Jones v. Burk
| Decision Date | 01 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1: 06-cv-00665-LJO-SKO PC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | FREDERICK JONES, Plaintiff, v. JOHN BURK, et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiff Frederick Jones, Sr. ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). Before the Court are motions for summary judgment from Plaintiff and from Defendants John Burk, Ricci Thoreson, and Barbara Carbonaro ("Defendants").
This action proceeds on Plaintiff's September 8, 2006 amended complaint. (Doc. #14.) On April 10, 2008, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and determined that it stated cognizable claims under Section 1983 against Defendants Burk, Thorenson and Carbonaro. 1 (Doc. #33.)
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 24, 2008. (Doc. #44.) On March 26, 2009, the Court partially granted the motion to dismiss. (Doc. #50.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff's due process claims and claims for injunctive relief. The Court allowed Plaintiff to proceed on his claims regarding the deprivation of certain religious items.
On June 23, 2009, Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. #59.) On March 30, 2010, the Court partially granted the second motion to dismiss. (Doc. #81.) The Court determined that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his claims based on the denial of prayer oil, prayer beads, and prayer clay. The Court allowed Plaintiff to proceed on his claims that he was denied a prayer rug, a copy of the Koran, and access to a Muslim cleric.
Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on April 19, 2010. (Doc. #89.) Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on April 29, 2010. (Docs. #90-91.) Defendants also filed a cross motion for summary judgment. (Docs. #92-95.) Plaintiff filed a combined reply to Defendants' opposition and opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment on May 17, 2010. (Doc. #97.) Defendants filed a reply on May 27, 2010. (Docs. #98-99.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment should be granted "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(2). "[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, ' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U. S. 317, 323 (1986).
Entry of summary judgment is appropriate "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. at 322. "Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial"-usually, but not always, the plaintiff-"the movant must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party." Soremukun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F. 3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). In this situation, the movant carries the burden of establishing a prima facie case on their motion for summary judgment. UA Local 343 United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO v. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 48 F. 3d 1465, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal citations omitted).
"A moving party without the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial-usually, but not always, a defendant-has both the initial burden of production and the ultimate burden of persuasion on a motion for summary judgment." Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F. 3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). "In order to carry its burden of production, the moving party must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial." Id..
If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the denials of its pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists. Rule 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U. S. at 586 n. 11. The opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i. e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 248 (1986); T. W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F. 2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987), and that the dispute is genuine, i. e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F. 2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987).
In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that "the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." T. W. Elec. Serv., 809 F. 2d at 631. Thus, the '" Matsushita, 475 U. S. at 587 ().
In resolving the summary judgment motion, the Court examines the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any. Rule 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, Anderson, 477 U. S. at 255, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the Court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, Matsushita, 475 U. S. at 587 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U. S. 654, 655 (1962) (per curiam). Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party's obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E. D. Cal. 1985), aff'd, 810 F. 2d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 1987).
Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party '" Matsushita, 475 U. S. at 587 (citation omitted).
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment consists of an eight-page recitation of the legal standards relevant to motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff does not apply those standards to his case, or demonstrate how his evidence establishes a prima facie case for a violation of the Free Exercise Clause under Section 1983. Plaintiff only offers vague conclusions that he is "entitled to offer evidence in support of the claims" and that "the evidence Plaintiff's[sic] offer in support is a un-disputed fact that, the defendant's[sic] in this case denied Plaintiff his reasonable right to practice his religion, that denied/deprived him of (prayer rug), (qur'an), & (access to muslim cleric)." (Pl's Mot. for Summ. J. P. & A. & Decl. 7, ECF No. 89.) Plaintiff's motion fails to demonstrate how the facts are undisputed, other than his insistence that the facts are not in dispute.
Plaintiff has attached his own affidavit in support of his motion for summary judgment. In relevant part, the affidavit states that Plaintiff was housed in the Merced County Jail and that he was denied various privileges for a thirty-day period after he was involved in a fight. The remainder of Plaintiff's affidavit appears to consist only of complaints about the Court's ruling on Defendants' previous motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff has also included a statement of undisputed facts. Plaintiff lists various facts that are purportedly undisputed because Defendants admitted to these facts in their "answers." Plaintiff has also attached other documents to his motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has attached copies of Defendants' objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations with respect to Defendants' motion to dismiss and has also attached the order partially granting the motion to dismiss. It is unclear how these documents are relevant to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has also attached a copy of Defendants' answer to Plaintiff's complaint, annotated with Plaintiff's own commentary. On the margins of the answer, Plaintiff has written comments to Defendants' answers, such as "a lie," "not qu'ran," "admittance," and "I agree." Plaintiff has also included a copy of the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations, annotated with what...
To continue reading
Request your trial