Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05932/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05932-12/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 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment by the 1

court in an order filed on March 29, 2005. Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). (Doc. 27.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL PADDOCK,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05932-OWW-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE GRANTED

(Doc. 56)

I. Findings and Recommendations Addressing Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Michael Paddock (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”)). This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s

complaint, filed July 6, 2004, against defendants Mendoza-Powers and Woodford (“defendants”)

on plaintiff’s claim that they violated his rights under RLUIPA by substantially burdening his

religious exercise. Following the court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff’s claim

for injunctive relief is the only remaining claim. (Doc. 47.) Defendants filed a motion for summary

judgment on November 6, 2006. (Doc. 56.) Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition on

February 23, 2007, and defendants filed a reply on February 26, 2007. (Docs. 59, 60.) 1

///

Case 1:04-cv-05932-OWW -SMS Document 61 Filed 04/05/07 Page 1 of 5
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

B. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine issue

as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party 

[A]lways bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court

of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on

file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the

burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made

in reliance solelyon the ‘pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.’”

Id. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon

motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an

element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.

Id. at 322. “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s

case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. In such a circumstance, summary judgment

should be granted, “so long as whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard

for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is satisfied.” Id. at 323.

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing

party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec.

Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to establish the existence

of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the denials of its pleadings, but is

required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery

material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists. Rule 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586

n.11. The opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that

might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 248 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630

(9th Cir. 1987), and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

///

Case 1:04-cv-05932-OWW -SMS Document 61 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 5
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

return a verdict for the nonmoving party, Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436

(9th Cir. 1987).

In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not

establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the claimed factual

dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at

trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the “purpose of summary judgment is to ‘pierce

the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.’”

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory committee’s note on 1963

amendments).

In resolving the summary judgment motion, the Court examines the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any. Rule 56(c).

The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, and all reasonable

inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the Court must be drawn in favor of the

opposing party, Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655

(1962) (per curiam). Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing

party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. Richards

v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff’d, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th

Cir. 1987). 

Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party “must do more than simply show

that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Where the record taken as a whole

could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for

trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted).

C. Undisputed Facts

1. On November 1, 2006, Anthony Pitoniak, Litigation Coordinator, Avenal State Prison,

conducted an examination of plaintiff’s central file and found no disciplinary documents

related to plaintiff wearing his hair long. 

2. Whether such documents had been previously expunged or whether plaintiff had never

received any official censure for violating the earlier grooming standard is unknown. 

Case 1:04-cv-05932-OWW -SMS Document 61 Filed 04/05/07 Page 3 of 5
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

3. As of November 1, 2006, there are no California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) 115 or 128 documents in plaintiff’s central or other files reflecting

any action taken due to him wearing his hair in excess of that permitted by the former

regulation. 

D. Plaintiff’s RLUIPA Claim

Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons

Act of 2000, which provides:

No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a

person residing in or confined to an institution. . . , even if the burden results from

a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition

of the burden on that person–

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling government interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. At issue was CDCR’s grooming regulation, which required inmates to keep

their hair no longer than three inches. Plaintiff alleged he is an American Indian and the regulation

burdened the practice of his religion. Plaintiff sought an order prohibiting defendants from enforcing

the grooming regulation against him, and mandating the removal of any disciplinary reports relating

to grooming regulation violations from his cental file. 

It is undisputed that the grooming regulation was modified to permit inmates to wear their

hair any length as long as it does “not extend over the eyebrows, cover the inmate’s face or pose a

health or safety risk.” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3062(e) (2007). Further, it is undisputed that there

is no documentation in plaintiff’s central file regarding disciplinary action taken for violating the

grooming regulation. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the

remaining claim against them.

E. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion

for summary judgment, filed November 6, 2006, be GRANTED, thus concluding this matter in its

entirety.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

Case 1:04-cv-05932-OWW -SMS Document 61 Filed 04/05/07 Page 4 of 5
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

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05932-OWW -SMS Document 61 Filed 04/05/07 Page 5 of 5