Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180720_0001055.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:40:35+00:00

Document:
BRIAN COLE, TIMOTHY PHELPS, CAPTAIN RUCKER, and MARY FLETCHER, Defendants.
The plaintiff Caleb Kanatzar, a pretrial detainee at the Shawnee County Department of Corrections (“SCDC”), in Topeka, Kansas, filed last year a 29-page complaint alleging 10 claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF# 1. The court applied the screening standards to this complaint dismissing some of the claims and requiring the plaintiff to file an amended complaint upon court-approved forms. ECF# 6. Upon receipt of the amended complaint, the court again applied the screening standards and dismissed two of the three remaining counts and one of the defendants. ECF# 8. The court also directed the SCDC defendants to prepare a Martinez report on Mr. Kanatzar's remaining count that alleged he “was made aware of” the SCDC not preparing his requested kosher meals according to his religion's tenets for “keeping kosher, ” that is, in a separate kitchen with containers and utensils which have never held non-Kosher food. ECF## 7 and 8. The defendants, Brian Cole, Timothy Phelps, and Mary Fletcher timely filed the Martinez report. ECF# 13. A month later, the defendants filed their motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. ECF## 14 and 15. Mr. Kanatzar has filed no response to the Martinez report. More importantly, the time for filing responses opposing the defendants' motions to dismiss has expired without Mr. Kanatzar filing anything. Following its local rules, the court will consider and decide without further notice the defendants' pending motions to dismiss as uncontested. D. Kan. Rule 7.4(b). As the Tenth Circuit has held, this court may not grant a motion to dismiss simply for the lack of an opposing response, but it must still apply the Rule 12(b)(6) standards against the allegations of the complaint. Issa v. Comp USA, 354 F.3d 1174, 1177-78 (10th Cir. 2003).
“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citations omitted); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992). In addressing a claim brought under § 1983, the analysis begins by identifying the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). The validity of the claim then must be judged by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right. Id.
Count one of Mr. Kanatzar's amended complaint is the only claim remaining in this action. He claims the denial of his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments for the defendants' failure to provide him a kosher diet. He specifically alleges that he requested a kosher diet and was placed on SCDC's certified religious diet (“CRD”) plan one week later. However, he has since been “made aware that” SCDC “does not maintain a separate kosher kitchen, ” that “SCDC uses the same pots, pans and utensils to prepare both CRD and regular trays.” ECF# 7. As far as the actionable conduct taken by the individual defendants, Mr. Kanatzar alleges he submitted separate requests for his meals to be prepared in a manner “keeping kosher” first to Major Timothy Phelps in March and April, then a separate request to “Food Service Supervisor Mary Fletcher, ” and finally a request to Director Brian Cole in May. Id. He alleges his requests were not acknowledged or answered. The plaintiff asserts the defendants violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendment to pursue his sincerely-held religious beliefs.
“Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, inmates are entitled to the reasonable opportunity to pursue their sincerely-held religious beliefs.” Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). “Individual liability under § 1983 must be based on personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation.” Id. at 1069 (quoting Foote v. Spiegel, 118 F.3d 1416, 1423 (10th Cir. 1997)). Liability under § 1983 does not come from a supervisory status alone, for “there must be an affirmative link . . . between the constitutional deprivation and either the supervisor's personal participation, his exercise of control or direction, or his failure to supervise.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “In order to state a claim that defendants violated his right to free exercise of religion, Gallagher [the inmate] must adequately allege that the defendants substantially burdened his sincerely-held religious beliefs.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Taking these allegations as true, defendants' actions were, at most, isolated acts of negligence, not pervasive violations of Gallagher's right to free exercise of religion. We agree with our previous, unpublished decision recognizing that an isolated act of negligence would not violate an inmate's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. See White v. Glantz, 986 F.2d 1431 (Table), 1993 WL 53098, at *2 (10th Cir. Feb. 25, 1993) (unpublished) (“Although the Plaintiff was most certainly annoyed and exasperated, [the] isolated negligent act of the Defendants cannot support a claim that the Plaintiff was denied his First Amendment right to freedom of religion.”); see also Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 201 (4th Cir.2006) (“[Plaintiff] must assert conscious or intentional interference with his free exercise rights to state a valid claim under § 1983.”). Gallagher's allegation that defendants Geither and Penner did not timely approve his requests for religious accommodations does not support a claim that the defendants substantially burdened his religious beliefs, i.e., that they violated his right to free exercise of religion. Therefore, Count I was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim.

References: § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983