Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00633/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00633-2/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 - 11cv0633

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILBERT SALDANA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv0633-LAB (WMc)

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND

REJECTING IN PART REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

(DOCKET NUMBER 30);

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS (DOCKET NUMBER 17);

AND

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ENTRY OF DEFAULT

vs.

T. BOREM, et al.,

Defendants.

On March 28, 2011, Plaintiff Gilbert Saldaña, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis, filed his complaint bringing a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically,

Saldaña alleges Defendants violated his free exercise rights under the First amendment and

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), his First Amendment

right to freedom of expression, his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment,

and his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Defendants Builteman, Madden, Ochoa, and Hurtado then moved to dismiss all

claims against all Defendants. After receiving briefing Judge McCurine issued his report and

recommendation (the “R&R”), in which he recommended dismissing some but not all claims,

Saldaña filed objections, to which Defendants filed a reply.

Case 3:11-cv-00633-LAB-WMC Document 37 Filed 02/29/12 Page 1 of 9
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

 Because the drawing is attached to the complaint, it may be considered when ruling 1

on a motion to dismiss, without converting the motion into a motion for summary judgment.

See Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 990 (9 Cir. 2009). A copy of that th

exhibit is attached as an appendix to this order.

- 2 - 11cv0633

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

objected to." Id. "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The

Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which specific written objection is made.

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). "The statute

makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." Id. When no objections

are filed, the Court need not review the report and recommendation de novo. Wang v.

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).

The parties did not object to the factual discussion set forth in the R&R, which the

Court therefore ADOPTS. The facts and legal standards are set forth in the R&R, and the

Court will not recite them in full here.

The dispute concerns a large, partially completed drawingSaldaña had in his cell. The

drawing, attached as an exhibit to the complaint, depicts a scene involving three people in 1

Aztec-style costume. One woman lies decapitated with a pool of blood near her neck. The

second woman is bare-chested and wears a headdress, sandals, ornaments, and a small

loincloth, and is shown kneeling, with one bare breast visible. A powerfully-built man, also

clad in a loincloth, sandals and headdress, stands behind her, grasping her hair from behind,

and holding a club or sword at waist level. Saldaña maintains this is a religious drawing

which he is permitted to possess, under both the California Code of Regulations and

RLUIPA. The complaint contains a detailed attempt to explain the myth this drawing depicts,

which involves the killing of an earth goddess, and the decapitation of the moon goddess in

revenge, by the sun god. (Compl., 10–12.) Saldaña has attached his other drawings, which

Case 3:11-cv-00633-LAB-WMC Document 37 Filed 02/29/12 Page 2 of 9
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 - 11cv0633

were not confiscated. Several depict scantily-clothed figures of people or symbols of violence

or death (such as skulls or weapons), but only the confiscated drawing depicts actual nudity,

violence, or threatened violence.

Two prison officers found this drawing in Saldaña’s cell. During the same search they

also found several examples of what Saldaña admits was contraband pornography. The

officers confiscated the contraband pornography and the drawing. The explanation given at

the time was that it depicted female frontal nudity, which in fact it does. Saldaña’s argument,

however, is that it has religious value is therefore not contraband under theFebruary 24,

2012 California Code of Regulations. The officers did not confiscate other religious drawings.

Saldaña attempted to get his drawing back through the prison grievance process, but

was unsuccessful. He argues the officers who searched his cell violated his rights by

depriving him of his religious drawing, and also framed him by collating all the materials

together instead of keeping them separate and considering the drawing separately from the

admitted pornography, but in light of the other religious materials. He argues that because

the pornography was kept separately from the drawing, and used only for “entertainment”

purposes (Compl., 2), its presence in his cell sheds no light on the nature of the drawing.

He also argues the officials who denied his grievance and appeals violated his rights

by not allowing him to possess his religious drawing, by considering the confiscated

materials together instead of separately as he thinks they should have, and by treating him

differently than other prisoners. Other prisoners, he now points out, were permitted to look

at a documentary about babies which showed naked infants and bare-chested women, and

copies of National Geographic which showed several naked or partially-naked people in

tribal environments, injured people, and other images he thinks are analogous. His theory

is that these officials should have corrected the alleged violation, and that their failure to do

so was itself a violation.

The R&R recommends dismissing all claims against Defendants Madden, Builteman,

and Ochoa—but not Wilkins or Foston—based on their handling of his grievance or appeals.

It recommends denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss Saldaña’s equal protection claim

Case 3:11-cv-00633-LAB-WMC Document 37 Filed 02/29/12 Page 3 of 9
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 - 11cv0633

against Defendant Borem. And it recommends granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss

Saldaña’s due process claim. 

Modifications to the R&R

The Court generally agrees with the R&R, but finds it has occasionally applied

incorrect standards, or incorrectly considered some of the facts to reach the conclusion that

some claims could survive.

Although the R&R recommended dismissal of claims against most Defendants, it

recommended not dismissing those same claims against Defendants Foston and Wilkins,

simply because they have not yet answered and are the subject of a motion for entry of

default. But the Court is not free to do this. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), the

Court is required to dismiss, sua sponte, the complaint of any prisoner or anyone else

proceeding in forma pauperis to the extent the complaint fails to state a claim. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). In other words, as soon as it becomes th

clear the complaint fails to state a claim against any Defendant, the Court must dismiss

those claims regardless of whether the Defendants have answered or appeared. The Court

therefore REJECTS the R&R’s recommendation that the motion to dismiss be denied as to

Defendants Wilkins and Foston. Rather, all claims will be dismissed as to these Defendants

to the same extent as to other Defendants.

The only claim the R&R found Saldaña had adequately pleaded was his equal

protection claim against Defendants Borem and Hurtado. The R&R correctly identifies the

elements of an equal protection claim, but its recitation of the facts do not support such a

finding. The R&R found that Saldaña had alleged facts showing he was treated differently

than others because they were allowed to view movies depicting bare-chested women and

receive copies of National Geographic magazine that occasionally depicted naked or injured

people. The R&R also found Saldaña had successfully alleged discriminatory purpose,

because Borem intermingled the pornography and the drawing, without considering its

religious significance.

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00633-LAB-WMC Document 37 Filed 02/29/12 Page 4 of 9
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 - 11cv0633

Defendant Borem and Hurtado were present during the search of Saldaña’s cell. After

Hurtado found contraband pornography and Saldaña admitted it was contraband

pornography, he tried to persuade Borem on the spot that the drawing was not contraband,

but was primarily for religious purposes. But confiscating the drawing along with the admitted

pornography doesn’t reasonably show or imply Borem had a discriminatory purpose; to the

contrary, it suggests they were looking for contraband. The fact that other religious items

were not left in the cell and not confiscated underscores this.

The fact that the drawing was kept apart from the admitted contraband has no

obvious significance. A prisoner who wished to disguise contraband would, it stands to

reason, take steps to make it look like something else, and prison officers are entitled to

consider the possibility. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725 n.13 (2005) (taking note

of argument that prisoners often use religious activity to cloak illicit and violent conduct, and

explaining that prison officials may appropriately question a prisoner’s motives even when

he asserts they are religious). Saldaña has pleaded no facts suggesting Hurtado or Borem

knew this drawing was not contraband, simply because it was stored with other religious

drawings. More importantly, none of Saldaña’s allegations suggest Borem intended to

discriminate against Saldaña because he was a member of the Nahuatl/Aztec religion. The

allegations make clear the confiscated drawing was only one of six religious drawings

Saldaña had in his cell, and the other five were not confiscated or questioned. (Compl., 1

and n.1.)

Borem also served as the first-level reviewing officer who rejected Saldaña’s first

appeal. He alleges that Borem “now claimed the print portrayed conduct which appeared

to be forceful, threatening or violent, and depict[ed], displayed, or described bestiality [or]

sadomasochism.” This allegation doesn’t show any discriminatory purpose, because it is

consistent with what Borem said when he searched the cell, and because it is demonstrably

true that the drawing depicts threatening and violent behavior as well as frontal female

nudity. This brings it within the definition of contraband as set forth in 15 Cal. Code Reg.

§§ 3006(15)(C)(2) & (5), 3006(17)(A).

Case 3:11-cv-00633-LAB-WMC Document 37 Filed 02/29/12 Page 5 of 9
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 - 11cv0633

Besides failing to allege discriminatory intent, Saldaña has failed to alleged he was

treated differently than similarly-situated prisoners. The relevant section of the California

Code of Regulations excludes from the definition of contraband material of serious artistic,

scientific or religious value when purchased or approved by authorized prison personnel. 15

Cal. Code Reg. § 3006(17)(B)(1), (2). For obvious reasons, it does not authorize inmates to

possess unapproved material in secret and come forward with an explanation only later,

when caught. Nor does it forbid prison officers to confiscate such materials pending a

hearing. The other inmates Saldaña identified all watched a documentary about infants,

looked at classical art, or read National Geographic, all of which apparently was provided or

approved by the appropriate personnel and is permitted by the regulation. They were

therefore not similarly-situated.

The constitutionality of these regulations has been upheld as reasonably related to

legitimate penological interests. See Nelson v. Woodford, 249 Fed.Appx. 529, 530 (9 Cir.

th

2007) (citing Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1058–63 (9 Cir. 1999) (en banc)) (summarily th

concluding that 15 Cal. Code Reg. § 3006(c)(15) and (17), forbidding the possession of

obscene or sexually explicit material, was constitutional).

Although the R&R did not separately address the RLUIPA claims, the Court notes that

Saldaña has not pleaded such a claim. To state a claim under RLUIPA, Saldaña must allege

facts showing that Defendants imposed a substantial burden on his religious exercise. See

Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 921 (9 Cir. 2011). Saldaña th

has not pleaded facts showing that possessing the original of this drawing in his cell is part

of his religious exercise, or that depriving him of the original of this one drawing substantially

burdened his religious exercise. Saldaña’s allegations facts show that he was permitted to

possess and view five other images, but that only this particular one was considered

contraband.

Saldaña’s Objections

Saldaña first objects that officials who rejected his grievance and appeals are

vicariously liable for violations of his rights, both because they failed in their duty to monitor

Case 3:11-cv-00633-LAB-WMC Document 37 Filed 02/29/12 Page 6 of 9
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 - 11cv0633

subordinates, and because they failed to order the drawing to be returned to him once they

learned about it during the appeals process. If a simple failure to know what subordinates

were doing, and to prevent it, would suffice, respondeat superior would be enough to

establish liability under § 1983. However, it is not. See Palmer v. Sanderson, 9 F.3d 1433,

1437–38 (9th Cir. 1993). 

The second part of Saldaña’s argument is worthy of more serious consideration. If the

officials who heard his appeals knew of an ongoing violation, and if they had the authority

to put a stop to it but did not, they can be liable. See, e.g., Herrera v. Hall, 2010 WL

2791586, slip op. at *4–*5 (E.D.Cal., July 14, 2010). But, as explained above, Saldaña’s

pleadings don’t show or suggest they knew this. The fact that he provided a lengthy

explanation of the story the drawing depicted does not change the fact that it depicts

violence and nudity, and was not previously approved. Defendants are not required to

develop expertise in Saldaña’s religious practice or beliefs. See Mayweathers v. Newland,

314 F.3d 1062, 1069 (9 Cir. 2002) (holding that RLUIPA does not promote excessive th

entanglement with religion, in part because it does not require prison officials to develop

expertise in religious worship). Nor were they required to accept his arguments and

expressions of sincerity. See Cutter, 544 U.S. at 725 n.13 (prison officials are permitted to

question prisoner’s asserted religious motivation). Although Saldaña repeatedly charges the

officials with “refusal to consider” his arguments or explanations, in fact the allegations show

they considered Saldaña’s arguments and explanations but were unpersuaded. The exhibits

attached to the complaint make clear he was permitted to, and did, submit voluminous

evidence to the officials. 

Saldaña also argues Defendant Hurtado formally abandoned his challenge to

Saldaña’s equal protection claim, in Hurtado’s reply to Saldaña’s opposition to the motion

to dismiss. The Court has reviewed the reply brief, and disagrees. Apparently Saldaña

believes that because the reply brief did not address the equal protection claim, the

argument has been abandoned. This is erroneous. Defendants weren’t required to file a

reply brief at all. Under this District’s Civil Local Rules, which Saldaña cites as the source of

Case 3:11-cv-00633-LAB-WMC Document 37 Filed 02/29/12 Page 7 of 9
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

- 8 - 11cv0633

this supposed requirement, a reply brief is optional. See Civ. Loc. Rule 7.1(e)(e) (setting

deadline for filing “any reply memorandum” the movant may choose to file). The fact that

they filed a reply that didn’t address all Saldaña’s arguments does not mean they have

conceded the arguments they didn’t address are correct. Furthermore, as discussed above,

the Court would still be required to dismiss the complaint sua sponte, to the extent it fails to

state a claim.

Saldaña also objects that he has shown that Hurtado denied him equal protection

because Hurtado is part of a group of officials bent on treating practitioners of the

Nahuatl/Aztec religion worse than other prisoners. In fact, the complaint merely alleges other

prison officials throughout the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

confiscate various kinds of materials similar to his drawing.

Finally, Saldaña objects to the R&R’s finding that because he had an adequate

postdeprivation remedy, confiscation of his drawing violated due process. See Barnett v.

Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9 Cir. 1994). He argues this applies only to unauthorized th

confiscations, and that authorized confiscations—which he says this was—require a

meaningful hearing immediately. Even assuming an immediate hearing was required,

however, the allegations make clear Saldaña got it. During the search of his cell, he admits,

he was given an opportunity to explain to Sgt. Borem why he should be allowed to keep his

drawing. Sgt. Borem did not accept his explanation and confiscated it. This was then

followed by informal and formal appeals. The fact that the hearing and appeals were not

resolved as Saldaña wished does not mean his due process rights were violated.

Conclusion and Order

The R&R is modified to include the Court’s reasoning above. So modified, Saldaña’s

objections to it are OVERRULED and it is ADOPTED. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

All claims are DISMISSED. The due process claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Because it is not clear Saldaña cannot successfully amend his complaint, his remaining

claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00633-LAB-WMC Document 37 Filed 02/29/12 Page 8 of 9
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

- 9 - 11cv0633

Before the R&R was issued, Saldaña discussed filing an amended complaint. (Docket

no. 29.) If Saldaña wishes to file his amended complaint, he may do so no later than 28

calendar days from the date this order is issued. His amended complaint must not

include any new claims, or claims dismissed with prejudice, and must correct the defects

identified in this order and in the R&R.

Because all claims against Defendants Foston and Wilkins have been dismissed, the

motion for entry of default against them is DENIED AS MOOT. The Court notes, however,

that Defendants have correctly pointed out that neither of these Defendants was adequately

served with process, because the service papers were sent by certified mail to the wrong

address and the return receipt is unsigned. If Saldaña is able to amend his complaint, the

Court will then screen it and, if appropriate, direct the U.S. Marshals to re-attempt service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 24, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00633-LAB-WMC Document 37 Filed 02/29/12 Page 9 of 9