Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00654/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00654-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRE’ID O.I. HODGES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JERALD SHARON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:13-cv-00654-DAD-SAB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART; 

GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN 

PART AND DENYING IT IN PART; AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

STRIKE

(Doc. Nos. 41, 56, 66)

Plaintiff is appearing pro se

1

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 

2000 (“RLUIPA”). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 30, 2015, defendants filed a motion for 

summary judgment. (Doc. No. 41). 

 

1 On August 24, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order appointing counsel on 

behalf of plaintiff for the limited purpose of assisting plaintiff in preparing for and participating in 

a settlement conference in this action which is now scheduled before another magistrate judge on 

November 29, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 60, 64.) The Clerk of the Court is directed to correct the docket 

in this action to reflect that plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action and that appointed counsel 

is appearing on his behalf for this limited purpose only.

Case 1:13-cv-00654-DAD-SAB Document 71 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

On July 28, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

recommending that defendants motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in 

part. (Doc. No. 56.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 

notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days 

(30) days from the date of service. On August 15, 2016, plaintiff filed objections to the findings 

and recommendations. (Doc. No. 59.) On August 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a document styled as 

his “additional objections” to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 61.) On August 26, 

2016, defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 62.)2 On 

September 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a declaration and a motion to strike defendants’ objections to 

the findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 65, 66.)3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds 

the findings and recommendations to be largely supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

However, given developments occurring after the findings and recommendations were served on 

the parties, apparently resulting in substantive changes to what were represented to be the 

undisputed material facts on summary judgment, the undersigned cannot adopt the findings and

recommendations in full. Accordingly, those findings and recommendations are adopted, save 

and except as discussed below. 

I. The Shabbat Worship Claim

In his complaint plaintiff alleged that his ability to celebrate Shabbat was being 

substantially burdened for a variety of reasons. Defendants moved for summary judgment in their 

favor on this claim based upon evidence that accommodations intended to ameliorate these 

 

2

In addition, on July 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a statement concerning Shabbat services and on

August 30, 2016, he filed a notice regarding his removal from the kosher diet program. (Doc. 

Nos. 57, 63.)

3

The findings and recommendations was served on defendants electronically on July 28, 2016, 

and provided notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. Defendants timely filed 

their objections on August 26, 2016. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’

objections (Doc. No. 66) is denied. 

Case 1:13-cv-00654-DAD-SAB Document 71 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

burdens had been in place at the time of the motion for more than a year. (Doc. No. 41-1 at 20.) 

In the findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge noted these accommodations and 

recommended that summary judgment be granted in defendants favor with respect to plaintiff’s 

Shabbat worship claim on that basis. (Doc. No. 56 at 25–26.) The two undisputed facts 

underlying the magistrate judge’s recommendation as to this claim were: (1) the Messianic Jewish 

inmates were scheduled to have religious services in the Facility A main chapel on Saturday (the 

day for celebrating Shabbat) from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and had been so scheduled for more 

than a year; and (2) Chaplain Haroun was present to assist the inmates if needed during the 

Shabbat services. (Id.) Based upon this evidence presented on summary judgment, the 

magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff could not show any policy, practice, or procedure 

instituted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) had 

substantially burdened his access to Shabbat services. (Id.) 

In his objections, plaintiff asserts there is no longer a chaplain working on Saturdays and 

that he is no longer receiving Shabbat services on Saturday mornings. (Doc. No. 59 at 1–2.) 

Further, according to plaintiff, the Messianic Jewish inmates are no longer permitted to have 

religious services in the main chapel during that time, but are required to conduct services 

outside. (Id.) According to plaintiff, this change inhibits the religious practice in two ways: (1)

the Messianic Jewish inmates can no longer use TVs or DVD players in their services because 

they are outside; and (2) plaintiff is forced to place the religious items used during worship on the 

ground, which “is a defilement of our religious items.” (Id.) In his objections, plaintiff has also 

come forward with evidence of this change in practice, specifically an inmate request form in 

which J. Moore, the community resources manager at Corcoran Substance Abuse Treatment 

Facility advises that Chaplain Haroun “does not work weekends” and that services on Saturday 

can be “scheduled in the outdoor religious grounds.” (Doc. No. 59 at 6.) J. Moore’s signature on 

this form is dated August 3, 2016, approximately one week after the findings and 

recommendations recommending that summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants were 

issued. 

/////

Case 1:13-cv-00654-DAD-SAB Document 71 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Thus, it now appears that the two factual circumstances noted by the magistrate judge in 

concluding that summary judgment was appropriate on this claim have substantially changed. 

Since these accommodations were the only basis upon which defendants moved for summary 

judgment on this claim, and those accommodations are no longer being provided, the undersigned 

does not adopt the recommendation that defendants be granted summary judgment in their favor 

as to plaintiff’s Shabbat worship claim.

4

 The undersigned expresses no opinion as to whether the 

current accommodations, whatever they may be, are such that a triable issue of fact on plaintiff’s 

Shabbat worship claim exists or not.

II. The Kosher Diet Claims

Defendants also initially moved for summary judgment in their favor on any claim related 

to the alleged failure to provide plaintiff a kosher diet based on their presentation of evidence that 

plaintiff had, in fact, been receiving kosher meals since February 13, 2014. (Doc. No. 41-1 at 

20.) The magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be 

granted because it was undisputed that plaintiff was now receiving kosher meals, thereby mooting 

the issue. (Doc. No. 56 at 27–29.) It now appears plaintiff was removed from the kosher diet 

program on August 19, 2016, after the findings and recommendations were issued, because he 

was charged with at least one and possibly two prison rule violations for purchasing non-kosher 

items from the canteen. (Doc. Nos. 61, 68.) Because it is now clear that the undisputed material 

facts presented to the assigned magistrate judge are no longer true, the undersigned does not 

adopt the recommendation that defendants be granted summary judgment with respect to 

plaintiff’s kosher diet claim. Again, the undersigned expresses no opinion as to whether, based 

upon the current evidence, plaintiff’s religious practices are being subjected to a substantial 

burden.

/////

 

4

The timing of these apparent changes to the accommodations being extended to plaintiff is 

somewhat troubling. Perhaps the court is not aware of all of the surrounding circumstances. 

However, regardless of the reasons for the changes, the undersigned would have expected 

defendants to advise the court if the undisputed material facts on summary judgment had changed 

at any point during the pendency of this lawsuit and especially while their motion for summary 

judgment was still under submission. 

Case 1:13-cv-00654-DAD-SAB Document 71 Filed 11/03/16 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

III. Defendants’ Objections

Defendants moved for summary judgment on any claim that they be required to hire a 

Messianic Jewish chaplain, asserting there was no legal obligation for CDCR to hire such an 

employee and that the failure to do so did not impose a “substantial burden” on plaintiff. (Doc. 

No. 41-1 at 16–18.) The magistrate judge recommended denying defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment with respect to this claim, noting that plaintiff had presented some evidence 

that due to confusion amongst the prison chaplains about the differences between traditional and 

Messianic Judaism, the prison chaplains were compelling prisoners to use inappropriate religious 

items in their services and to celebrate religious holidays in inappropriate ways. (Doc. No. 56 at 

20.) Defendants believe this recommendations should be rejected for much the same reason as 

initially argued, namely, that they have no obligation to hire a Messianic Jewish chaplain or 

supply inmates with religious items for their personal use. (Doc. No. 62 at 1–5.) The 

undersigned is not persuaded by these arguments, which largely miss the point. 

The magistrate judge found a genuine dispute of material fact because these two failures 

by prison chaplains—requiring prisoners to use inappropriate religious items and celebrate 

holidays in inappropriate ways—could constitute evidence of a substantial burdening of 

plaintiff’s practice of his religion. (Doc. No. 56 at 20.) While defendants might not be required 

to provide plaintiff’s choice of a religious chaplain as a general rule, the evidence presented by 

plaintiff on summary judgment indicates that this failure in this particular circumstance may be 

leading to a Hobson’s choice wherein plaintiff either celebrates holidays in an inappropriate 

manner for his religion or is barred from celebrating them at all. See Greene v. Solano Cty. Jail, 

513 F.3d 982, 987–88 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that the Ninth Circuit had previously found that the 

“false choice” between complying with a regulation or having privileges revoked for the failure to 

do so was no defense to an RLUIPA claim) (discussing Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 

(9th Cir. 2005)).

Further, to the extent defendants seek rejection of the magistrate judge’s finding that there 

is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether plaintiff is being accommodated with two 

annual special religious meals on Passover and Yom Kippur, they do so by disputing plaintiff’s 

Case 1:13-cv-00654-DAD-SAB Document 71 Filed 11/03/16 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

evidence. This is no basis upon which to reject the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Rather,

the argument itself establishes the correctness of the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the 

evidence on summary judgment establishes the existence of disputed issues of material fact 

precluding the granting of summary judgment as to this claim. 

For the reasons set forth above:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to correct the docket to reflect that plaintiff is 

proceeding pro se in this action and that appointed counsel is appearing on his behalf only for the

limited purpose of assisting plaintiff in connection with the upcoming settlement conference;. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ objections as untimely (Doc. No. 66) is denied;

3. The findings and recommendations filed July 28, 2016 (Doc. No. 56) are adopted in 

part; 

4. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 41) is granted in part and denied 

in part as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff‘s third 

party claims is granted;

b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s RLUIPA 

claims for Messianic Jewish religious personal items and approval of plaintiff’s 

designated vendors is granted;

c. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s RLUIPA 

claims for a Messianic Jewish chaplain, two special religious meals per year,

Saturday morning Shabbat services, three kosher meals daily, and Messianic 

Jewish items for corporate worship is denied; and

5. This action is now proceeding against defendants on plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims for a 

Messianic Jewish chaplain, two special religious meals per year, Saturday morning Shabbat 

services, three kosher meals daily, Messianic Jewish items for corporate worship, and a religious 

designation for Messianic Judaism to be officially accepted and endorsed by CDCR, and claims 

/////

/////

Case 1:13-cv-00654-DAD-SAB Document 71 Filed 11/03/16 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

for violation of the First Amendment; and against defendant Jerald Sharon on plaintiff’s 

individual equal protection claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00654-DAD-SAB Document 71 Filed 11/03/16 Page 7 of 7