Garnica v. Wash. Dep't of Corr.

• Decision Date: 13 August 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. C12–5544 RJB.
• Citation: 965 F.Supp.2d 1250
• Parties: Marco GARNICA, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Eldon Vail, Ronald Fraker, Brent Carney, Jay A. Jackson, Jamie Calley, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

965 F.Supp.2d 1250

Marco GARNICA, Plaintiff,

v.WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Eldon Vail, Ronald Fraker, Brent Carney, Jay A. Jackson, Jamie Calley, Defendants.

Case No. C12–5544 RJB.

United States District Court,

W.D. Washington,

at Tacoma.

Aug. 13, 2013.

Marco Garnica, Connell, WA, pro se.

Candie M. Dibble, Attorney General of Washington, Spokane, WA, for Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE

ROBERT J. BRYAN, District Judge.

This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. Dkt. 50. The court has reviewed the relevant documents, including plaintiff's objections (Dkt. 53) and the remaining record.

On June 19, 2013, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom issued a Report and Recommendation, concluding that (1) plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact to establish an Eighth Amendment violation, based upon his consumption of the food provided during the 2010 Ramadan fast; and plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact to establish that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his health and safety; (2) defendants cannot be held liable under RLUIPA for monetary damages; and any request for injunctive relief under RLUIPA is moot; (3) plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to his claim that the Ramadan 2010 policies and meals burdened the practice of his religion; and (4) plaintiff failed to exhaust his claims relating to the 2010 Eid ul-Fitr Feast. Dkt. 50.

On July 1, 2013, plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, arguing that (1) his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when defendants denied him enough calories and nutrition during the Ramadan 2010 fast to maintain his health, requiring him to seek medical attention and to violate one of the tenets of his religion by breaking his fast; (2) the claim under RLUIPA is not moot; and (3) defendants' policies regarding the Ramadan 2010 fast violated his First Amendment rights to practice his religion. Dkt. 53.

On August 6, 2013, defendants filed a response to the objections, arguing that plaintiff failed to show that the 2010 Ramadan box meals were nutritionally deficient or that defendants acted with deliberate indifference; that the RLUIPA claim for injunctive relief is moot; and that plaintiff failed to show that defendants' actions substantially burdened the practice of his religion. Dkt. 54.

The court has carefully reviewed the record. The Report and Recommendation carefully and accurately set forth the facts, thoroughly analyzed the facts in relation to the law, and concluded that plaintiff has not raised a material issue of fact regarding his claims under the First and Eighth Amendments, and his claim under RLUIPA. The record shows that defendants attempted to accommodate the inmates' nutritional requirements during the 2010 Ramadan fast, while addressing the institution's need for cost effectiveness and efficiency, and, when deficiencies were identified, promptly addressed the problems. The court can add nothing more to the well reasoned Report and Recommendation, and concurs with the recommendation. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Further, the record shows that plaintiff's claim regarding the 2010 Ramadan Eid ul-Fitr Feast should be dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff failed to exhaust this claim.

This case was originally filed in Thurston County Superior Court, and was removed by defendants to federal court. See Dkt. 1. In the event that plaintiff files an appeal of this case, in forma pauperis status should be denied, without prejudice to plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 50) is ADOPTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 39) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claim relating to the 2010 Eid ul-Fitr Feast is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In the event that plaintiff files an appeal of this case, in forma pauperis status is DENIED, without prejudice to plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KAREN L. STROMBOM, United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Eldon Vail, Ronald Fraker, Brent Carney, Jay Jackson, Jamie Calley, and the Washington Department of Corrections (DOC). ECF No. 39. Defendants served Plaintiff with a Pro Se Prisoner Dispositive Motion Notice consistent with Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935, 940–41 (9th Cir.2012) and in accordance with the holding of Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir.1998). ECF No. 40. The Court granted Plaintiff Marco Garnica's motion for extension of time and re-noted the motion for June 7, 2013. ECF No. 43. Plaintiff filed a brief and declaration in response to the motion. ECF Nos. 48 and 49.

Mr. Garnica, a pro se prisoner currently incarcerated at the Coyote Ridge CorrectionCenter (CRCC), alleged in his complaint that in 2010, when he was incarcerated at the Clallam Bay Corrections Center (CBCC), Defendants implemented Ramadan food service policies that violated his rights under the First Amendment (Freedom of Religion), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection), and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (“RLUIPA”). ECF No. 1–1, pp. 41–46.¹ Having reviewed the motion, supporting declarations, and balance of the record, the Court recommends that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 39) be granted.

FACTS

Marco Garnica became a Muslim during his incarceration at CBCC in 2008. He is a believer in the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad. ECF No. 49, Declaration of Marco Garnica, ¶¶ 2, 3. At the time of the 2010 Ramadan Fast, he was a vegetarian on the Mainline Alternative Diet (MAD). Id., ¶ 4. Attached to his declaration is Mr. Garnica's religious diet request dated May 4, 2010, where he requests to be placed on MAD. Id., p. 71. Mr. Garnica states that it is a mandatory obligation of his religion that he fast for thirty days during the Islamic month of Ramadan. Mr. Garnica first participated in the Ramadan fast in 2009 when he was confined in the Intensive Management Unit (IMU) of CBCC. He received breakfast, lunch, and a hot meal, and states that he did not experience any ill effects during that fast. Id., ¶ 5.

Prior to 2010, Mr. Garnica and other Muslims were allowed to report to the dining hall in the evening for prayer, reading the Qur'an, and eating their hot dinner meals. He states that their meals were the same as those served to non-fasting inmates which had been kept for them in hot carts for warmth. After the dinner meal, the fasting inmates picked up two sacks with their breakfast and lunch meals, which they were allowed to take back to their units to consume before sunrise the next day. According to Mr. Garnica, the meals provided during the 2009 Ramadan fast consisted of approximately 2,800 calories and contained adequate nutritional value. ECF No. 49, Garnica Decl., ¶ 6. At the end of Ramadan 2009, all participating Muslims were allowed to purchase food enhancements to celebrate the obligatory Eid–Ul–Fitr feast using funds donated by the Islamic community account and others. Id.

Jay Jackson is Food Service Program Manager for the DOC. According to Mr. Jackson, prior to 2010, Ramadan meals consisted of a dinner hot meal and sack meals equaling breakfast and lunch calories. ECF No. 39–1, Exhibit 1, Declaration of Jay Jackson, ¶¶ 1, 3. The Ramadan dinner hot meal would typically be served after mainline (the standard meals served to the general offender population at a correctional facility). Serving the Ramadan hot dinner meal so that Ramadan participants received their meals after sunset incurred additional food service and custody staff time. Id., ¶ 3. Some facilities would store the warm portion of the meal in a heated unit to maintain temperature, while other facilities provided an extra mainline, thereby occurring additional staff costs, including overtime. Id., ¶ 4. Mr. Jackson states that there is no nutritional difference between a cold meal and a hot meal. Id., ¶ 5 n. 2.

Brent Carney is the Dietary Services Manager of DOC. He is a certified dietitian in the state of Washington and obtained registered dietitian credentials from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. ECF No. 39–2, Exhibit 2, Declaration of Brent Carney, ¶ 1. Mr. Carney states that in 2009, DOC looked into providing Ramadan box meals for offenders who would be celebrating Ramadan in 2010 (which would occur August 11, 2010 through September 9, 2010). Id., ¶ 6. According to Mr. Carney, providing a Ramadan box meal that contained food items for a full set of meals eliminated any need for additional food service staffing and meal preparation outside of normal working hours, additional meal deliveries to segregation units, additional custody staff, and other additional operational overhead. Overall, box meals would reduce costs and minimize the disruption to kitchen staff while allowing offenders to meet their nutritional needs. Id.

The use of box meals anticipated the issue of Ramadan moving towards the summer solstice. ECF No. 39–1, Exhibit 1, Jackson Decl., ¶ 6. Every year the beginning of Ramadan moves forward roughly ten days. This creates an ever-increasing time period between mainline dinner and when the Ramadan hot meal would be served after sunset. This trend increases the burden on the DOC by extending the time it needs to have personnel available to staff the dining hall after-hours during...