Bonga v. Beltz
| Decision Date | 06 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-cv-1200 (WMW/LIB) |
| Parties | Dario Bonga, Wesley Tibbetts, Robert Boettcher, Arthur Vanwert, Plaintiffs, v. Tracy Beltz, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Dario Bonga, Wesley Tibbetts, Robert Boettcher, Arthur Vanwert, Plaintiffs,
v.
Tracy Beltz, Defendant.
No. 20-cv-1200 (WMW/LIB)
United States District Court, D. Minnesota
May 6, 2022
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Hon. Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a general assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636, and upon Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. [Docket No. 25]. After conducting a hearing on the present Motion, the undersigned took Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment under advisement on March 8, 2022. [Docket No. 33].
For the reasons discussed herein, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 25], is GRANTED.
I. Procedural History
On May 18, 2020, thirteen prisoners incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Faribault, Minnesota (“MCF-Faribault”), who participated in Native American religious practices, initiated this case by filing their Complaint in this Court-Kristopher Roybal, Dario Bonga, Wesley Tibbetts, Chavez Wind, Warren Skinaway, Brian Bloom, Robert Boettcher, Arthur Vanwert, Joseph Tipton, Barris Guy, Zach Clark, Chris Clark, and John Vondal, Jr. (“Plaintiffs”). (Compl., [Docket No. 1], at 2). The Complaint sought to also include generically other “Native Americans confined at M.C.F.-Faribault.” (Id. at p. 1). Plaintiffs initially brought individual
lawsuits pro se against Commissioner of Corrections Paul Schnell alleging that decisions and policies of MCF-Faribault staff had interfered with their abilities to practice their religion, thus allegedly violating the United States Constitution, as well as, federal law. (See, e.g., Id. at pp. 15).[1]
Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that MCI-Faribault implemented a system limiting sweat lodge ceremonies to every other Sunday because of the expense in obtaining ceremonial wood. (Complaint, [Docket No. 1], at pp. 3-4). Native American inmates attending the pipe, smudge, and sweat lodge ceremonies were also split based on their living unit. (Id. at p. 4). Plaintiffs alleged that the Chaplain at MCF-Faribault agreed to, once again, allow weekly sweat lodge ceremonies if the inmates supplied the funds to purchase ceremonial wood each week, which the Native American inmates began doing. (Id.). Plaintiffs then alleged that the facility held a feast on or about February 2020, which also included a sweat lodge ceremony. (Id.). The Native American inmates were allowed to attend both ceremonies, but for the first time, they were required to pay five dollars in order attend. (Id.). The feast was purportedly conducted without any disturbances or incidents. (Complaint, [Docket No. 1], at p. 4). However, notwithstanding their financial contribution to purchase weekly ceremonial wood and the lack of disturbances during the earlier feast, Plaintiffs alleged that MCI-Faribault continued to limit Native American inmates to sweat lodge ceremonies every other week, citing security concerns. (Id. at pp. 4-5).
As relief, Plaintiffs sought an Order of this Court requiring Defendant “to conduct a review and allow the Native American population an opportunity to exercise their sweat lodge ceremony as a whole” group, and an Order further requiring Defendant to “follow their [sic] own policy
which requires a complete thorough evaluation of this particular ceremony practice and eventually allow the pipe and smudge ceremony to resume as a whole . . . .” (Id. at p. 2).
On September 14, 2020, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation dismissing, without prejudice, twelve prisoners-Dario Bonga, Wesley Tibbetts, Chavez Wind, Warren Skinaway, Brian Bloom, Robert Boettcher, Arthur Vanwert, Joseph Tipton, Barris Guy, Zach Clark, Chris Clark, and John Vondal, Jr.-as well as, “the Native Americans confined at M.C.F.-Faribault.” [Docket No. 4, at pp. 6-7]. In doing so, the undersigned held that, because all Plaintiffs were each bringing a single, personal claim, there were serious practical concerns proceeding with all thirteen Plaintiffs (i.e., signing each filing, seeking IFP status, the payment of filing fees, and potential conflicts between Plaintiffs). (Id. at pp. 3-6). On January 25, 2021, the Report and Recommendation was subsequently adopted, in part, and rejected, in part, by the Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, [Docket No. 8, at p. 3], and the case proceeded with all thirteen Plaintiffs, including “the Native Americans confined at M.C.F.-Faribault.” (Id. at p. 5). Thereafter, on February 10, 2021, the case was stayed to allow Plaintiffs time to obtain representation through the “FBA Pro Se Project.” [Docket Nos. 9-10].
On September 7, 2021, through their pro bono counsel, the operative Amended Complaint was filed by the only remaining named plaintiffs-Dario Bonga, Wesley Tibbetts, Robert Boettcher, and Arthur Vanwert (the “remaining Plaintiffs”). Former Plaintiffs Kristopher Roybal, Chavez Wind, Warren Skinaway, Brian Bloom, Joseph Tipton, Barris Guy, Zach Clark, Chris Clark, and John Vondal, Jr., were removed from the case because they were no longer being held at MCF-Faribault and could not be contacted by pro bono counsel. [Docket No. 19, at p. 1]. The Amended Complaint substituted MCF-Faribault Warden Tracy Beltz as defendant for Commissioner Schnell. (Id. at p. 2).
As relevant to the present motion, the remaining Plaintiffs allege in the Amended Complaint that Defendant had previously allowed them to practice weekly sweat lodge, smudge, and pipe ceremonies,[2] with the cost of items necessary for these ceremonies-firewood, rocks, tobacco, cedar, and sage-being the responsibility of the remaining Plaintiffs and other Native American inmates. (Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 15], at ¶¶ 15, 23). But the remaining Plaintiffs allege that, after a physical altercation between two participants in February 2019, MCF-Faribault ended all ceremonies for ninety (90) days. (Id. at ¶ 26). Thereafter, ceremonies were only allowed to be performed on the first and third Sundays of each month or every other week. (Id.). However, there have been no ceremonies since February 2020, and ceremonies have since been banned. (Id.).
The remaining Plaintiffs submit that it is unclear whether the sweat lodge ceremony ban was instituted due to safety measures following the COVID-19 pandemic or ostensibly due to the February 2019 physical altercation. (Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 15], at ¶ 27). Nevertheless, the remaining Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has not similarly limited attendance of ceremonies and meetings of other religious groups and has allowed other religious group meetings to resume subject to COVID-19-related restrictions. (Id. at ¶ 29). The remaining Plaintiffs also allege that other religious groups at MCF-Faribault have not been banned from meeting or conducting religious service for over a year after any physical altercation may have occurred. (Id. at ¶ 30). Further, Minnesota correctional facilities other than MCF-Faribault are permitting and facilitating sweat lodge and related ceremonies. (Id. at ¶ 32).
Lastly, the remaining Plaintiffs allege that some of them have pursued administrative remedies available within MCF-Faribault by submitting written grievances and appealing denied grievances to reinstate sweat lodge and related ceremonies. (Id. at ¶ 31).
Based on those allegations, the remaining Plaintiffs assert a violation of their rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq; and a §1983 violation of their rights under the First Amendment. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-44).
Soon after answering the Amended Complaint, Defendant sought permission to file an early motion for summary judgment, which permission was subsequently granted. [Docket Nos. 20, 22, 23].
On January 24, 2022, Defendant filed her summary judgment motion. [Docket No. 25]. Defendant argues that this action must be dismissed because the remaining Plaintiffs all failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. [Docket No. 26]. In support of her motion, Defendant submitted her memorandum; and an affidavit from MCF-Faribault's Grievance Coordinator, which includes as attachments “kite” forms submitted by remaining Plaintiff Bonga. [Docket No. 27]. In opposition, the remaining Plaintiffs assert that, because a former plaintiff in this action did exhaust his administrative remedies, requiring the remaining Plaintiffs to now file and appeal duplicate grievances is unnecessary and would be futile. [Docket No. 30]. In support, the remaining Plaintiffs submitted their memorandum; and the affidavit of counsel, Karl Cambronne, which includes as attachments a former plaintiff's filed “kite” forms, grievances, and subsequent appeals, as well as, remaining Plaintiff Boettcher's “kite” forms. [Docket No. 31].
II. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. [Docket No. 25].
As noted, Defendant moves this Court for an Order dismissing all of the remaining Plaintiffs' claims as alleged against her on the grounds that the remaining Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
A. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Smutka v. City of Hutchinson, 451 F.3d 522, 526 (8th Cir. 2006). As the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals has explained:
Summary judgment should be granted if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, indicates that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A party opposing summary judgment may not rest upon mere...
To continue reading
Request your trial