ 7. Again, all of this

15 work is in addition to the feeding of the remaining inmate population and other religious feasts,

16 including Passover (which in recent years is close in time with Ramadan, requiring

17 contemporaneous planning for the two observances). King Dec., at ¶ 7; Heise Dec., at ¶ 5.

18

To facilitate the planning necessary for DOC to accommodate the needs of Muslim

19 inmates who wish to fast during Ramadan, there is an established sign-up process. The sign-up

20 process is simple: complete a one page form that Plaintiffs estimate would take fewer than five

21 minutes to complete and return it to the Chaplain. ECF No. 16, at ¶ 5; Counsel Dec., Ex. 2,

22 Roberts Deposition, at 41:6-7; Counsel Dec., Ex. 5, Livingston Deposition, at 54:19-55:3;

23 Counsel Dec., Ex. 4, Mohamed Deposition, at 27:5-15. This sign-up process occurs several

24 months in advance of Ramadan to allow DOC to produce the meals in time for Ramadan. King

25 Dec., at ¶ 8. This advance planning allows DOC facilities to order in advance and ensure that

26 they receive the correct amount of food in time for Ramadan. Heise Dec., at ¶ 9. If there were

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

5

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 6 of 25

1 not advance planning and ordering of food, DOC would run the risk of not having adequate

2 food in time for the event. Id. The 2018 Ramadan sign-up process began in January. On

3 January 16, 2018, DOC notified the incarcerated population of the requirements for

4 participation through a written memo. ECF No. 16, Stewart Dec., at ¶ 6 & Ex. 2. The memo

5 was posted and made readily available to inmates. ECF No. 16 Stewart Dec., at ¶¶ 5-7;

6 Declaration of David Sherman (Sherman Dec.), at ¶ 4. As it pertains to the Washington State

7 Reformatory (WSR) at MCC, the memo was posted in hallways in the units where inmates

8 pass every day and in the activity centers. Sherman Dec., at ¶ 4; Counsel Dec., Ex. 7, at 15:9-

9 17:15. In addition, Chaplain Sherman sent a copy of the memo and a sign-up form to inmates

10 that had been participating in Muslim religious programming. Sherman Dec., at ¶ 4; Counsel

11 Dec., Ex. 7, at 15:9-16:3.

12

Once the sign-up period closed, religious programs staff compiled and distributed

13 participant lists to each facility and the facility Chaplains would post the list so that individuals

14 could confirm their presence on the list or request to be added if they believed they were

15 inappropriately left off. ECF No. 16, Stewart Dec., at ¶ 6 & Ex. 2. As it pertains to MCC/WSR,

16 Sherman periodically posted a list of inmates from whom he had received forms and approved

17 prior to the expiration of the sign-up period and posted another list after the end of the sign-up

18 period. Sherman Dec., at ¶ 6. Sherman also met with inmate Muslim leaders, including James,

19 to go over the list of inmates who had been approved to participate in Ramadan in February

20 2018. Counsel Dec., Ex. 7, at 40:23-44:12. Of the Plaintiffs, only James’ name was on the list

21 of individuals who had signed up to participate in February. Sherman Dec., Ex. 2.

22 C. 23

Plaintiffs’ Individual Participation in the Ramadan Meal Program As discussed in more detail below, all five Plaintiffs were inmates in DOC’s custody

24 during both the sign-up period for Ramadan 2018 and Ramadan 2018. Other than John James,

25 Plaintiffs did not submit the required paperwork to participate in the Ramadan meal program

26 and did not raise the issue with any DOC staff until the eve of Ramadan.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

6

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 7 of 25

1

1. Plaintiff Demario Roberts

2

Roberts has been in DOC custody since May 2017 and was housed at MCC from June

3 2017 until May 2019. Counsel Dec., Ex. 2, at 6:2-4, 8:4-6; Counsel Dec., Ex. 3. He has not

4 requested a religious diet during his incarceration. Roberts indicates he has not requested a

5 halal meal because he does not like DOC food and “just don’t eat here.” Counsel Dec., Ex. 2,

6 at 20:21-21:5. DOC did not receive a Ramadan meal request form from Roberts in 2018. ECF

7 No. 16, Stewart Dec. ¶ 12; Sherman Dec., at ¶ 6. Because DOC did not receive a form, Roberts

8 was not on the list of approved inmates that was given to fellow John James in February 2018.

9 Sherman Dec., Ex. 2. There is no evidence that Roberts communicated with Sherman about his 10 desire to be on the list prior to the first day of Ramadan, May 16. ECF No. 20-1, at 11.3

11

On May 21, 2018, DOC received a grievance from Roberts that he was not receiving

12 Ramadan meals. ECF No. 17, Declaration of Peter Maxson (Maxson Dec.), at ¶ 7 & Ex. 2.

13 Maxson interviewed Roberts that day and asked Roberts whether he signed up for the

14 Ramadan meal program. Id. Roberts responded he had not. ECF No. 17, Maxson Dec. at ¶ 7.

15 Maxson also asked Roberts whether he had seen the sign-up information posted in January. Id.

16 Roberts said he had, but that he did not submit the required form. Id. Maxson asked Roberts if

17 he agreed to informally resolve the grievance on that basis, and the grievance was marked

18 informally resolved at Level 0. Id. Roberts did not appeal or pursue the grievance further. Id.

19

2. Plaintiff Mohamed Mohamed

20

Mohamed entered DOC custody in 2015. Counsel Dec., Ex. 4, Mohamed Deposition, at

21 9:13-14. He was housed at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center in 2016 and 2017, where he

22 signed up for and participated in the Ramadan meal program. Stewart Dec., at ¶ 13; Counsel

23 Dec., Ex. 4, at 22:19-25. Mohamed transferred to MCC in December 2017 and had an

24 anticipated earned early release date in May. Stewart Dec., at ¶ 13; Counsel Dec., Ex. 4, at

25 16:16-18. However, in April 2018, while housed in the minimum security unit, Mohamed

26

3 The page numbers referenced are contained on the bottom left of the page.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

7

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 8 of 25

1 received a serious infraction for violating WAC 137-25-030(603) – Introducing or transferring

2 any unauthorized drug or drug paraphernalia – based on evidence that Mohamed had conspired

3 to introduce marijuana and spice into the prison. Stewart Dec., at ¶ 13. A hearings officer

4 found Mohamed guilty of the infraction and sanctioned him to a loss of 30 days of good

5 conduct time. Stewart Dec., at ¶ 13. This extended his early release date past Ramadan, to June

6 20, 2018, and he was demoted to the medium custody unit at MCC. Stewart Dec., at ¶ 13.

7

There is no evidence that Mohamed gave a Ramadan meal sign-up form to a Chaplain

8 at MCC. Records show that on May 2, 2018, after Mohamed’s release date was extended, he

9 sent an electronic kiosk message to the Chaplain and asked “Can I get put on Ramadan List? I

10 missed the deadline...” ECF No. 20-1, at 16. The Chaplain responded that it was too late to

11 sign up. ECF No. 20-1, at 17. Mohamed responded by saying “I didnt (sic) have a choice

12 because I lost good time, 30 days. I have to get on that list. Religious purposes cause I will not

13 go too mainline. Thank you.” ECF No. 20-1, at 18.

14

Mohamed filed a grievance on May 16, 2018. ECF No. 17-1, at 41. Maxson

15 investigated the grievance, determined DOC had no record of Mohamed submitting the

16 Ramadan form, and concluded that Mohamed could not be given the requested relief as a

17 result. ECF No. 17-1, Maxson Dec., at ¶ 8 & Ex. 3. Mohamed did not appeal the grievance

18 response. Id. Mohamed purchased a significant amount of food from the commissary, and

19 items Mohamed received on May 17, 2018, included ten packages of white rice, ten packages

20 of cheesy rice and beans, cheese, summer sausages, cookies, Doritos, potato chips, a hot

21 pickle, and swiss rolls. ECF No. 21, Declaration of Matthew Blair (Blair Dec.), Ex. 7.

22

3. Plaintiff Jeremy Livingston

23

Livingston reentered DOC custody at the Washington Corrections Center (WCC) on

24 January 18, 2018. Counsel Dec., Ex. 5, Livingston Deposition, at 11:11-13; ECF No. 16,

25 Stewart Dec., at ¶ 14. He requested a Halal diet in February 2018. ECF No. 16, Stewart Dec.,

26 at ¶ 14. Livingston had previously been incarcerated with DOC from October 2015 to June

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

8

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 9 of 25

1 2017 and was familiar with the Ramadan sign-up process through this prior incarceration.

2 Counsel Dec., Ex. 5, at 11:17-12:15, 51:16-18. Livingston did not sign up for Ramadan during

3 the Ramadan sign-up period. Counsel Dec., Ex. 5, at 51:19-52:20.

4

On May 15, 2018, Livingston sent a kiosk message to the Chaplain asking to be placed

5 on call out for Ramadan night studies and stating he had not been placed on the Ramadan List.

6 ECF No. 20-1, at 6. Livingston sent another message on May 17, 2018, asking to be put on the

7 Ramadan List. Id. The Chaplain responded and indicated he had no record of Livingston

8 signing up for Ramadan and that he (the Chaplain) had emailed the WCC Chaplain to see if

9 there was a record of Livingston signing up while at WCC. Id. The Chaplain asked if

10 Livingston had a record showing he had signed up, and Livingston responded “I left WCC

11 before I could sign up plus it was too far before Ramadan even started. Is there anyway you

12 can accomodadate (sic) me for Ramadan?” Id. In follow up, the Chaplain confirmed that notice

13 of the Ramadan sign-up process was posted in all living units at WCC, and that there was no

14 record of correspondence from Livingston to the WCC Chaplain requesting participation in the

15 Ramadan meal program. ECF No. 20-1, Ex. 1, at 8; Sherman Dec., at ¶ 6.

16

On May 16, 2018, Livingston submitted an emergency grievance stating he requested a

17 Ramadan meal in a kiosk message and had not received the meal. In the grievance, Livingston

18 stated he was on a Halal diet and that he “had received it but not my meal for when I break my

19 fast after sundown.” ECF No. 17, Maxson Dec., at ¶ 9. Maxson interviewed Livingston about

20 his grievance on May 22, 2018, asking why he did not sign up at WCC. Id. Livingston said he

21 was in segregation and never saw a posting. Id. Upon further questioning, Livingston indicated

22 he knew about the sign up process from being in prison before. Id. Maxson explained there was

23 no record of Livingston signing up for Ramadan as was required and asked Livingston whether

24 he agreed his grievance was resolved on this basis. Id. Livingston stated that he “guessed that it

25 was resolved” but believed DOC still had to feed him. Id. The grievance was marked

26 informally resolved and Livingston did not appeal this decision. ECF No. 17, Maxson Dec, at ¶

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

9

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 10 of 25

1 9 & Ex. 4; Counsel Dec., Ex. 5, at 77:22-23. Commissary records show that he purchased and

2 received numerous food items from the inmate store in May and early June, including summer

3 sausage, corn tortillas, and over a case of Ramen. ECF No. 21, Blair Dec., Exs. 4 & 8.

4

4. Plaintiff Naim Lao

5

Lao entered DOC custody in June 2017 and arrived at MCC in September 2017. ECF

6 No. 16, Stewart Dec., at ¶ 15; Counsel Dec., Ex. 6, Lao Deposition, at 13:14-24. Chaplain

7 Sherman sent Lao a copy of a Ramadan meal sign-up form in January 2018. Sherman Dec., at

8 ¶ 4 & Ex. 1. Lao did not sign up for the Ramadan meal program. Counsel Dec., Ex. 6, at 54:17-

9 23. On May 17, 2018, Lao sent a kiosk message to the Chaplain to ask to get on the Ramadan

10 List to receive meals. ECF No. 20-1, at 14. The Chaplain responded that he could add Lao to

11 the daily prayer but not the fast list because Lao needed to sign up by January 30, 2018. Id. Lao

12 sent a kiosk message to the Chaplain a few days later complaining he was not on the daily

13 prayer list and the chaplain responded that Lao had been placed on the callout list for prayer.

14 Id. On May 23, 2018, Lao received an exception and was added to the Ramadan Meal List and

15 began receiving meals. Stewart Dec. ¶ 15; Counsel Dec., Ex. 6, at 57:1-4.

16

5. Plaintiff John James

17

James has been incarcerated since the early 1990s. Counsel Dec., Ex. 7, at 38:24-25.

18 James transferred to MCC on January 2, 2018. Counsel Dec., Ex. 7, at 8:4-18. Shortly

19 thereafter, James became one of the inmate leaders for Jummah. Counsel Dec., Ex. 7, at 26:18-

20 22. James has been on a gluten free to treat a medical condition. Counsel Dec., Ex. 7, at 81:16-

21 20, 84:7-9. James submitted a Ramadan meal request form and was added to the Ramadan

22 meal program in January 2018. Counsel Dec., Ex. 7, at 8:22-24. James was on the Ramadan

23 list and received the Ramadan meals. Counsel Dec., Ex. 7, at 89:24-90:1. Some of the

24 Ramadan meals contain gluten. Counsel Dec., Ex. 7, at 55:17-56:25. James traded the items in

25 the Ramadan meals to other inmates in exchange for items that he could eat. Counsel Dec., Ex.

26 7, at 56:23-57:6. James also supplemented his Ramadan meals with food from the commissary

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

10

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 11 of 25

1 and the quarterly package program. Counsel Dec., Ex. 7, at 76:25-80:17. On the first day of

2 Ramadan, James spoke to an unidentified cook about getting a different meal, and this cook

3 told him that the Ramadan meal was all that he or she had for James. Counsel Dec., Ex. 7, at

4 55:17-56:7. The cook was the only DOC staff person to whom James clearly recalled speaking

5 during Ramadan 2018. Counsel Dec., Ex. 7, at 57:18-58:19. On June 12, 2018, a couple days

6 after this action was filed, DOC received a grievance from James regarding this issue. Second

7 Dec. of Peter Maxson, at ¶ 7. As discussed in more detail below, James finished exhausting his

8 administrative remedies after the amended complaint was filed. Id.

9

6. Events After Ramadan 2018 Involving Plaintiffs

10

Since Ramadan 2018, three Plaintiffs released from DOC custody. Mohamed released

11 in August 2018. Counsel Dec., Ex. 4, at 7:8-9. Lao transferred to Bishop Lewis work release

12 and released from there on June 10, 2019. Counsel Dec., Ex. 6, at 14:4-10. Livingston released

13 from DOC in February 2019. Counsel Dec., Ex. 5, at 11:14-16. Roberts is still incarcerated, but

14 he successfully signed up to participate in the Ramadan meal program in 2019. Counsel Dec.,

15 Ex. 3, at 2 of 8 (showing Roberts was on Ramadan meal program). James was given a special

16 accommodation of gluten free meals during Ramadan 2019. Heise Dec., at ¶ 10; King Dec., at

17 ¶ 12. James expressed satisfaction with the arrangement. Heise Dec., at ¶ 10; Counsel Dec.,

18 Ex. 7, at 62:9-12 (indicating that he received gluten free “[a]s best as they could”).

19

III. ARGUMENT

20

A moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the evidence produced by the

21 parties permits only one conclusion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251

22 (1986). To determine if summary judgment is appropriate, the court must consider whether a

23 particular fact is material and whether there is a genuine dispute as to that material fact left to

24 be resolved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). If the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the

25 moving party is not required to bring forth any additional evidence in support of the motion as

26 long as the motion demonstrates the absence of genuine disputes of material facts and that the

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

11

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 12 of 25

1 moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

2 323-25 (1986). Where there is a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of

3 the non-moving party’s case, all other facts are rendered immaterial, and the moving party is

4 entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323.

5 A. 6

Plaintiffs Failed to Exhaust Their Claims Incarcerated individuals are required to properly exhaust their administrative remedies

7 before bringing lawsuits about prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Inmates must not only

8 fully exhaust available administrative remedies, but they also must exhaust those remedies in a

9 timely manner and abide by the administrative rules governing the internal grievance process.

10 Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83 (2006). To effectively exhaust his administrative remedies,

11 an inmate must use all the formal steps of the prison grievance process. Griffin v. Arpaio, 557

12 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009). Exhaustion must be accomplished prior to the filing of the

13 lawsuit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (requiring dismissal when

14 exhaustion was ongoing). But see Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1220 (9th Cir. 2014)

15 (indicating that exhaustion is proper when a claim is exhausted between the filing of the

16 original complaint and the filing of the amended complaint). RLUIPA incorporates the

17 PLRA’s exhaustion requirements. Fuqua v. Ryan, 890 F.3d 838, 844 (9th Cir. 2018).

18

When prison officials move for summary judgment based on exhaustion, they bear the

19 initial burden of showing that there was an available administrative remedy and that the

20 plaintiff did not exhaust that administrative remedy. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th

21 Cir. 2014). If prison officials make such a showing, a prisoner can overcome the exhaustion

22 defense by producing evidence showing that the administrative remedies were effectively

23 unavailable to him. Id. If the evidence shows that the remedies were available and the inmate

24 failed to properly exhaust such remedies, the inmate’s claims must be dismissed.

25

Here, four of the Plaintiffs (Roberts, Mohamed, Lao, and Livingston) failed to pursue

26 their grievances through all of the stages of the grievance program. Mohamed and Lao did not

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

12

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 13 of 25

1 appeal the Level I grievance response, and Roberts and Livingston failed to appeal the Level 0

2 response. ECF No. 17, at ¶¶ 10; Second Maxson Dec., at ¶¶ 3-6. As such, these four failed to

3 exhaust on that basis and their claims must be dismissed. James filed his grievance after the

4 lawsuit was originally filed. He pursued his grievance through Level III, but he did not receive

5 a Level III response until after the filing of the amended complaint. Second Maxson Dec., at ¶

6 7. As such, James also failed to fully exhaust his administrative remedies related to Ramadan

7 2018 prior to filing suit. Therefore, because all five Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their

8 administrative remedies, their claims must be dismissed.

9 B. 10

Plaintiffs’ RLUIPA Claims Are Moot Plaintiffs’ RLUIPA claims seek only injunctive and declaratory relief.4 Three of the

11 five plaintiffs (Mohamed, Livingston, and Lao) no longer are in prison. Their RLUIPA claims

12 are therefore moot. “An inmate’s release from prison while his claims are pending generally

13 will moot any claims for injunctive relief relating to the prison’s policies unless the suit has

14 been certified as a class action.” Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting

15 from Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995)). “The same is true for claims seeking

16 declaratory relief.” Id. (citing Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U.S. 1, 2-4 (1988)).

17

There are two, narrow exceptions to mootness, neither of which applies here. The first

18 exception applies when the claims are capable of repetition, yet will continue to evade review.

19 This exception “is limited to extraordinary cases in which (1) the duration of the challenged

20 action is too short to be fully litigated before it ceases, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation

21 that the plaintiff will be subjected to the same action again.” Id. (quoting from C.F. ex rel.

22 Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 983 (9th Cir. 2011). Notably, a plaintiff

23 who releases from prison has no reasonable expectation of returning to prison for purposes of

24

25

4 Plaintiffs’ RLUIPA claims appear to be appropriately limited to such relief because RLUIPA does not

provide for monetary damages against a state, an official acting in his or her official capacity, or an official acting

26

in his individual capacity. See Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011); Holley v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 599 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2010); Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 903-04 (9th Cir. 2014).

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

13

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 14 of 25

1 this exception. Id. (citations omitted); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 497 (1974) (case-or-

2 controversy requirement is not satisfied by the possibility that a party will be prosecuted for

3 violating criminal laws).

4

The second mootness exception is a variation of the first; it applies where, although

5 there is no reasonable likelihood the plaintiff himself will be subject to the same alleged harm

6 in the future, he is challenging ongoing policies to which others will be subject. Id. at 1065

7 (citations omitted). Importantly, courts have limited their application of this exception to

8 “short-lived pretrial proceedings in criminal prosecutions, where civil class actions would not

9 be conducive to obtaining the relief sought.” Id. Moreover, as held in Alvarez, even if the

10 exception applies more broadly, it would not apply to claims (including RLUIPA claims)

11 challenging prison policies affecting conditions of confinement. Id. (“While we have assumed,

12 for purposes of this appeal, that at least some of the policies and practices Alvarez challenged

13 remain ongoing and, thus, will continue to affect current ODOC inmates, those inmates can

14 bring their own RLUIPA claims....”). Accordingly, Mohamed, Livingston, and Lao no longer

15 have cognizable RLUIPA claims.

16

Although Roberts and James remain incarcerated, and will be so for Ramadan 2020,

17 neither has a viable claim for prospective relief under RLUIPA. Roberts signed up for and

18 participated in the 2019 Ramadan meal program. Counsel Dec., Ex. 3. As such, he certainly is

19 aware of and cannot claim likely to be burdened by the sign-up process going forward, thereby

20 negating any claim for injunctive relief. See Saddiq v. Ryan, 703 Fed. Appx. 570, 571 (9th Cir.

21 2017) (“Furthermore Saddiq now has notice of the prison’s thirty-day notice policy and will

22 not be substantially burdened by future unforeseen implementations of this prison policy.”). As

23 to James, DOC accommodated his request for a gluten-free Ramadan meal in 2019 and will

24 continue to do so in the future. Heise Dec., at ¶ 10; King Dec., at ¶ 12. Therefore, all of

25 Plaintiff’s claims under RLUIPA should be dismissed as moot.

26

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

14

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 15 of 25

1 C. 2

Mootness Aside, Plaintiffs Do Not Have Viable RLUIPA Claims Even if Plaintiffs’ RLUIPA claims were not moot, the claims fail on the merits as a

3 matter of law. RLUIPA prohibits state correctional facilities from substantially burdening

4 inmates’ religious exercise unless the burden furthers a compelling government interest and

5 does so by the least restrictive means. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(1)-(2). Under RLUIPA, the inmate

6 bears the initial burden to show a prima facie case that the government regulation imposes a

7 substantial burden on the exercise of his religious beliefs. Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d

8 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs cannot meet that burden here because the Ramadan meal

9 signup process they challenge is not a substantial burden on their religious exercise. Moreover,

10 even if it were a substantial burden, the signup process serves a compelling government

11 interest – allowing DOC to plan for, procure, and prepare sufficient meals to meet the demand

12 for the Ramadan observance – and is the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.

13

1. The Sign-up Process Does Not Impose a Substantial Burden

14

“[A] burden is substantial under RLUIPA when the state denies [an important benefit]

15 because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an

16 adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878,

17 888 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotes omitted). Requiring an inmate to sign a piece of paper or

18 submit a form requesting to participate in a religious activity does not impose a substantial

19 burden on the inmate’s religious practices. See Resnick v. Adams, 348 F.3d 763, 768 n.6 (9th

20 Cir. 2003). “[R]egistration places, at most, a slight burden on an inmate’s right to religious

21 freedom while serving as an important and beneficial ‘bright line’ that enables prison officials

22 to ascertain the seriousness of the inmate’s religious commitment and respond accordingly.”

23 Jackson-Bey v. Hansimaier, 115 F.3d 1091, 1097 (2d Cir. 1997).

24

Indeed, absent some requirement that inmates notify prison officials of their desire to

25 participate in religious festivities, it would be impossible for prison staff to accommodate such

26 requests. Therefore, DOC’s requirement that Plaintiffs sign up to receive Ramadan meals does

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

15

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 16 of 25

1 not impose a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious practices. Courts have recognized the

2 legitimacy of a prison system’s interest in the orderly administration of its diet programs. See

3 Resnick, 348 F.3d at 769. Courts also have upheld similar sign-up requirements from

4 challenges in the past. See Williams v. Fluiatt, No. CV-12-5017-JTR, 2013 WL 6795947 (E.D.

5 Wash. Dec. 23, 2013); McDaniels v. Sherman, No. 09-1296-JCC, 2011 WL 197441 (W.D.

6 Wash. Jan. 21, 2011).

7

Each year, approximately 500 individuals sign up for and participate in the Ramadan

8 meal program. King Dec. at ¶ 6. The signup process is not burdensome. In fact, Plaintiffs

9 concede that filling out the single page form takes only a few minutes. Counsel Dec., Ex. 2, at

10 41:6-7; Counsel Dec., Ex. 5, at 54:24-55:3; Counsel Dec., Ex. 4, at 27:5-15. Additionally,

11 because it is easy to determine the approximate time of Ramadan, Muslim inmates in DOC

12 custody can anticipate the timing that the sign-up process will occur. Counsel Dec., Ex. 7, at

13 70:11-70:25. Moreover, the two Plaintiffs who remain incarcerated were able to fill out the

14 form and thereby observe their faith during Ramadan 2019 with DOC-provided fasting meals.

15 DOC’s requirement that Muslim inmates who wish to participate in the Ramadan meal

16 program fill out and submit a short form to the facility chaplain several months before

17 Ramadan represents, at most, a negligible burden – hardly one that puts “substantial pressure

18 on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” Shakur, 514 F.3d at 888.

19 Plaintiffs’ RLUIPA claims thus fail as a matter of law.

20

2. The Sign-up Process Serves a Compelling Interest

21

Even if the signup process were a substantial burden, it serves a compelling interest in

22 that it enables DOC Food Service to plan for, source, prepare, and deliver the 30,000 Ramadan

23 meals necessary for DOC to feed the Muslim inmates who observe Ramadan and sign up to

24 participate in the Ramadan meal program while allowing it to also meet the needs of its own

25 incarcerated inmates. See King Dec. at ¶ 7. Providing meals for the 500 or more individuals

26 who participate in the Ramadan meal program each year is a significant undertaking. The

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

16

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 17 of 25

1 17,500 inmates who do not participate in Ramadan have to be fed, and so the Ramadan meals

2 are produced in addition to normal food production. As with all other diets, DOC is obligated

3 to ensure the Ramadan meals are nutritious and meet dietary guidelines. King Dec. at ¶ 7. The

4 Halal certified food items included in the Ramadan meals come from limited vendors

5 nationwide. Those vendors require notice and lead time to produce and ship the food product to

6 the food factory at Airway Heights Corrections Center (AHCC). King Dec. at ¶ 8. The AHCC

7 food factory requires time to plan and implement a production schedule to prepare and

8 assemble the meals, and then deliver them to the other DOC facilities. Id. The other facilities

9 require time to order food to meet their need, and to receive and prepare the meals for delivery

10 to participating inmates. Heise Dec. at ¶ 7. This includes procuring and adding fresh fruit and

11 vegetables to the meals received from the AHCC food factory. Id.

12

Without a signup process that requires Muslim inmates to confirm in advance their

13 desire to participate in the Ramadan meal program, DOC would not be able to meet its legal

14 obligation to accommodate those inmates with nutritious, Halal meals to break their fast for the

15 duration of the month-long Ramadan observance. The signup process therefore furthers the

16 DOC’s compelling interest in planning for and accommodating the religious exercise of

17 individuals in its custody. See Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1136 (9th Cir. 2015)

18 (compliance with the Constitution can be a compelling state interest). And it does so in the

19 least restrictive manner by requiring only that Muslim inmates fill out a short form that takes

20 only a few minutes to complete, and to return the form to the facility Chaplain. The fact that

21 500 or more inmates fill out and return the form and participate in the Ramadan meal program

22 each year (including several of the Plaintiffs) undermines any claim that the process is

23 restrictive or burdens Plaintiffs’ or others’ religious exercise.

24 D. 25

Plaintiffs Have Failed to Show a Viable Eighth Amendment Claim It is only “‘the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ . . . [which] constitutes cruel

26 and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

17

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 18 of 25

1 319 (1986) (citing Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 670 (1977)). The Eighth Amendment

2 standard requires proof of both an objective and a subjective component. Hudson v. McMillian,

3 503 U.S. 1 (1992). The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim requires that the

4 deprivation must be “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The

5 subjective component relates to the defendant’s state of mind, and requires deliberate indifference.

6 Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. In this case, Plaintiffs’ claims fail to meet both prongs.

7

To be objectively, sufficiently serious, an individual must have been deprived of the

8 minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981).

9 Although inmates have a right to adequate food, the food does not need to be tasty or

10 aesthetically pleasing. See LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993); Williams v.

11 Berge, 102 Fed. App’x 506, 507 (7th Cir. 2004) (inmate being served stale raisins and moldy

12 peanut butter with other food was not an Eighth Amendment violation). Additionally, as long

13 as an inmate is being provided adequate food, it does not matter the manner in which prisons

14 deliver that food. See LeMaire, 12 F.3d at 1456; Green v. Ferrell, 801 F.2d 765, 770-71 (5th

15 Cir. 1986) (two meals per day was adequate); Griffis v. Gundy, 47 Fed. App’x 327, 328 (6th

16 Cir. 2002) (diet of food loaf did not violate Eighth Amendment when loaf met nutritional and

17 caloric requirements). Repeated and unjustified failures to provide inmates with adequate

18 sustenance could rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Mendiola-Martinez

19 v. Arpaio, 836 F.3d 1239, 1259 (9th Cir. 2016); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir.

20 2009). However, the Eighth Amendment is not violated when prison officials place reasonable

21 conditions on receiving meals. Freeman v. Berge, 441 F.3d 543, 545 (7th Cir. 2006).

22

The four Plaintiffs who were not on the Ramadan menu were not denied food adequate

23 to meet their nutritional needs because each had the option to get mainline food. To the extent

24 they argue the mainline meals did not meet their needs because of their sincerely held religious

25 beliefs, that claim is more properly analyzed under RLUIPA or the First Amendment, not the

26 Eighth Amendment. To the extent any of these four plaintiffs now try to raise an eleventh hour

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

18

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 19 of 25

1 claim that they were denied access to the mainline food, such claims would not be exhausted

2 because none of the plaintiffs filed grievances related to being denied the mainline food during

3 Ramadan. Additionally, each of the four had the opportunity to get Ramadan meals in 2018; all

4 they had to do was complete a simple form by the deadline. Therefore, regardless of the merit

5 of such claims under RLUIPA or the First Amendment, these four Plaintiffs’ allegations do not

6 raise an Eighth Amendment claim because they have failed to show a sufficiently serious

7 deprivation. See McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 204 (2d Cir. 2004); LeFevers v. Saffle,

8 936 F.2d 1117, 1120 (10th Cir. 1991) (denial of religious diet does not state a cognizable

9 Eighth Amendment claim).

10

James’ Eighth Amendment claims fail for similar reasons. James concedes he was

11 given a Ramadan meal every day. Counsel Dec., Ex. 7, at 89:24-90:1. As such, James will not

12 be able to present sufficient evidence to show that he was deprived of a nutritionally adequate

13 diet during Ramadan because he was given the Ramadan meals that he requested and had the

14 option to have his gluten free diet by not signing up to participate in the Ramadan meal

15 program. “Providing meals that only accommodate either a prison’s allergies or his religious

16 beliefs but not both is not a deprivation of ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s

17 necessities.’” Payne v. Doe, 636 Fed. App’x 120, 123 (3d Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Thus,

18 James does not present an objectively serious risk of harm under the Eighth Amendment.

19

Even if Plaintiffs were able to establish that their claimed deprivations met the

20 objective prong, Plaintiffs cannot establish that any of Defendants were deliberately indifferent

21 to their need for basic sustenance. Two of the defendants (Jeff Uttecht and Chaplain Askren)

22 were located at a different prison facility in 2018 and there is no evidence that they were aware

23 of Plaintiff’s situation during Ramadan 2018 prior to this lawsuit being filed. Similarly, there is

24 no evidence that Jamie Dolan, Steven Sinclair, or Superintendent Obenland were aware of

25 Plaintiffs’ situations before this lawsuit. Although there is evidence that Fischer, Maxson,

26 Parks, Rose, and Stewart were aware after the start of Ramadan that at least some of the four

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

19

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 20 of 25

1 Plaintiffs were not on the Ramadan meal list, there is no evidence that these Defendants were

2 aware of a serious risk to these inmates’ health or that they acted unreasonably based on the

3 information they had. Thus, there is insufficient evidence that any of the Defendants were

4 deliberately indifferent to any of Plaintiffs’ health.

5 E. 6

Plaintiff Have Failed to Show a Viable Free Exercise Claim For a prisoner to satisfy a First Amendment religious claim, he “must show the

7 [defendant] burdened the practice of [his] religion, by preventing him from engaging in

8 conduct mandated by his faith, without any justification reasonably related to legitimate

9 penological interests.” Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Turner v.

10 Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S. Ct. 2254 (1987). The Turner court provided four factors to

11 guide reviewing courts in determining the reasonableness of the regulation. “First, there must

12 be a ‘valid, rational connection’ between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental

13 interest put forward to justify it.” Id. (citations omitted). A second factor is “whether there are

14 alternative means of exercising the rights that remain open to prison inmates.” Id. at 90. The

15 third consideration is the “impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have

16 on guards and other inmates, and the allocation of prison resources generally.” Id. Last, the

17 “absence of ready alternatives is evidence of the reasonableness of the regulation.” Id.

18

Because RLUIPA provides greater protection than the First Amendment, a policy that

19 survives RLUIPA analysis also survives a First Amendment challenge. Florer v. Bales-

20 Johnson, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1202 (W.D. Wash. 2010). Because Defendants’ actions did not

21 violate RLUIPA for the reasons discussed above, they also did not violate the First

22 Amendment. Even if the Court were to find a triable RLUIPA claim, dismissal of the First

23 Amendment claims would be appropriate. Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims fail because the

24 sign-up process does not impose a burden or prevent an inmate from exercising their faith.

25

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Ramadan signup process does

26 impose a burden, the process would still be constitutional because it is reasonably related to

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

20

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 21 of 25

1 legitimate penological interests. DOC’s sign-up process is ultimately designed to ensure that

2 DOC has accurate numbers of Ramadan participants to allow it effectively plan to provide the

3 Ramadan meal program. Cf. Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir. 2015)

4 (recognizing avoiding potential legal liability as a legitimate penological interest). As

5 discussed above, the sign-up process is simple and the burden on an inmate’s exercise of their

6 religion is minimal, if any. There is a logical and rational connection between this sign-up

7 process and the goal of ensuring DOC can adequately provide enough food. Furthermore, if

8 inmates do not wish to participate in the Ramadan meal program, there are alternative ways for

9 inmates to practice their faith, including by fasting and breaking the fast with food purchased

10 through the commissary, participating in the Ramadan prayer, or participating in other Islamic

11 activities. The absence of a sign-up process will harm other inmates because it will create the

12 potential that DOC be unable to plan adequately for Ramadan and run short of Ramadan meals.

13 It will also create confusion and an increased burden on prison guards and kitchen staff who

14 help administrate the Ramadan meal program. There is no evidence that DOC’s sign up

15 process is an exaggerated response to these concerns. Finally, with respect to James’ claims,

16 prison officials do not violate the First Amendment by providing regular Ramadan meals to an

17 inmate on a therapeutic diet. Payne v. Doe, 636 Fed App’x 120, 124 (3d Cir. 2016). Therefore,

18 Plaintiffs do not have viable First Amendment claims and such claims should be dismissed.

19 F. 20

Plaintiffs Have Failed to Show a Viable Equal Protection Claim The Equal Protection Clause “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly

21 situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S.

22 432, 439 (1985). An Equal Protection claim requires an individual to “show intentional or

23 purposeful discrimination.” See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976); Draper v. Rhay,

24 315 F.2d 193, 198 (9th Cir. 1963). The Equal Protection Clause, however, does not require

25 absolute equality among inmates. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 2003). To

26 survive summary judgment, an inmate must show he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

21

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 22 of 25

1 to pursue his faith compared to prisoners of other faiths and that such conduct was intentional.

2 Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part by Shakur v. Schriro, 514

3 F.3d 878, 884 (9th Cir. 2008). If an inmate establishes that prison officials intentionally

4 discriminated based on an inmate’s religion, prison officials must bring forth some justification

5 about the reason for the distinction. The Ninth Circuit has applied the Turner test to inmates’

6 equal protection claims based on alleged religious discrimination. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d

7 878, 891 (9th Cir. 2008).5

8

There is no evidence to support the claim that Muslim inmates were treated differently

9 than other similarly situated inmates. All DOC inmates were required to follow the same sign-

10 up process to participate in Ramadan, and there is no evidence that the sign-up process for

11 Ramadan is more onerous than the sign-up process for Passover or other religious events. See

12 Counsel Dec., Ex. 8, at 201:24-202:8. Assuming that inmates signed up through the process,

13 Muslim inmates were given food that met the daily calorie requirements, just like other

14 inmates in DOC custody. Therefore, Plaintiffs are not able to show that they were treated

15 differently than similarly situated inmates based on their religion. Furthermore, to the extent

16 that Plaintiffs can claim that there are differential treatment, such treatment serves legitimate

17 penological goals for the reasons discussed in the prior section.

18 G. 19

Plaintiffs’ Money Damage Claims Fail Because Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity

20

In determining whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the court makes a

21 two-step inquiry. First, the court determines if plaintiff has shown that defendants violated his

22 constitutional rights. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), overruled on other grounds by

23

5 The level of scrutiny is not entirely clear in terms of equal protection claims related to alleged religious

24

discrimination. Some district courts, at least in unpublished cases, in the Ninth Circuit have suggested that strict scrutiny applies to equal protection claims related to religious discrimination. See, e.g., Black v. Hansen, Cause

25

No. 11-2782-CMK-P, 2015 WL 1294965, at *7 (E.D. Cal. March 23, 2015). However, the Ninth Circuit has not said that explicitly and has applied Turner in cases like Shakur. The Court need not settle this question to resolve

26

this case because even if the Court were to apply strict scrutiny, Plaintiffs have failed to show intentional discrimination and the Ramadan meal program’s simple sign-up process would survive strict scrutiny.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

22

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 23 of 25

1 Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009). Second, the court must determine if the right was

2 clearly established. Id. This requires the court to determine if it would have been clear to a

3 reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted. Id. at 202. For

4 a right to be clearly established, “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or

5 constitutional question beyond debate.” Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012)

6 (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011)). The plaintiff bears the burden of

7 proving that the right was clearly established. See Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 197 (1984).

8

Because Plaintiffs have failed to present viable claims of constitutional violations for

9 the reasons discussed above, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Even if Plaintiffs

10 could raise viable constitutional claims, Defendants would still be entitled to qualified

11 immunity because the law is not clearly established. There is no clearly established case law

12 holding that prisons violate the First Amendment by requiring inmates to sign up in advance to

13 participate in Ramadan. In fact, the published Ninth Circuit cases suggest otherwise. See

14 Resnick v. Adams, 348 F.3d 763, 771 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding application requirement to

15 receive religious diet did not violate First Amendment). And this Court has rejected similar

16 challenges to similar sign-up requirements. See Williams v. Fluiatt, No. CV-12-5017-JTR,

17 2013 WL 6795947 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 23, 2013); McDaniels v. Sherman, No. 09-1296-JCC,

18 2011 WL 197441 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 21, 2011). There is also no published case law that

19 suggests Defendants were required to create a therapeutic Ramadan diet for James or that they

20 violated the First Amendment by declining to offer a gluten free Ramadan meal in 2018. See

21 Payne v. Doe, 636 Fed App’x 120, 124 (3d Cir. 2016); see also Leggett v. Solomon, No. 14-

22 CT-3228-FL, 2017 WL 421915, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2017). With respect to Plaintiffs’

23 Eighth Amendment claims, courts have rejected similar claims and Plaintiffs will be unable to

24 point to a consensus of authority on this issue. Finally, although Plaintiffs’ equal protection

25 claims are somewhat difficult to decipher, Plaintiffs will be unable to point to any case law that

26 clearly establishes that having a sign-up process violates the Equal Protection Clause. See

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

23

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 24 of 25

1 Garnica v. Wash. Dep’t of Corr., 965 F. Supp. 2d 1250, 1275 (W.D. Wash. 2013) (rejecting

2 equal protection challenge to Ramadan meal program). Therefore, Defendants are entitled to

3 qualified immunity and Plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages must be dismissed.

4 H. 5

Plaintiffs Do Not Have a Viable Claim for Injunctive Relief Under Section 1983 In addition to meeting the traditional requirements for injunctive relief, a party seeking

6 a permanent injunction must actually succeed on the merits. See e.g., Valley View Health Care

7 Inc. v. Chapman, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1042 (E.D. Cal. 2014). An inmate’s release generally

8 moots any injunctive relief claim. Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365 (9th Cir. 1995).Three Plaintiffs

9 (Lao, Livingston, and Mohamed) have released from prison; their claims for injunctive relief

10 are therefore moot. As to Roberts and James, they are not entitled to injunctive relief because

11 they cannot show a viable Section 1983 claim on the merits, and their constitutional claims are

12 also moot for the reasons discussed in Section III.B. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive

13 relief must be dismissed.

14

IV. CONCLUSION

15

Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their motion for summary

16 judgment and dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.

17

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of July, 2019.

18

ROBERT W. FERGUSON

Attorney General 19

s/ Timothy J. Feulner

20

TIMOTHY J. FEULNER, WSBA #45396

Assistant Attorney General

21

TimF1@atg.wa.gov

22

23

24

25

26

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

24

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 73 Filed 07/09/19 Page 25 of 25

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on the date below, I caused to be electronically filed the

3 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT with the Clerk of the Court using

4 the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following CM/ECF

5 participant:

6 GADEIR ABBAS

gabbas@cair.com

7 JAY W. GAIRSON

jay@gairson.com

8 CAROLYN M. HOMER

chomer@cair.com

9 LENA F. MASRI

lmasri@cair.com

10 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that
11 the foregoing is true and correct.
12 EXECUTED this 9th day of July, 2019, at Olympia, Washington.
13

14

s/ Cherrie Melby

CHERRIE MELBY

15

Legal Assistant

Corrections Division

16

PO Box 40116

Olympia WA 98504-0116

17

360-586-1445

Cherrie.Melby@atg.wa.gov 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 2:18-CV-00837-RSM-BAT

25

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Corrections Division

PO Box 40116

Olympia, WA 98504-0116

(360) 586-1445

 
 Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79 Filed 07/09/19 Page 1 of 3

1 CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

Lena F. Masri (DC Bar # 1000019) (pro hac vice)

2

lmasri@cair.com

Gadeir I. Abbas (VA Bar # 81161) (pro hac vice)*

3

gabbas@cair.com

Carolyn M. Homer (DC Bar # 1049145) (pro hac vice)

4

chomer@cair.com

453 New Jersey Ave., SE

5 Washington, DC 20003

Phone: (202) 742-6420

6 Fax: (202) 379-3317

* Licensed in Virginia, not D.C.

7

Practice limited to federal matters.

8 GAIRSON LAW, LLC

Jay Gairson (WA Bar # 43365)

9

jay@gairson.com

4606 Martin Luther King Jr Way S.
10 Seattle, WA 98108

Phone: (206) 357-4218
11

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

14

SEATTLE DIVISION

15 DAMARIO ROBERTS (Inmate # 398950); et 16 al.,

17

Plaintiffs,

18

v.

19 STEPHEN SINCLAIR, in his official capacity

20

as Secretary of the Washington Department of Corrections; et al.,

21
Defendants.
22

Civil Action No. 18-cv-00837-RSM
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY AND PERMANENT INJUCTIVE RELIEF
Motion Noted: August 2, 2019

23

24

25

26

27

28
- 1 -
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79 Filed 07/09/19 Page 2 of 3

1

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2

TO ALL DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL: Please take notice that as soon as the

3 matter may be heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington,

4 Plaintiffs DAMARIO ROBERTS (Inmate #398950), MOHAMED MOHAMED (Inmate #

5 384454), JEREMY LIVINSTON (Inmate #381036), NAIM LAO (Inmate # 381036), and JOHN

6 JAMES (Inmate # 712756) shall and hereby do move the Court for Summary Judgment as to

7 Liability and Permanent Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs seek the entry of summary judgment against

8 Defendants STEPHEN SINCLAIR, BELINDA STEWART, JAMIE DOLAN, MIKE OBELAND,

9 JEFF UTTECHT, DAVID SHERMAN, HENRI FISCHER, PETE MAXSON, SERGEANT

10 PARKS, and SERGEANT ROSE. This motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

11 Procedure 56, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the First Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth

12 Amendment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.

13 Defendants violated these provisions by implementing policies, procedures, and practices which

14 deprived Plaintiffs of adequate meals during Ramadan 2018.

15

Plaintiffs’ motion is based upon their Amended Complaint (Dkt. 59), this notice of motion,

16 the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, the deposition transcripts and exhibits in

17 support, and all such further written materials and oral arguments as may be presented to the Court.

18 The Court should enter summary judgment finding liability against all Official-Capacity Defendants

19 and award declaratory and injunctive relief. The Government should also enter summary judgment

20 against all Individual-Capacity Defendants. Further proceedings should relate solely to Plaintiffs’

21 damages and entitlement to attorneys’ fees.

22 Respectfully submitted, 23 Dated: July 10, 2019 24

25

26

27

28
- 2 -
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79 Filed 07/09/19 Page 3 of 3

1

CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

2

By /s/ Lena F. Masri

Lena F. Masri (DC Bar # 1000019)

3

(pro hac vice)

Gadeir I. Abbas (VA Bar # 81161)*

4

(pro hac vice)

Carolyn M. Homer (DC Bar # 1049145)

5

(pro hac vice)

453 New Jersey Ave., SE

6

Washington, DC 20003

Phone: (202) 742-6420
7

* Licensed in Virginia, not D.C.

8

Practice limited to federal matters.

9

GAIRSON LAW, LLC

10

Jay Gairson (Washington Bar # 43365)

4606 Martin Luther King Jr Way S

11

Seattle, WA 98108

Phone (206) 357-4218
12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
- 3 -
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 1 of 24

1 CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

Lena F. Masri (DC Bar # 1000019) (pro hac vice)

2

lmasri@cair.com

Gadeir I. Abbas (VA Bar # 81161) (pro hac vice)*

3

gabbas@cair.com

Carolyn M. Homer (DC Bar # 1049145) (pro hac vice)

4

chomer@cair.com

453 New Jersey Ave., SE

5 Washington, DC 20003

Phone: (202) 742-6420

6 Fax: (202) 379-3317

* Licensed in Virginia, not D.C.

7

Practice limited to federal matters.

8 GAIRSON LAW, LLC

Jay Gairson (WA Bar # 43365)

9

jay@gairson.com

4606 Martin Luther King Jr Way S.
10 Seattle, WA 98108

Phone: (206) 357-4218
11

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

14

SEATTLE DIVISION

15 DAMARIO ROBERTS (Inmate # 398950); et 16 al.,

17

Plaintiffs,

18

v.

19 STEPHEN SINCLAIR, in his official capacity

20

as Secretary of the Washington Department of Corrections; et al.,

21
Defendants.
22

Civil Action No. 18-cv-00837-RSM
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO LIABILITY AND PERMANENT INJUCTIVE RELIEF
Motion Noted: August 2, 2019

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 2 of 24

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................ ii

3 INDEX OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................................. iii
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................ 1
4 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL UNDISPUTED FACTS ........................................................................ 1

5

A. Plaintiffs’ Sincere Religious Beliefs Require Fasting During Ramadan ................................. 1

6

B. The WSDOC Ramadan Sign-Up Process Is Intentionally Designed to Restrict Inmate Participation in the Ramadan Meal Program ....................................................................................... 2

7

C. Defendants Denied Plaintiffs’ Participation in Ramadan ........................................................ 5

D. Defendants Denied Other Inmates’ Participation in Ramadan .............................................. 7

8

E. Ramadan Meal Logistics ............................................................................................................... 9

9 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 10

10

I. Defendants’ Ramadan Policies and Practices Violate RLUIPA................................................ 10 A. RLUIPA Requires Defendants to Accommodate Ramadan Fasting ................................... 10

11

B. All Plaintiffs Are and Were Muslims who Adhere to One of the Five Pillars of Islam

Directing Adherents to Fast During Ramadan.................................................................................. 11

12

C. Without food after sunset, Defendants Substantially Burden The Ability of Muslim

13

Inmates to Observe Ramadan’s Fast................................................................................................... 11

D. Because Depriving Muslim Inmates of Food Consistent with their Religious Beliefs

14

Substantially Burdens RLUIPA rights, Defendants Must Identify a Compelling Interest—a

Showing They Cannot Make ................................................................................................................ 13

15

E. Even the Court Identifies a Compelling Interest, Defendants Unthinking Obedience to

16

their Past Ramadan Practices Shows that Less Restrictive Means were Available to Them ...... 15 II. Defendants’ Policies Starve Fasting Muslim Inmates in Violation of the Eight Amendment

17

16

18

III. Defendants Violate the Equal Protection Clause and Free Exercise Clause ...................... 18 IV. Defendants Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity................................................................ 19

19 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 21

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
- ii PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 3 of 24

1

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

2

#

Exhibit Title

3 1

Plaintiffs DOC Medical Records

Date June 12, 2018

2
4 3

Washington DOC Stewart Ramadan 2018 Memo Email Chains Approving or denying addition to

January 16, 2018 January 28, 2018

5 4

Ramadan 2018 List Correspondence Log system concerning plaintiff

May 31, 2016

6 5

Mohamed for Ramadan 2016 Correspondence Log system concerning plaintiff

May 14, 2018

7 6

Mohamed for Ramadan 2018 Jeremy Livingston’s Emergency Complaints

May 16, 2018

8

7 8

Mohamed Mohamed’s Grievances Damario Roberts’s Emergency Complaints

May 30, 2018 May 21, 2018

9

9 10

Naim Lao’s Grievances and Emergency Complaints John James’s initial and Emergency Complaints

May 30, 2018 June 12, 2018

10

11 12

Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020

December 2015

State of Washington DOC Religious Programs Policy February 17, 2014

11

13 14

Jay Greer’s Grievances Plaintiffs Kiosk Messages

August 9, 2018 May 24, 2018

12

15

State of Washington DOC Offender Grievance Program Policy

March 3, 2018

13

16

Email Chain regarding changes to DOC Food Service July 13, 2018 Policy 240.100

14

17 18

2018 Ramadan Menu Washington DOC Stewart Ramadan 2019 Memo

January 9, 2019

15

19 20

Ogechi Njoku Deposition Belinda Stewart Deposition

May 29, 2019 May 29, 2019

16

21

Belinda Stewart 30(b)(6) Deposition

22 Brent Carney Deposition

June 21, 2019 May 29, 2019

17

23

David Sherman Deposition

May 30, 2019

24 Peter Maxson Deposition

May 30, 2019

18

25

Plaintiff Jeremy Livingston Deposition

June 7, 2019

26 Plaintiff John James Deposition

19

27

Plaintiff Mohamed Mohamed Deposition

June 10, 2019 June 7, 2019

20

28 29

MCC Michael Obenland Deposition WDOC Brad Simpson 30(b)(6) Deposition

June 10, 2019 June 19, 2019

21

30 31

WDOC Dale Caldwell 30(b)(6) Deposition WDOC Brent Carney 30(b)(6) Deposition

June 19, 2019 June 19, 2019

22

32 33

WDOC Lynda Heise 30(b)(6) Deposition Plaintiff Naim Lao Deposition

June 21, 2019 June 20, 2019

23

34 35

Plaintiff Demario Roberts Deposition Washington DOC Stewart Ramadan 2019 Memo

June 6, 2019 January 9, 2019

24

25

26

27

28
- iii PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 4 of 24

1

INTRODUCTION

2

One of the five pillars of Islam is that Muslims fast during Ramadan. Plaintiffs Damario

3 Roberts, Mohamed Mohamed, Jeremy Livingston, Naim Lao, and John James are all sincere Muslims

4 who observe the Ramadan fast. But Defendants, all officials and employees of the Washington

5 Department of Corrections, refused to feed them accordingly. So when given the choice between

6 starving and violating their religious faith, Plaintiffs chose to starve. Fasting during the day and

7 unable to eat at night, Plaintiffs lost significant weight and became sick with malnourishment. They

8 were forced to purchase their own food and beg for other inmates to share food, against policy, to

9 survive. They did this all because Defendants imposed, and continue to impose, onerous and

10 intrusive requirements for inmates to participate in Ramadan.

11

These requirements are illegal. They are without justification. Defendants did not refuse to

12 feed Plaintiffs because it was too difficult. They acknowledge they always have enough food on

13 hand, and that it’s easy to take a halal meal out of the freezer, heat it up after sunset, and feed fasting

14 Muslim inmates. Instead Defendants refused to feed Plaintiffs because of their irrational,

15 bureaucratic policies. After all, the Defendants reasoned, it was Plaintiffs’ choice to starve.

16 Defendants gave themselves discretion to disagree with Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, suggesting “Allah

17 is all merciful” and will forgive Plaintiffs if – due to Defendants’ refusal to provide Ramadan meals –

18 Plaintiffs violate their faith by eating lunch.

19

The U.S. Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act forbid

20 the Washington Department of Corrections from substituting the Government’s discretionary

21 opinions regarding religious accommodations for Muslims’ actual religious practice of Ramadan. The

22 Department is required to accommodate fasting inmates, not starve them.

23

This Court should enter summary judgment on liability against all Defendants and enjoin the

24 WSDOC from adopting or implementing any policy which prevents Muslim inmates from fasting

25 during any future Ramadan.

26

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL UNDISPUTED FACTS

27

A. Plaintiffs’ Sincere Religious Beliefs Require Fasting During Ramadan

28

1. All the Plaintiffs are practicing Muslims who sincerely believe that observing the

- 1 -

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 5 of 24

1 Ramadan fast is required by their religious faith. Livingston Dep., Ex. 25, 27:24-30-25; Mohamed

2 Dep., Ex. 27, 21:20-22:25; James Dep., Ex. 26, 8:8-8:13, 20:3-20:11; Lao Dep., Ex. 33, 24:20-26:5;

3 Roberts Dep., Ex. 34, 12:18-13:7, 23:5-23:7.

4

2. In accordance with their Islamic faith, Plaintiffs, along with Muslims worldwide,

5 observe Ramadan as a month of fasting. See Ramadan Memo, Ex. 2 at 5. During Ramadan,

6 “participating Muslims refrain from eating and drinking from dawn until sunset.” Id. According to the

7 sincerely-held religious beliefs of the plaintiffs, Muslims fast “for the sake of God.” Id. Though Muslims

8 fast from dawn until sunset, Muslims are permitted to consume food and drink liquids during the

9 remaining hours of the day (sunset until dawn). Id.; see also Obenland Dep., Ex. 28, 22:5-23:13

10 (explaining Ramadan).

11

B. The WSDOC Ramadan Sign-Up Process Is Intentionally Designed to Restrict

12

Inmate Participation in the Ramadan Meal Program

13

3. Each year, the Washington Department of Corrections issues a Memorandum from

14 the Corrections Program Administrator and the Food Services Administrator addressed to “All

15 Incarcerated Individuals.” Stewart Dep, Ex. 20, 63:20-25, 64:1-2. The Memorandum (the “Ramadan

16 Memo”) explains the Ramadan sign-up process that inmates are required to follow in order to be added

17 to the Ramadan Meal Program. It sets a sign-up deadline for two weeks after the issuance date of the

18 Ramadan Memo. Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 32:12-24, 52:19-54:18. Attached to the Ramadan Memo is a

19 Ramadan Meal Request Form the inmates are required to fill out as part of the sign-up process. Stewart

20 Dep., Ex. 20, 34:17-37:9; Ex. 2 at 1-3.

21

4. The Department and WDOC headquarters do not follow up with any of the twelve

22 correctional facilities to ensure the Ramadan Memo is in fact posted in visible areas. Stewart Dep., Ex.

23 20, 40:6-41:17, Sherman Dep., Ex. 23, 41:19-24, 56:4-22. In 2019 the Department conducted a focus

24 group at the Washington State Penitentiary and concluded the facility had failed to post the Ramadan

25 Memo, but did not follow-up regarding other facilities’ compliance. Stewart 30(b)(6) Dep., Ex. 21 at

26 46:7-47:7, 47:24-48:19. In fact, Defendant Sherman, Chaplain of Monroe Correctional Complex

27 (“MCC”) responsible for posting the Ramadan Memo at his facilities, acknowledged that he never

28 verified whether the Ramadan Memo was ever posted at any of MCC’s units. Sherman Dep., Ex. 23
- 2 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 6 of 24
1
at 56:4-22.
2
5. Upon being hired as the Correctional Program Administrator in 2012, Defendant
3
Stewart added criteria for participation in the Ramadan Meal Program. Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 36:6-
4
37:9. The added criteria have not been changed since, remaining the same in 2019. Stewart Dep., Ex.
5
20, 64:3-17; Stewart 30(b)(6) Dep., Ex. 21, 6:25-7:2; Ramadan 2019 Memo, Ex. 35.
6
6. Inmates are eligible to participate in the Ramadan Meal Program if they satisfy one of
7
two criteria as of the date of the Ramadan Memo: “Ramadan participant approval will be based on
8
participation in Islamic/Muslim religious programming over the past six (6) months or those currently
9
on a halal meal.” Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 37:25-38:17, 64:10-14; see ex. Ex. 2 at 1-3.
10
7. Defendant Stewart added the criteria as requirements to the Ramadan Sign-Up Process
11
in order “to try to weed out individuals who don’t practice the faith,” and to ensure that only people
12
who are “practicing some aspect of the faith” and “have some sort of sincerity toward the faith” are
13
added. Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 43:1-21, 50:17-52:24.
14
8. An inmate can be denied participation in the Ramadan Meal Program based on how
15
they answer the questions on the Ramadan Meal Request Form that pertain to criteria
16
eligibility. Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 37:11-16. See, e.g., Ex. 2. at 3.
17
9. An inmate who immediately signs up for Islamic religious programming after the
18
Ramadan Memo is issued cannot satisfy the first criteria of “participation in Islamic/Muslim religious
19
programming over the past six (6) months.” Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 47:18-48:21.
20
10. An inmate who immediately signs up for a halal meal diet after the Ramadan Memo is
21
issued cannot satisfy the second criteria of being “currently on a halal meal,” and would therefore only
22
be permitted to participate in the Ramadan Meal Program if they attended Islamic/Muslim religious
23
programming for six months prior to the date of the Ramadan Memo. Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 41:18-
24
43:5.
25
11. The religious diet sign-up period occurs twice a year (November to April 15 and May
26
to October 15) and the religious diet is implemented twice a year (May 1 and November 1). Stewart
27
Dep., Ex. 20, 55:5-56:21. An inmate who signs up for a halal diet during the current religious diet sign-
28
- 3 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 7 of 24
1
up period and before the date of the Ramadan Memo and whose halal diet will not be implemented
2
until after the date the Ramadan Memo is issued, cannot satisfy the second criteria of being “currently
3
on a halal meal.” Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 38:10-25, 42:8-24.
4
12. Participation in the Islamic religious holidays Eid al-Fitr or Eid al-Adha is not enough
5
to qualify an inmate to participate in the Ramadan Meal Program. Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 116:22-25.
6
13. Nor is possession of Islamic religious items or an affidavit from a Muslim religious
7
leader confirming the inmate is a Muslim enough to qualify an inmate for participation. Stewart Dep.,
8
Ex. 20, 117:1-9.
9
14. If a facility chaplain believes an exception should be applied to allow an inmate to
10
participate in the Ramadan Meal Program, they are required to contact Defendant Stewart’s office to
11
explain the reasons for the exception. Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 59:13-60:19. Someone from Defendant
12
Stewart’s office would then decide whether to allow that inmate to participate. Id.
13
15. In 2018, Ramadan began on May 16. The Ramadan Memo was issued on January 16,
14
2018 and inmates had until 5 pm on January 30, 2018 to sign-up to participate in the Ramadan Meal
15
Program. Ex. 2. Facility chaplains had a separate deadline of February 15, 2018 to submit a request
16
for an exception to Defendant Stewart’s office for consideration. Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 69:12-25 to
17
70:1-16. “No signup forms [were] accepted after February 15, 2018. Inmates are not notified of the
18
deadline set for chaplains to submit requests for exceptions. Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 69:12-25 to 70:1-
19
16.
20
16. An inmate that has been denied from participating in the Ramadan Meal Program will
21
not receive any Ramadan meals. Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 67-68. The Department does not provide
22
inmates that choose to fast Ramadan but missed the sign-up period with any food to eat that they can
23
consume from sunset to sunrise, in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs. Stewart
24
30(b)(6) Dep., Ex. 21 at 10:4-12.
25
17. An inmate prescribed a medical diet is forced to choose between (a) maintaining their
26
health by continuing their medical diet and sacrificing their sincerely-held religious beliefs by not
27
participating in the Ramadan Meal Program and (b) participating in the Ramadan Meal Program and
28
- 4 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 8 of 24
1
sacrificing their health by discontinuing their medical diet. Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 63:3-12.
2
18. When asked what options an inmate has to sustain himself if he has a sincerely-held
3
religious belief that he is prohibited from eating during daylight hours during the month of Ramadan
4
and he was also denied from getting meals during nighttime hours, Defendant Sherman responded that
5
“[h]is options would be to eat the mainline food that’s coming in. That Allah is called merciful and
6
that he would understand that he did not have any other options in order to sustain himself and that
7
he would then be required to – that he would be forgiven for eating during non-Ramada[n] hours or
8
days.” Sherman Dep., Ex. 23 at 122:18-25, 123:8-13.
9
C. Defendants Denied Plaintiffs’ Participation in Ramadan
10
19. Damario Roberts was denied multiple grievances for being denied participation in
11
Ramadan 2018. In one of those grievances, he stated “I am a practicing Muslim and Chaplain Sherman
12
refuses to put me on the ramadan list because I have not gone to 6 straight months of jumah, It is not
13
against my religion not to go to jumah. It is not against my religion not to go to jumah and I am fasting
14
for ramadan. I am not getting fed through DOC.” Ex. 8.
15
20. Mohamed was denied grievances he filed during 2017 and 2018 regarding participation
16
in Ramadan. In his grievance filed May 30, 2018, he stated “[t]his is the second year am going thru this
17
process and they keep not putting me on the Ramadan list after I filled out the form before the deadline.
18
I can’t go to regular mainline because I can’t bring the food back and I’ll get infracted. I can’t eat after
19
sundown and I have no food to practice my religion. This is mandatory to fast the month of Ramadan.
20
I spoke with the Chaplain and told me he can’t help.” Defendants Sherman and Maxson denied this
21
grievance despite confirming that he met the religious event participation requirement because
22
“Chaplain Fischer stated he searched his office for the form and was unable to find a Ramadan Meal
23
request form.” Ex. 7.
24
21. Jeremy Livingston was denied an emergency grievance he filed during Ramadan 2018
25
for being denied Ramadan meals. Livingston had sent numerous messages complaining over the prior
26
months to Defendant Sherman and others that he keeps being placed on callout for Christian services
27
when he has repeatedly requested to be placed on callout for jumu’ah prayer. Nonetheless, Defendant
28
- 5 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 9 of 24
1
Sherman denied his request to participate in Ramadan based on failure to meet the six month Islamic
2
event participation criteria. Ex. 6; Ex. 14l Sherman Dep., Ex. 23 at 175:4 to 182:7.
3
22. Defendant Sherman testified he initially denied Mohamed’s grievance because he didn’t
4
find a record of his participation in jumu’ah services at that time because Mohamed was likely “slipping
5
out and going to Jumah” instead of going to his GED classes. Sherman Dep., Ex. 23 at 158:12-22.
6
Ex. 14.
7
23. Naim Lao filed multiple emergency grievances regarding the denial of his participation
8
in Ramadan, all of which were denied. “Yesterday I was feeling dizzy and my limbs were tingly and
9
approached [sic] Sargent Parks stating that there is something clearly wrong with me and that I am
10
about to pass out and explain to him what was going on and he said that if I don’t start eating then
11
sooner or later they are going to have to force feed me. My friend Vincent had to help me walk the
12
rest of the way back to my cell… There is no need to force feed me just let me bring some food back
13
to the cell and I will eat when my religion allows it. Please feed me. This is the fourth day in a row
14
that DOC has yet to feed me for ramadan and I am very HUNGRY.” Lao Dep., Ex. 9.
15
24. John James has Celiac’s Disease, which requires him to eat a gluten-free diet. James
16
Dep., Ex. 26 at 89:5-13. Nevertheless, James was denied multiple grievances filed over the course of
17
several years to obtain gluten-free meals during Ramadan. James Dep., Ex. 26 at 107:12-20; Stewart
18
Dep., Ex. 20 at 142:11-143:19; Stewart 30(b)(6) Dep., Ex. 21 at 57:11-14; 58:13-16; 60:17-25; Ex. 10.
19
WSDOC’s policy does not allow “alternative meals” during Ramadan, which the Department deems
20
“special meals for special people.” Stewart Dep., Ex. 20, 60:21-61:22. The WSDOC had no other
21
reason besides its “no special meals for special people” rule to deny this request. This is even though
22
it is not difficult for WSDOC to accommodate a single request of a Ramadan gluten-free meal for the
23
month of Ramadan. Stewart Dep., Ex. 10; Ex. 20 at 144:6-147:8. In one of multiple grievances that
24
were denied, filed during Ramadan 2015, he stated “I want to grieve against SCCC Food Service for
25
poisoning me… I began experiencing extreme diarrhea, head achs [sic] and body pains. Which lead to
26
throwing up… PA Erin Lystad examined me and… told me I had food poisoning… I told her all I’ve
27
had to eat since 6-17-2015 was Ramadan meals.” Ex. 10 at 13.
28
- 6 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 10 of 24

1

25. In 2014, WSDOC modified its Religious Programs Policy (Policy No. DOC 560.200)

2

to “[a]djust[] that therapeutic diets take precedence over religious diets unless refused at the time of

3

medical encounter.” Thus, inmates are forced to choose between their prescribed medical diet and

4

their religious dietary needs. This modification was made despite WSDOC having only received a

5

single request – by Plaintiff John James – for a Ramadan diet to also be a therapeutic diet. Stewart

6

30(b)(6), Ex. 21 at 57:6-25 to 58:10-20; Sherman Dep., Ex. 23 at 10:14-17; Ex. 12 at 1; Simpson Dep.,

7

Ex. 29 at 88: 8-12.

8

D. Defendants Denied Other Inmates’ Participation in Ramadan

9

26. On January 28, 2018, Chaplain Luce submitted a request to Defendant Stewart for

10

guidance as to whether an exception can be given to Inmate Vader stating:

11

… [H]e has not attended any Muslim services at all, and is not on Halal diet… He said he did

12

Ramadan in the past; on OMNI he did Ramadan in 2013 and 2015. He said he grew up in an

African-American foster home and did Ramadan on the street. However he is clear that he is

13

not a practicing Muslim. From his description he is more like Bahai where all religions are

one. Because of this I gave him information on the Baha’i The Fast which is coming up in

14

March and encouraged him to think it over. Please provide guidance to me as to if I can deny

him or should add him specifically for Ramadan as an exception to the Islamic faith. The

15

tension would be that he does not pray to Allah and does not recognize Allah as God per

se. This might offender our Muslim men, rightfully so. Ex 3 at 4145.
16

Stewart responded “I do not understand why you need guidance. The answer is 100 percent

17

evident.” Inmate Vader was denied participation. Stewart Dep., Ex. 20 at 78:2-80:18. Ex. 3 at 4147-

18

4147.

19

27. On May 16, 2018, Defendant Stewart removed Inmate Hussein from participating in

20

the Ramadan Meal Program without explanation despite having been added as an exception the day

21

prior by the Superintendent of that correctional facility. Stewart Dep., Ex. 20 at 81:21-82:20; Ex. 3 at

22

9680-9681.

23

28. Defendant Stewart denied Inmate Costello from participating in the Ramadan Meal

24

Program despite Chaplain Jakstas of Larch Corrections Center requesting an exception be made on

25

the basis that he was admitted to the Department after the Ramadan sign-up deadline: “I’m not adding

26

Costello because he did not meet the requirement of signing up on time… [Statewide Muslim

27

Chaplain] Rasheed, I believe you said at one time a new convert should not participate in Ramadan

28

- 7 -

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 11 of 24
1
until they know more about the faith as it will be too hard on them.” Ex. 3 at 9796-9801. Defendant
2
Stewart explained that “[she] did that based on conversations that I had in the past with Chaplain
3
Rasheed, and he said new converts should not be added the first year... new converts should not be –
4
should not go through Ramadan during early on in their conversion because it is too hard to do that
5
30-day fast. They have no idea of the magnitude of what it takes to do that.” Stewart Dep., Ex. 20 at
6
87:10-90:12.
7
29. In the same email, Defendant Stewart’s staff added two other inmates Chaplain Jakstas
8
had identified along with Inmate Costello to participate in the Ramadan Meal Program because they –
9
like Costello – arrived at the Department after the sign-up period. Stewart Dep., Ex. 20 at 87:10-92:11;
10
Ex. 3 at 9796-9801.
11
30. Inmate Rollins was denied participation in Ramadan in 2017 because he did not meet
12
the criteria for sign-up. Ex. 3 at 7634-7635; Stewart Dep., Ex. 20 at 97:8-101:21. He explained in his
13
grievance: “I received a message back from Chaplain Wakeman…that due to me not participating in
14
the Islamic Juma service within the last six (6) months that I won’t be allowed to participate in
15
Ramada[n]. I am not Sunni, nor Shiite Muslim. However, I am A Nation of Islam Muslim… This
16
facility does not provide a Juma service for those of us who are Nation of Islam Muslims.” Ex. 3 at
17
7624-7629. The Level I denial of his grievance states that “[d]ue to limited resources preference will
18
be given to those who have participated in Islamic/Muslim religious programming over the past 6
19
months or those currently on a Halal meal… As discussed during your interview, you did not meet the
20
initial requirements. No further action will be recommended at this time.” Ex. 3 at 7624-7629.
21
Defendant Stewart, in her Level III response, stated that she concurred despite acknowledging that
22
services for members of Nation of Islam are not provided at the facility. Inmate Rollins was denied
23
again in 2018 for the same reason. When asked about these denials during her deposition, Defendant
24
Stewart said that she doesn’t agree with the decision and that “[h]e should have been added.” Stewart
25
Dep., Ex. 20 at 97:8-101:21.
26
31. Defendant Sherman and Defendant Maxson denied Inmate Mitchell participation in
27
the Ramadan Meal Program despite Mitchell stating that he was in segregation during the sign-up
28
- 8 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 12 of 24
1
period, did not see the Ramadan Memo, was not aware of the sign-up period and that he had signed
2
up for the Ramadan Prayer List not realizing it was different than the Ramadan Meal List. Sherman
3
Dep., Ex. 23 at 113:22-25 to 115:1-17; Ex. 3 at 10264, 10267-10270, 10279, 10281-10282, 10284-
4
10290. Sherman explained that “[h]e has to deal with his honesty, lack of honesty, sincerity, whatever
5
the factors were that led to him being in the hole, to not signing up for the list… Allah is going to
6
understand that, and that’s the merciful side.” Sherman Dep., Ex. 23 at 126:17-23.
7
32. Defendants Sherman and Maxson denied Inmate Greer participation in the Ramadan
8
Meal Program based on failure to meet the six month Islamic/Muslim religious programming
9
attendance requirement, even though he fasted during Ramadan two years prior. Sherman Dep., Ex.
10
23 at 141:5-25, 143:1-8; Ex. 13.
11
E. Ramadan Meal Logistics
12
33. A Ramadan meal is just a Halal meal. Heise Dep., Ex. 32, 37:2-38:25; Stewart Dep.,
13
Ex. 20, 62:2-10. The only difference is that instead of having three or more meals a day, at Ramadan
14
there are only two significant meals, the Suhoor (morning meal) and the Iftar (evening/break fast meal).
15
Heise Dep., Ex. 32, 37:2-9.
16
34. Halal meals are kept frozen on site at the correctional facilities. Heise Dep, Ex. 32,
17
35:14-21. Each costs about $1.50. Simpson 54:12-25. They can be ordered in as short as one week in
18
advance. Heise Dep., Ex. 32, 47:6-13. There is always enough. Heise Dep., Ex. 32, 20:20-23:3; 35:14-
19
36:22. The inmates heat up their own food without a problem. Heise Dep., Ex. 32, 46:14-18; Stewart
20
Dep., Ex. 20, 61:5-9. If the inmates could not heat them up, there is no issue with The WSDOC doing
21
so. Heise Dep., Ex. 32, 39:16-17.
22
35. To the extent they require more halal meals, The WSDOC can just order additional
23
food. Heise Dep., Ex. 32, 47:6-13. To the extent the prison orders too many Ramadan meals, the
24
Ramadan meals can simply be repurposed as ordinary halal meals. Heise Dep., Ex. 32, 38:14-25. The
25
cost effects are minimal, and The WSDOC has not calculated any additional cost to add anyone to the
26
Ramadan List. Heise Dep., Ex. 32, 27:25-29:6.
27
36. There is no administrative problem requiring any significant lead time to prepare.
28
- 9 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 13 of 24
1
Indeed, in 2019, the prison needed more Ramadan meals and with one phone call those meals arrived
2
within a couple of hours. In 2018, The WSDOC was forced by court order to add people at the last
3
second to the Ramadan List, and yet The WSDOC could not identify any additional costs or problems
4
with compliance. Obenland Dep., Ex. 28, 43:17-46:16; Stewart 30(b)(6) Dep., Ex. 21, 26:2-27:7. In
5
2019, the Monroe Correctional Complex added six inmates to the Ramadan list the first week of
6
Ramadan, Obenland Dep., Ex. 28, 15:21-17:13, and there were zero logistical problems, Obenland
7
Dep., Ex. 28, 28:2-13.
8
37. Department of Corrections creates menus with a range of caloric levels to meet the
9
needs of most of their population. Carney Dep., Ex. 22, 8:7-9. The WSDOC use nutritional standards
10
for their menus that come from established dietary guidelines. Carney Dep., Ex. 22, 13:6-20. And there
11
is no reason that The WSDOC could not do the same for Ramadan meals. Carney Dep., Ex. 22, 20:13-
12
19.
13
ARGUMENT
14
In ruling on a motion under Rule 56, summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no
15
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
16
law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986).
17
I. Defendants’ Ramadan Policies and Practices Violate RLUIPA
18
For reasons no greater than marginal administrative convenience, knowing the pain it will cause
19
the many Muslim inmates who observe Ramadan’s fast, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of food. In
20
doing so, they violate RLUIPA, the law Congress passed to ensure prisons and jails across the country
21
allow inmates in custody to practice their faith.
22
A. RLUIPA Requires Defendants to Accommodate Ramadan Fasting
23
RLUIPA exists to make it illegal for the Department to do what it has done here: deprive
24
Muslim inmates of food, and sometimes even water, between sunset and dawn so the inmates may
25
observe the Ramadan fast during the day. Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
26
Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc creates a private cause of action for such persons who allege
27
that a state government has substantially burdened their religious conduct. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a),
28
- 10 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 14 of 24

1 2(a). Unlike cases arising under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, RLUIPA applies

2 even where the burden on the prisoner “results from a rule of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. §

3 2000cc-1(a).

4

To establish a claim under RLUIPA, a plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing (1) that he

5 seeks to engage in an exercise of religion, and (2) that the challenged practice substantially burdens that

6 exercise of religion. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(b). Once a plaintiff has established this prima facie case, a

7 defendant bears the burden of proving that imposition of the burden is in “furtherance of a compelling

8 governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental

9 interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2).

10

B. All Plaintiffs Are and Were Muslims who Adhere to One of the Five Pillars of

11

Islam Directing Adherents to Fast During Ramadan

12

All of the Plaintiffs are Muslims who believe that observing the Ramadan fast is required by

13 their faith. Livingston Dep., Ex. 25, 27:24-30-25; Mohamed Dep., Ex. 27, 21:20-22:25; James Dep.,

14 Ex. 26, 8:8-8:13, 20:3-20:11; Lao Dep., Ex. 33, 24:20-26:5; Roberts Dep., Ex. 34, 12:18-13:7, 23:5-23:7.

15 It is why, in spite of Defendants failure to provide them food, they maintained their fast through

16 substantial weight loss and symptoms of malnutrition and starvation.

17

C. Without food after sunset, Defendants Substantially Burden The Ability of

18

Muslim Inmates to Observe Ramadan’s Fast

19

In passing RLUIPA, Congress required that all prisons, jails, and detention centers make great

20 efforts to accommodate the religious practices of those in custody. Those great efforts, whatever else

21 they include, must give Plaintiffs and other Muslim inmates food compatible with their religious

22 practices. “Congress enacted RLUIPA … in order to provide very broad protection for religious

23 liberty” to prisoners. Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853, 859 (2015).

24

As the Ninth Circuit has made clear, all inmates—including the plaintiffs—“have the right to

25 be provided with food sufficient to sustain them in good health that satisfies the dietary laws of their

26 religion.” McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 198 (9th Cir. 1987); see also England v. Walsh, 727 Fed. Appx

27 255, 256-7 (9th Cir. 2018) (unpublished opinion); Porter v. Wegman, 671 Fed. Appx. 442, 443 (9th Cir.

28 2016) (unpublished opinion); Dickinson v. Arizona Dep’t of Corr., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 16026 *3 (9th
- 11 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 15 of 24

1 Cir. 1999) (unpublished opinion); Logan v. Lewis, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 3751 *3-4 (9th Cir. 1998)

2 (unpublished opinion). Courts have “repeatedly held that forcing an inmate to choose between daily

3 nutrition and religious practice is a substantial burden,” particularly during Ramadan. See, e.g., Thompson

4 v. Holm, 809 F.3d 376, 380 (7th Cir. 2016) (collecting cases and finding a substantial burden where

5 prison denied inmate Ramadan meals for two days).

6

A substantial burden exists, then, whenever a facility either forces an inmate to choose between

7 eating a diet that violates his faith and going without food at all for a period of time that inflicts on

8 Plaintiffs an “adverse physical effect..” Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 888-89 (9th Cir. 2008); see also

9 Vincent v. Stewart, 757 Fed. Appx. 578, 580-81 (9th Cir. 2018) (unpublished opinion); Rawlins v. Stewart,

10 10 Fed. Appx. 446, 446 (9th Cir. 2001) (unpublished opinion). With respect to this point of law, the

11 Ninth Circuit is much like other circuit courts that have confronted similar issues. See Love v. Reed, 216

12 F.3d 682, 689-690 (8th Cir. 2000) (finding prison's failure to accommodate prisoner's religious diet a

13 violation of RLUIPA and rejecting prison's suggestion that the prisoner could fast as an alternative to

14 the prison's accommodation of the desired diet); Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 879 (7th Cir. 2009);

15 Hunafa v. Murphy, 907 F.2d 46 (7th Cir. 1990).

16

Here, the undisputable facts show that the Department’s Ramadan practices offered Plaintiffs

17 food only when their faith did not allow them to eat. It is a fact that the Department will, because it

18 must, concede. All four plaintiffs urged Defendants to provide them with food after sunset so that

19 they could break their daily, dawn-to-sunset fast and prepare for the next day’s fast. The Defendants

20 knew because they were told repeatedly that plaintiffs could not and would not eat food from dawn to

21 sunset. For example, Naim Lao begged for food, explaining that he “was feeling dizzy” and that his

22 “limbs were tingly.” Lao Dep., Ex. 9 at 4. “Please feed me,” he wrote in a grievance that was

23 thoughtlessly rejected. “[J]ust let me bring some food back to the cell and I will eat when my religion

24 allows it.” Id. John James, who has Celiac disease, also pleaded his case to Defendants, explaining that

25 eating gluten-laden meals caused him “extreme diarrhea, head aches, and body pains.” Ex. 10 at 13.

26 From Mr. James’ perspective, it seemed as if the facility, with deliberate intention, was “poisoning”

27 him. Id. And still, Defendants unthinking obedience to Department Ramadan practices prevented

28 them from providing all fasting inmates with food at a time that they could make use of it. Because
- 12 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 16 of 24

1 Defendants would not provide food when Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs permitted them to eat, and

2 altogether denied John James gluten-free food during Ramadan, Defendants have denied Muslim

3 inmates observing Ramadan food “that satisfies the dietary laws of their religion.” McElyea v. Babbitt,

4 833 F.2d 196, 198 (9th Cir. 1987). For RLUIPA, this burden is as substantial of a burden as there ever

5 was.

6

D. Because Depriving Muslim Inmates of Food Consistent with their Religious

7

Beliefs Substantially Burdens RLUIPA rights, Defendants Must Identify a

8

Compelling Interest—a Showing They Cannot Make

9

A compelling interest does not exist just because a defendant labels its interest as compelling.

10 This Court must do more and ferret out exactly what interest is at stake. And here, Defendants’ interest

11 in denying food to Muslim inmates observing Ramadan’s fast boils down to, at most, a marginal effort

12 to achieve a small, indeterminate amount of cost savings.

13

Defendants acknowledge that Ramadan meals are halal meals kept frozen that cost just $1.50

14 each. Simpson 54:12-25 They acknowledge that it takes just a week—not six months—to order and

15 receive halal meals. And the undisputed evidence indicates that Muslim inmates seeking to fast during

16 Ramadan can heat up their own frozen meals without creating any extra administrative burdens for

17 Defendants. Nothing indicates how flimsy Defendants interest is here than the fact that, though

18 Defendants have been compelled to add Muslim inmates to the Ramadan list this year and last year,

19 they cannot any additional costs or problems with compliance. Obenland Dep., Ex. 28, 43:17-46:16;

20 Stewart 30(b)(6) Dep., Ex. 21, 26:2-27:7.

21

These ethereal savings and conveniences, if they exist at all and are not just a pretext for

22 religious animosity, do not constitute compelling need. RLUIPA itself recognizes that it “may require

23 a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on

24 religious exercise.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(c). Thus, RLUIPA may override some fiscal policy decisions,

25 and, without more, a desire to curb costs is not a compelling interest that can justify a substantial

26 burden on the free exercise of religion. See Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct 2751, 2781 (2014)

27 (stating that RFRA and RLUIPA may require the government to expend additional funds to

28 accommodate citizens’ religious beliefs).
- 13 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 17 of 24

1

If cost containment were a compelling government interest in all circumstances, RLUIPA

2 would be irreparably weakened. “To allow government conduct to survive strict scrutiny each time the

3 government claims that accommodating an inmate’s religion would impose some cost or inefficiency,

4 would be to impermissibly weaken RLUIPA’s effect.” Bilal v. Lehman, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93152 at

5 *30 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 2, 2006) (quoting Madison v. Riter, 240 F. Supp. 2d 566, 578 n. 10 (W.D. Va. 2003)).

6

While some courts have held that limiting costs can be a compelling interest in certain

7 circumstances, marginal cost savings is never a compelling interest. See Luckette v. Lewis, 883 F. Supp.

8 471, 480 (D. Ariz. 1995) (recognizing that limiting costs is a compelling interest, but holding that the

9 additional expense of providing Kosher meals to inmates was not a compelling interest because it was

10 “minimal”); see also Agrawal v. Briley, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16997 *8 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (“It is undeniable

11 that, in the abstract, safety, security, internal order and discipline, and the management and

12 conservation of resources are ‘compelling interests.’ It does not follow, however, that anything that

13 furthers one or more of these interests, however marginally, is equally ‘compelling.’ …. [T]he possibility

14 that Plaintiff’s preferred diet cost a small amount more per year could not be considered compelling.").

15

It is difficult to see how Defendants have established a compelling state interest not to incur

16 costs associated with providing Ramadan meals to a few additional Muslim inmates who, according to

17 their sincerely-held beliefs, have a religious obligation to fast during Ramadan. And other states are

18 able to offer Ramadan meals that do not mimic the one at issue in this case. Alaska’s Ramadan Policy,

19 for example, provides hot meals totaling 2400-3000 calories a day with no hoops or signups required.1

20 It is also why Plaintiff James has had no issue receiving Ramadan meals at all prior facilities.

21

In order for Defendants’ administrative concerns to have an impact on this Court’s analysis,

22 the Department must still establish that avoiding additional administrative burden amounts to a

23 compelling interest. Bilal, 2006 Dist. LEXIS 93152 at *34. In the 9th Circuit, when looking at whether

24 budgetary and administrative concerns of the prison can justify a burden on free exercise, courts must

25 look to whether there are reasonable alternatives to the current policy. The existence of alternatives is

26 evidence that a prison policy is not reasonable and cannot be justified by reference to administrative

27

28

1 http://www.correct.state.ak.us/pnp/pdf/805.03.pdf at 8.

- 14 -

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 18 of 24

1 concerns. Ashelman v. Wawrzaszek, 111 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Ward v. Walsh, 1 F.3d 873,

2 879 (9th Cir. 11993); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 90-91 (1987). That few other prisons appear to have

3 the same issue that Defendants have is strong evidence that the administrative burdens here are

4 imagined. And of course, many alternatives exist to minimalize any administrative burden.

5

Meanwhile, Defendants have not provided evidence to demonstrate that the burden on their

6 efficiency is compelling other than conclusory statements. F.T.C. v. Publishing Clearing House, Inc., 104

7 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (such statements insufficient to avoid summary judgment).

8

Likewise, Defendants have not shown that the outright denial of Ramadan meals to a number

9 of inmates is the least restrictive means of achieving that goal. “The least-restrictive-means standard is

10 exceptionally demanding.” Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853, 864 (2015). It “requires the government to

11 show that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden.” Id.

12 “If a less restrictive means is available for the Government to achieve its goals, the Government must

13 use it.” Id.

14

The same alternatives that show a lack of compelling interest also show the lack of least

15 restrictive means. The Department cannot meet its burden to prove least restrictive means unless it

16 demonstrates that “it has actually considered and rejected the efficacy of less restrictive measures

17 before adopting the challenged practice. Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 999. In Holt, 135 S.Ct. at 866, the

18 Supreme Court, finding that a policy violated RLUIPA, stated, “when so many prisons offer an

19 accommodation, a prison must, at a minimum, offer persuasive reasons why it believes it must take a

20 different course, and the Department has failed to make that showing here.” See also Warsoldier, 418

21 F.3d at 1000 (“[W]e have found comparisons between institutions analytically useful when considering

22 whether the government is employing the least restrictive means.”) The Department of Corrections

23 offers no explanation why these prison systems are able to meet their interests without infringing on

24 their inmates’ right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

25

E. Even the Court Identifies a Compelling Interest, Defendants Unthinking

26

Obedience to their Past Ramadan Practices Shows that Less Restrictive

27

Means were Available to Them

28

With extra food on hand every day of Ramadan, and more just a phone call and a few days

- 15 -

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 19 of 24

1 away if needed, depriving Plaintiffs of food at a time they could eat was not the least restrictive means

2 of pursuing the Department’s interest however Defendants characterize it. “The least-restrictive-means

3 standard is exceptionally demanding.” Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853, 864 (2015). It “requires the

4 government to show that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a

5 substantial burden.” Id. “If a less restrictive means is available for the Government to achieve its goals,

6 the Government must use it.” Id.

7

The same alternatives that show a lack of compelling interest also show the lack of least

8 restrictive means. The Department cannot meet its burden to prove least restrictive means unless it

9 demonstrates that “it has actually considered and rejected the efficacy of less restrictive measures

10 before adopting the challenged practice. Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 999. In Holt, 135 S.Ct. at 866, the

11 Supreme Court, finding that a policy violated RLUIPA, stated, “when so many prisons offer an

12 accommodation, a prison must, at a minimum, offer persuasive reasons why it believes it must take a

13 different course, and the Department has failed to make that showing here.” See also Warsoldier, 418

14 F.3d at 1000 (“[W]e have found comparisons between institutions analytically useful when considering

15 whether the government is employing the least restrictive means.”) The Department offers no

16 explanation why these prison systems are able to meet their interests without infringing on their

17 inmates’ right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

18 II. Defendants’ Policies Starve Fasting Muslim Inmates in Violation of the Eight

19

Amendment

20

The same policies that require Muslims such as Plaintiffs to either starve or abandon their

21 religious beliefs also violate the Eighth Amendment.

22

The United States Supreme Court has held that “‘the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain

23 ... constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.’” Hudson v.

24 McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986)). “What is necessary to

25 show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause depends upon the

26 claim at issue.” Id. The inquiry is “contextual and responsive to ‘contemporary standards of decency.’”

27 Id. (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976)). See also, Estelle, supra, 429 U.S., at 102 (proscribing

28 torture and barbarous punishment was “the primary concern of the drafters” of the Eighth
- 16 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 20 of 24

1 Amendment); Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130, 136 (1879) (“[I]t is safe to affirm that punishments of

2 torture ... and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by [the Eighth

3 Amendment]”). When the cumulative impact of the conditions of incarceration threatens the physical,

4 mental, and emotional health and well-being of the inmates and/or creates a probability of recidivism

5 and future incarceration, the court must conclude that the conditions violate the Constitution.” Rhodes

6 v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 364 (1981).

7

Under the Eighth Amendment, “[p]rison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are

8 provided adequate shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Johnson v. Lewis,

9 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000). See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); Keenan v. Hall, 83

10 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 1996); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). “While prison

11 food need not be ‘tasty or aesthetically pleasing,’ it must be ‘adequate to maintain health.” Keenan v.

12 Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996), quoting LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993).

13

An Eighth Amendment violation will be found when (1) the alleged deprivation must be

14 objectively sufficiently serious, and (2) the prison official acted with deliberate indifference to inmate’s

15 serious needs. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981).

16 Those violations that deny basic necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis for an Eighth

17 Amendment claim. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991). Deliberate indifference is found when the

18 government is “aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious

19 harm exists,” and, as a result, draws such an inference. Id. at 837. But even a prison official who was

20 unaware of the risk of substantial risk of harm violates the Eighth Amendment if the risk was obvious

21 so that a reasonable person should have inferred a substantial risk of serious harm. Id.

22

The deliberate indifference of Defendants is pronounced. All four plaintiffs put in writing

23 repeatedly that they were going without food. Mohamed Mohamed explained his predicament: “I can’t

24 go to the regular mainline because I can’t bring the food back and…I can’t eat after sundown.” Ex. 7.

25 Demario Roberts stated in plain English to Defendants that he “was not getting fed through DOC.”

26 Ex. 8. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs were not getting food between sunset and dawn, the only time

27 during which they could eat as Muslims observing Ramadan’s fast. Indeed, rather than provide

28 Plaintiffs with food, a guard noticing Naim Lao’s ragged appearance threatened to force feed him if he
- 17 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 21 of 24

1 continues to fast in accordance with his faith. Lao Dep., Ex. 9 at 4.

2

Depriving adequate nutrition and caloric intake to inmates constitutes an actionable Eighth

3 Amendment violation. The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on officials to provide “humane

4 conditions of confinement,” including ensuring, among other things, that prisoners receive adequate

5 clothing, food and medical care. Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 832).

6 A deprivation that denies prisoners the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” can form the

7 basis of an Eight Amendment Claim. Id. (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)); see also

8 Keenan, 83 F.3d at 1089. Further, “the more basic the need, the shorter the time it can be withheld.”

9 Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1259; see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314, as amended, 75 F.3d 448

10 (9th Cir. 1995).

11

That requires providing [food]…Other courts have also held that inadequate food is actionable

12 under the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Cunningham v. Jones, 567 F.2d 653, 656 (6th Cir. 1977); Berry v.

13 Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999); Thompson v. Gibson, 289 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir. 2002) (“A

14 substantial deprivation of food may be sufficiently serious to state a conditions of confinement claim

15 under the Eighth Amendment.”); Landman v. Royster, 333 F. Supp. 621 (E.D. Va. 1971).

16 III. Defendants Violate the Equal Protection Clause and Free Exercise Clause

17

Defendants violate the Equal Protection Clause if Plaintiffs can show a difference in treatment

18 between Muslims and other protected groups, unless the difference “is reasonably related to legitimate

19 penological interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987); see Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891

20 (9th Cir. 2008). Under the four part Turner test, reasonableness looks to (1) the logicalness of the

21 connection between the regulation and the goal, (2) the alternate means of exercising the right in

22 question that currently exist, (3) the impact of accommodation on others, and (4) the absence of ready

23 alternatives. Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-91.

24

Here, Ramadan and Passover are treated differently. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and

25 other Muslims were scrutinized heavily before being permitted to obtain Ramadan meals. But for

26 Passover, a different story emerges. “A few years ago, the Department experienced 1,800 individuals

27 who signed up for Passover.” Simpson Dep., Ex. 29, 59:14-15. But instead of scrutinizing and rejecting

28 those individuals because they did not sign up ahead of time or pass any religious tests, the Department
- 18 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 22 of 24

1 of Corrections simply provided the 1,800 all-of-a-sudden Jewish inmates Passover meals. Simpson

2 Dep., Ex. 29, 59:14-15; 60:13-62:14. This created “a third of a million dollars divot” into the

3 Department of Corrections’ budget. Simpson Dep., Ex. 29, 59:15-16. And yet, despite that, the meals

4 were provided, no questions asked. Simpson Dep., Ex. 29, 59:15-16; 60:13-62:14.

5

This unequal treatment violates the Equal Protection Clause. Discrimination and differential

6 treatment on the basis of religion also violates the Free Exercise Clause. See, e.g., Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas

7 Joel Vill. Sch. Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 715 (1994) (O’Connor, J., concurring); see also Awad v. Ziriax,

8 670 F.3d 1111, 1128 (10th Cir. 2012). Such discrimination cannot be justified under any of the Turner

9 factors. In fact, the Department’s Passover meals are more expensive than the Halal meals. Simpson

10 Dep., Ex. 42:25-43:20; see also Bilal, 2006 WL 3626808, at *7.

11 IV. Defendants Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity

12

Plaintiffs seek damages against individual-capacity Defendants for violations of Plaintiffs

13 constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action against persons acting under the color

14 of state law who have violated rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d

15 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, though the Defendants are likely to assert qualified immunity as a

16 defense against these damages claims, the clarity of the constitutional violation precludes its application

17 to this case.

18

There can be no qualified immunity when a constitutional right at issue was “clearly

19 established” at the time of the alleged violation. Dela Cruz v. Kauai County, 279 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th

20 Cir. 2002). And there are few rights more clearly established than the right of an inmate to adequate

21 nutrition. “There is no question that an inmate’s Eighth Amendment right to adequate food is clearly

22 established.” Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 815 (9th Cir. 2009). Defendants have always known that,

23 as the government officials who exercise control over Plaintiffs during their incarceration, it is their

24 constitutional obligation to provide them “with food sufficient to sustain them in good health that

25 satisfies the dietary laws of their religion.” McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 198 (9th Cir. 1987).

26 Defendant Stewart, an architect of the Department’s Ramadan practices, acknowledged as much when

27 she conceded in deposition that, of course, “it would be not right to not provide people food to be

28 able to sustain themselves.” Stewart Dep, 153:11-12. Though the Supreme Court does "not require a
- 19 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 23 of 24

1 case directly on point" to satisfy the “clearly established” threshold that must be met to defeat qualified

2 immunity, the Ninth Circuit in McElyea and other cases has spoken plainly on the nonnegotiable

3 requirement that inmates be fed and otherwise not coerced into abandoning their religious

4 beliefs. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2083, 563 U.S. 731, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (2011)

5

More than twenty years ago, the Ninth Circuit directed a prison to provide a kosher2 diet to a

6 Jewish inmate “sufficient to sustain [him] in good health without violating the laws of kashruthf.”

7 Ashelman v. Wawrzaszek, 111 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 1997). The case embraced McElyea’s holding

8 explicitly, emphasizing that providing food in accordance with the “dietary laws of their religion” is

9 what the Ninth Circuit requires. Id. Indeed, in Ashelman, the Ninth Circuit approvingly noted that the

10 Arizona prison at the center of the dispute already “accommodates the dietary requirements of other

11 religious groups, including Muslims, Sikhs, and Seventh-Day Adventists.” Id, at 678. Simply put,

12 Defendants have had decades of notice from the Ninth Circuit that the Constitution requires that they

13 must accommodate the religious dietary needs of their inmates.

14

The Ninth Circuit has also looked to other circuit courts to support its holding that a prisoner’s

15 right to a religious diet is clearly established law. See Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., 535 F.3d

16 1058, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008), citing Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 198-99 (4th Cir. 2006) (“Under both

17 the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA in its most elemental form, a prisoner has a ‘clearly established

18 … right to a diet consistent with his … religious scruples,’ including proper food during Ramadan.”)

19 (quoting Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582, 597 (2d Cir. 2003)).

20

Department prison authorities are familiar with Islam and have provided Ramadan meal

21 services for a number of years. Moreover, the presence of Muslim inmates is sufficient to alert the

22 authorities to their constitutional and statutory duty to accommodate the religious exercise of those

23 inmates. The law is clearly established that unthinkingly depriving inmates of food consistent with their

24 religious beliefs is illegal. A reasonable official would realize that the actions taken by Defendants’—

25

26

27

2 While a kosher diet implicates what food is served, an Islamic diet also regards when food is

28

served. During Ramadan, for example, an Islamic diet would provide Muslim inmates with food between sunset and dawn so that they can eat and observe their daily daytime fast.

- 20 -

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:18-cv-00837-RSM Document 79-1 Filed 07/09/19 Page 24 of 24

1

forcing Plaintiffs to choose between their sincerely-held religious beliefs and food—would thus violate

2

clearly established law.

3

Moreover, the law is clearly established that withholding food from inmates is a violation of

4

the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Eighth Amendment. “There is no question that an inmate’s Eighth

5

Amendment right to adequate food is clearly established.” Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 815 (9th Cir.

6

2009); see also supra Part II. It is also not a defense that the Ramadan policy is a written regulation.

7

Defendants cannot “seek shelter in the reasonableness of [their] actions on the basis of [a memo or

8

regulation].” Id. at 816; see Cooper v. Sheriff, 929 F.2d 1078, 1083 (5th Cir. 1991).

9

CONCLUSION

10

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to liability and a permanent injunction should be

11

granted.

12

Respectfully submitted,

13

Dated: July 10, 2019
14

CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

By /s/ Lena F. Masri

15

Lena F. Masri (DC Bar # 1000019)

(pro hac vice)

16

Gadeir I. Abbas (VA Bar # 81161)*

(pro hac vice)

17

Carolyn M. Homer (DC Bar # 1049145)

(pro hac vice)

18

453 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20003

19

Phone: (202) 742-6420

20

* Licensed in Virginia, not D.C.

Practice limited to federal matters.

21

22

GAIRSON LAW, LLC

Jay Gairson (Washington Bar # 43365)

23

4606 Martin Luther King Jr Way S

Seattle, WA 98108

24

Phone (206) 357-4218

25

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26

27

28
- 21 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM ISO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 
 Roberts v. Sinclair, 832 Fed.Appx. 511 (2020)

832 Fed.Appx. 511 (Mem) This case was not selected for publication in West’s
Federal Reporter. See Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing citation of judicial decisions issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir.
Rule 36-3. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Demario ROBERTS, Inmate #398950; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
Stephen SINCLAIR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Washington Department of Corrections; et al., Defendants-Appellees,
and Julie Martin; et al., Defendants.
No. 19-35846 |
Argued and Submitted December 10, 2020 Seattle, Washington |
FILED December 29, 2020
Attorneys and Law Firms
Jay Gairson, Attorney, Gairson Law, LLC, Seattle, WA, Lena F. Masri, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Washington, DC, Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas, Attorney, CAIR Legal Defense Fund, District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Justin Sadowsky, Trial Attorney, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Timothy J. Feulner, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Timothy Norman Lang, Senior Counsel, AGWA - Office of the Washington Attorney General, Corrections Division, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00837-RSM
Before: McKEOWN, HUNSAKER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
1

*512 MEMORANDUM*
Demario Roberts, Mohamed Mohamed, Jeremy Livingston, Naim Lao, and John James are current and former prisoners within the Washington Department of Corrections (“WDOC”). They appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment and the grant of summary judgment to WDOC officials in connection with the provision of Ramadan-compliant meals and, in the case of one prisoner, a gluten-free Ramadan diet based on medical needs. The parties are familiar with the facts, so we discuss them below only as relevant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), “requires that a prisoner challenging prison conditions exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit.” Id. at 1165. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., “incorporates the administrative exhaustion requirements of the [PLRA].” Fuqua v. Ryan, 890 F.3d 838, 844 (9th Cir. 2018). But the PLRA has a “built-in exception to the exhaustion requirement: A prisoner need not exhaust remedies if they are not ‘available.’ ” Ross v. Blake, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1855, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016). An administrative remedy is not available if “it operates as a simple dead end—with officers unable or consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates”; if the administrative scheme is so opaque “that no ordinary prisoner can make sense of what it demands”; or if “prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Id. at 1859–60.
None of the prisoners fully exhausted the available administrative remedies. While James may have pursued the grievance process on an earlier claim, he did not exhaust the administrative process for his 2018 Ramadan grievance until after the amended complaint adding him to the case was filed, which means that his claims may not proceed. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1219–20 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that a prisoner must exhaust prior to bringing suit or, in some situations, before the filing of an amended complaint). Because Mohamed, Roberts,

Roberts v. Sinclair, 832 Fed.Appx. 511 (2020)

Livingston, and Lao could have appealed their grievances

Livingston, and Lao, but they did not exhaust their

through the routine grievance process, they did not face a

grievances. See id. at 1859–60. Consequently, none of the

situation where they were unable to “pursue the necessary

prisoners’ claims may proceed, and the WDOC officials

sequence of appeals.” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813,

were entitled to *513 summary judgment.1

823 (9th Cir. 2010). We are not in accord with the district

court’s conclusion that the appeals process may not have

AFFIRMED.

been “made sufficiently clear to” Livingston and Lao.

“[P]rocedures need not be sufficiently ‘plain’ as to

preclude any reasonable mistake or debate with respect to

All Citations

their meaning.” Ross, 136 S. Ct. at 1859. Livingston and Lao do not advance this theory on appeal, and, as noted,

832 Fed.Appx. 511 (Mem)

they could have exhausted their claims by pursuing the

routine appeals process. Administrative procedures

therefore remained “available” to Mohamed, Roberts,

Footnotes

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

Because the case is resolved on exhaustion grounds, Defendants-Appellees’ motion to supplement the record on

appeal, Dkt. No. 23, is denied.

2