Barnes v. Carani

• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
• Writing for the Court: BRIAN K. EPPS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
• Decision Date: 02 February 2018
• Docket Number: CV 116-015
• Citation: Barnes v. Carani, CV 116-015 (S.D. Ga. Feb 02, 2018)
• Parties: TREVOR BARNES, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN BRETT CARANI, et al., Defendants.

TREVOR BARNES, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN BRETT CARANI, et al., Defendants.

CV 116-015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION

February 2, 2018

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pro se Plaintiff, a former inmate at Columbia County Detention Center ("CCDC"), commenced this case alleging Defendants violated his religious rights by refusing to provide him with his requested diet. (Doc. no. 1.) Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. no. 30.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS the motion for summary judgment be GRANTED (id.), this case be DISMISSED, and this civil action be CLOSED.

I. FACTS

Plaintiff's opposition memorandum details the tenets of the Nazarite Judaic religion cites exclusively to documentary evidence produced by Defendants when attempting to shoe a constitutional violation. (Doc. no. 36.) Plaintiff did not submit his own evidence in support as instructed, nor does he contest Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. (See generally id.) He merely contests the constitutionality of the actions detailed by Defendants and their assertion his religious beliefs are insincere. (Id.) Therefore, all of Defendants' fact statements not opposed by Plaintiff and supported by the evidentiary record are deemed admitted. See Loc. R. 56.1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see also Williams v. Slack, 438 F. App'x 848, 849-50 (11th Cir. 2011) (finding no error in deeming defendants' material facts admitted where pro se prisoner failed to respond with specific citations to evidence and otherwise failed to state valid objections); Scoggins v. Arrow Trucking Co., 92 F.Supp.2d 1372, 1373 n.1 (S.D. Ga. 2000) (same).

On March 5, 2014, the Columbia County Sheriff's Office ("CCSO") arrested Plaintiff on charges of aggravated child molestation, rape, aggravated sexual battery and reckless conduct by an HIV infected person. (Doc. no. 32-1, Ex. A, p. 185:23-186:19 (hereinafter "Pl. Depo."); doc. no. 32-3, Ex. C ¶ 6 (hereinafter "Woods Decl."); Id., Ex. C-1.) They transported Plaintiff to CCDC, where he went through an intake process involving multiple questions and property collection. (Pl. Depo, p. 187:5-197:20.) At the completion of the intake process, CCDC generated a booking report listing his religion as Christian and containing no dietary restrictions. (Woods Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. C-1.) Plaintiff concedes he did not notify anyone at CCDC of any dietary restrictions during the intake process because "they didn't ask at all." (Pl. Depo., p. 197:14-197:20.)

On March 8, 2014, Plaintiff submitted two inmate requests. (Woods Decl. Ex. C-2.) The first stated, "I am a vegetarian and would like to receive only vegetarian food trays." (Id.) Plaintiff submitted the second on a grievance form entitled "On the Medical Staff," stating he informed the medical staff he is vegetarian. (Id.) CCDC staff denied his firstrequest on March 14, 2014 on the ground CCDC does not offer vegetarian food trays, and the CCDC medical deputy denied his medical grievance on the ground vegetarian diets are not a medical issue. (Id.)

On March 14, 2014, Plaintiff submitted another inmate request form stating the following:

I put in a request to receive a vegetarian tray because I do not eat any meat. I was given a reply back stating that "The Detention Center does not provide vegetarian trays, all vegetable trays are by choice and not provided." It is not by choice that I'm not allowed to consume any meats. I am a scientologist by religion and our denomination prohibit[s] the consumption of meats we are vegans. So can you give me some input on how I can get them stated [sic]. Thank you for your time.

(Id.) Deputy Willis denied the request because, based on the Scientology website, there are no dietary restrictions for scientologists. (Id.)

On July 26, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a medical inmate request form, complaining his "meals were labeled double portion, but have [sic] yet to reap the actual quantity it is supposed to have." (Id.) He also noted he was not receiving the afternoon snacks he was supposed to receive. (Id.) Deputy Willis responded on July 28, 2014, that she was not aware Plaintiff was supposed to receive double portions or a snack, but she would check with the CCDC doctor and continue Plaintiff's weight checks. (Id.)

On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff submitted another inmate request form, this time directly to Lt. Woods, stating:

Hello sir; the reason for my submitting this request is to hopefully get a matter resolved as soon as possible. Due to my unconditional love and devotion to my Lord and Saviour [sic] Jesus Christ. My faith has led me to separate myself unto the Lord as a Nazarite. Meaning I am no longer allowed toconsume anything made of the vine such as grapes, etc. from the kernels even to the husk. So that includes any and everything that includes corn or corn product and I am not to shave my head either. I'm hoping that you all could at least honor this part of my freedom of religion because I have already been denied my right of religion [sic] practice when this facility wouldn't honor my not consuming any meats (flesh) still today it's not being honored. I decided to write this to you because I've come to grips that Ms. Willis isn't of the cloth and I believe that you do have God in you. Thank you for your time and have a nice day! Keep God 1st.

(Id.) As Plaintiff acknowledges, CCDC officials approved this first request. (Pl. Depo, p. 199:6-12.)

On February 17, 2015, Plaintiff submitted an amended request for a religious diet. In this request, he stated he "didn't realize that grapes aren't the only thing of the vine tree I'm not allowed to eat. It's all things made of the vine tree meaning: cucumbers, green or sweet peas, grapes, tomatoes, ketchup and any byproduct to the tomato tree . . . ." (Woods Decl., Ex. C-2.) Plaintiff claimed the reason for this amended request was "[my] spiritual comforter spoke with me as last night as I slept with this guide to follow. If I am alerted to other things by revelation I will be sure to give you an update . . . ." (Id.; see also Pl. Depo., pp. 183:11-185:22.) After investigating the basis for Plaintiff's request and consulting with Defendant Captain Brett Carani, Lt. Woods denied the amended request on February 18, 2015. (Woods Decl., Ex. C-2; Doc. no. 32-4, Ex. D (hereinafter "Carani Decl.") ¶ 5.) Lt. Woods explained the biblical dictates of the Nazarite vow concerns consuming anything from the "grapevine," not all vines. (Woods Decl., Ex. C-2.) In response, on February 18, 2015, Plaintiff submitted another inmate request form asserting his right to eat nothing made of the "vine tree." (Id.)

On March 13, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a grievance disagreeing with Lt. Woods' response to his amended Nazarite request, which was forwarded to jail administration. (Id.; Carani Decl. ¶ 5.) On March 14, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a similar grievance, adding his religious accommodation as a Nazarite included not being able to consume meat. (Woods Decl., Ex. C-2.) On March 22, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a grievance addressed "To the Commander of the Columbia County Detention Center: Captain Carani" wherein he claimed the following:

Due to my religious practice; I consume not any meat or meat products. Because I view meats to be a stumbleth [sic] block for my brethren. It is good neither to eat flesh, (meaning meat) nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth [sic] or is offended or made weak. You can find that in the book of Romans 14:21. I've submitted countless amounts of inmate request forms and grievances alike regarding this since March 8, 2014 and to my disbelief none of my appeals to get my diet adjusted accordingly have been honored . . . .

(Id.) Defendant Carani denied Plaintiff's request and informed him he had exhausted his administrative remedies. (Id.) Plaintiff left the CCDC on April 30, 2015. (Doc. 1, p. 5.)

Defendants testified granting Plaintiff's individualized diet request would cause disruption and possible violence among inmates as well as place a financial burden on the operations of CCDC. (Woods Decl. ¶¶ 10-13; Carani Decl. ¶¶ 9-12; doc. no. 32-2, Ex. B (hereinafter "Whittle Decl.") ¶ 13.) CCDC has received no federal funding since 1995, and received no such funding during Plaintiff's time of incarceration there. (Whittle Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate only if "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "The mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat summary judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the outcome of the case." McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1244 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

If the burden of proof at trial rests with the movant, to prevail at the summary judgment stage, the movant must show that, "on all the essential elements of its case . . . , no reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party." United States v. Four Parcels of Real Prop., 941 F.2d 1428, 1438 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc). On the other hand, if the non-moving party has the burden of proof at trial, the movant may prevail at the summary judgment stage either by negating an essential element of the non-moving party's claim or by pointing to specific portions of the record that demonstrate the non-moving party's inability to meet its burden of proof at trial. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 606-08 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)).

If the moving party carries the initial burden, then the burden shifts to the non-moving party "to demonstrate that there is indeed a material issue of fact that precludes summary judgment." Id. at 608. The non-moving party cannot carry...