Jackson v. Patzkowski

Decision Date14 July 2020
Docket NumberC18-1508-RSM-MLP
PartiesKYNTREL TREVYONE JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. SHAWNA PATZKOWSKI, et al., Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Washington)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MICHELLE L. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff a state prisoner currently housed at the Stafford Creek Corrections Center, is proceeding pro se in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action in which he alleges 23 current and former employees of the Washington State Department of Corrections (“DOC”) violated his statutory and constitutional rights. (Compl. (Dkt. # 6); Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 72).)[1] Plaintiff's claims arose when he was housed in the Intensive Management Unit (“IMU”) at the Monroe Correctional Complex (“MCC”) in 2016 and in the IMU at the Washington State Penitentiary (“WSP”) from late 2016 to 2018. He alleges violations of the Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 200cc, et seq., the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, the First Amendment's prohibition on retaliation, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, and the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. (See generally Am. Compl.) He seeks damages and injunctive relief. (Compl. at 46-48.)

Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Mot. (Dkt. # 138)), which Plaintiff opposes. (Resp. (Dkt. # 169).) In their reply, Defendants move to strike numerous attachments to Plaintiff's response. (Reply (Dkt. # 173).) Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to strike (Surreply (Dkt. # 178)) and supplemental evidence (dkt. # 177). Having considered the parties' submissions, the balance of the record, and the governing law, the Court recommends that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as explained below.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings claims related to: (1) the rejection of four religious books; (2) his requests for other religious literature, addresses, and items; (3) alleged rapes/sexual assaults by DOC staff and resulting retaliation and destruction of property; (4) alleged retaliation and discrimination by several DOC staff; and (5) alleged interference with the grievance process. (See generally Am. Compl.) The evidence regarding these claims is detailed below.

A. Rejection of Religious Books

Plaintiff is Satanic and has been practicing his religion for over ten years. (Am. Compl. at 1.) The only Satanic religion officially recognized by the DOC is the Church of Satan, and its holy book, The Satanic Bible, is on the DOC's approved publications list. (Ivey Decl. (Dkt. # 147) at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff started out following the Church of Satan and owns a copy of The Satanic Bible, but he is not a member of the Church of Satan and now practices a different form of Satanism. (See Jackson Depo. (Dkt. # 141-1) at 1-33[2]; Ivey Decl. at ¶ 5.) Although the record is not entirely clear what form of Satanism Plaintiff practices, he identified the “Order of Nine Angels” as his religion in 2016. (See Jackson Depo. at 31-45; Ivey Decl. at ¶ 5.)

In 2016 and 2017, Plaintiff ordered four Satanic books that were rejected by mailroom staff. (See Am. Compl. at 1-4.) Plaintiff alleges the rejection of these books violated his rights under RLUIPA, the Free Exercise Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. (See id.) After setting forth the relevant DOC policies, the Court discusses the facts surrounding the rejection of each book.

1. Relevant DOC Policies

DOC Policy 450.100 Mail for Prison Offenders governs the DOC's rejection of incoming publications. (See DOC Policy 450.100 (Dkt. # 148-1, Ex. 1).) The DOC requires publications to be sent directly from the publisher, an approved vendor, or an approved non-profit. (Id. at 13.) Mailroom employees inspect and read incoming mail to prevent inmates from receiving “contraband or other material that threatens facility order or security, and/or . . . [c]riminal activity.” (Id. at 6.) “Mail will be rejected based on legitimate penological interests and per Unauthorized Mail (Attachment 1).” (Id.) Unauthorized Mail provides that mail may be rejected for 40 different reasons, including that it [c]ontains plans for activity that violates state/federal law, the Washington Administrative Code, Department policy, and/or facility procedures, ” [c]ontains information that could create a risk of physical harm to the individual or another person if the communication were allowed, ” or [a]dvocates violence against others and/or the overthrow of authority.” Unauthorized Mail (DOC 450.100 Attachment 1), ¶¶ 9, 16, 20, available at https://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/incarceration/send/mail.htm (last viewed 6/23/2020).

When a mailroom employee rejects a publication, he or she must provide written notice to the inmate explaining the basis for the rejection and the appeals process. (DOC Policy 450.100 at 11.) When a publication is rejected because it does not come from the publisher, an approved vendor, or non-profit, the inmate may submit a written appeal request, which is reviewed by the Superintendent. (Id. at 12.) If the Superintendent upholds the rejection, the offender may submit a written appeal request, which will be reviewed by the DOC Headquarters Correctional Manager. (Id.) At the time of the rejections at issue in this case, the Correctional Manager was Defendant Israel “Roy” Gonzalez (“Mr. Gonzalez”). (Schneider Decl. (Dkt. # 150) at ¶ 2.) After his retirement in 2019, his assistant, Defendant Tracey Schneider, took over as the Correctional Manager. (Id.)

When a publication is rejected because it includes content that violates DOC policy, the rejection is automatically referred for review by the DOC Headquarters Publication Review Committee.[3] (DOC Policy 450.100 at 14; Patzkowski Decl. (Dkt. # 153-1) at ¶ 6.) The mailroom must scan the questionable pages from the publication for review. (DOC Policy 450.100 at 15.) The Review Committee is primarily guided by DOC Policy 450.100 and may prohibit any publication that presents legitimate concerns for the safety and security of both staff and inmates. (Schneider Decl. at ¶ 5.) If the Review Committee determines that a publication should be prohibited, the publication goes on the DOC's list of publications that are rejected by mailrooms in all DOC facilities unless there is a successful appeal by the inmate. (Id.; Schneider Decl. at ¶ 5.) If the Review Committee determines that the publication is not prohibited, it allows the inmate to receive the publication unless there is a successful appeal by the mailroom. (DOC Policy 450.100 at 15; Schneider Decl. at ¶ 5.) Any appeal of the Review Committee's decision is decided by the Correctional Manager. (Schneider Decl. at ¶ 6.)

2. The Devil's Notebook

In early June 2016, Plaintiff ordered a copy of The Devil's Notebook. (Am. Compl. at 1.) When the book arrived at the MCC, mailroom staff contacted Defendant Henri Fischer, the MCC Chaplain, to determine whether it was appropriate for Plaintiff to receive. (Fischer Decl. (Dkt. # 142) at ¶ 3.) Chaplain Fischer advised that the DOC recognizes Satanism as a religion but that he was unfamiliar with The Devil's Notebook. (Id.) Chaplain Fischer asked to review the book to see if there was anything in it that might be considered degrading or inappropriate by DOC standards. (Id.) After review, Chaplain Fischer provided his opinion to mailroom Correctional Officer Tammy O'Reilly and Sergeant James Palmer that it did not appear to comply with DOC's policies because it contained a hymn that celebrated murdering Christians and therefore advocated violence. (Id. at ¶ 4.) On June 9, 2016, Officer O'Reilly rejected the book, explaining that [t]he content includes violent song lyrics referencing religious groups and violence toward any religious groups.” (Dkt. # 142-1 at 8.)

After receiving the rejection notice, Plaintiff approached MCC staff to explain that the book was rejected for the same material contained in the Christian Bible. (Am. Compl. at 1-2; see also Resp. at 30-32.) On or about October 13, 2016, Officer O'Reilly notified Plaintiff that the MCC Superintendent had reviewed and upheld the rejection. (Resp. at 29.) Although the rejection should have been automatically referred to the Review Committee because it was based on the book's content, the DOC Headquarters does not have any records regarding the rejection of The Devil's Notebook. (Schneider Decl. at ¶ 3.)

In January 2020, Ms. Schneider reviewed The Devil's Notebook and determined Plaintiff could be allowed to receive a copy, which counsel for Defendants mailed to him in response to his discovery requests. (Second Carr Decl. (Dkt. # 174) at ¶ 3; Dkt. # 174-1 at 2.)

Plaintiff names Chaplain Fischer, Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Schneider, and DOC Headquarters employee Tim Thrasher as Defendants under this claim. (Am. Compl. at 2-3.)

3. Encyclopedia of Hell

In June 2016, Plaintiff ordered the Encyclopedia of Hell. (Am. Compl. at 1.) On June 10, 2016, Officer O'Reilly rejected the book, explaining that “it is not from an approved vendor . . . . The outside of the package has the stamp ‘Amazon.com' but the address is not matched to an approved vendor.” (Resp. at 35.) On June 17, 2016 Plaintiff filed a kite asking to appeal the rejection because it was from an approved vendor. (Id. at 36.) Officer O'Reilly noted the appeal. (Id.) Plaintiff followed up with a grievance and another kite. (Id. at 37, 39.) He was told to rewrite the grievance because he had not explained what was rejected, when the rejection occurred, or who rejected it. (Id. at 39.) Plaintiff filed a rewrite but was told to rewrite it again because he failed to explain what was rejected, who rejected it, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT