Lucero v. Hensley

Decision Date18 March 1996
Docket NumberNo. CV 94-6780-R (RMC).,CV 94-6780-R (RMC).
Citation920 F. Supp. 1067
CourtU.S. District Court — Central District of California
PartiesAlbert LUCERO, et al., Plaintiff, v. Lawrence HENSLEY, et al., Defendants.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Albert B. Lucero, Ronald R. Nichols, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.

Greg R. Galaz, Lancaster, CA, pro se.

William Turner Hobson, California Office of Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REAL, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint and other papers along with the attached Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and has made a de novo determination of the Report and Recommendation.

IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

(2) Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED;

(3) Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as follows: Summary Judgment is granted for defendants on all claims except plaintiffs' claim alleging a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stemming from the lack of a full-time paid Native American spiritual leader at CMC;

(4) JUDGMENT shall be entered dismissing the Complaint and action against defendants Lawrence Hensley and Michael Bentley;

(5) Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to amend their complaint to name as defendants the Warden and Associate Wardens at CMC; provided said amendment is made within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. If the amendment is not timely made, the Court will consider this to be an indication that plaintiffs do not intend to pursue their claim, and may dismiss the action; and

(6) Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to provide that any relief granted be transferred to subsequent institutions is DENIED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHAPMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.

This report and recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Manuel L. Real, United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 194 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

BACKGROUND

On October 11, 1994, plaintiffs Alberto B. Lucero, Greg R. Galaz,1 and Ronald R. Nichols, state prisoners in the California Men's Colony, San Luis Obispo, California ("CMC"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint2 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs allege that the policies and actions of defendants Lawrence Hensley and Michael Bentley, correctional officers at CMC, interfere with their ability to practice their Native American religion in violation of the First Amendment's free exercise clause, constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants, from August 1993 through June 3, 1994, engaged in a pattern of discrimination toward them and other Native American inmates and participants in their "Sweat Lodge." Plaintiffs' seek injunctive relief to protect themselves against retaliation for filing this litigation and to require the return to them, and the continued possession in their housing units of animal skins and other Native American religious artifacts, which were seized by defendants. Plaintiffs also demand that the California Department of Corrections ("CDC") hire a full-time Native American chaplain at CMC. (Complaint, "Relief Requested" section, 1:14-16, 1:19-21). Lastly, plaintiffs pray for the appointment of a federal monitor to oversee CMC's treatment of Native American prisoners, and the disciplinary investigation of defendants.

The incidents of purported religious harassment provide necessary background to understand plaintiffs' claims. The first incident occurred in September 1993, when a full-time Native American chaplain's position became available at CMC, but then part-time Native American chaplain Robert Belardes was not offered the position, and the position was not filled. (Complaint, 3:22-28). The next incident occurred on May 10, 1994, when defendant Hensley allegedly selectively targeting Native American inmates by issuing rules violation reports (known as "CDC 115's") to ten Native American inmates participating in the Sweat Lodge Ceremony who did not immediately respond to a recall and lockup order. (Complaint, 1:1-3; 1:9-11). Apparently, that evening, two lights failed in the yard near the Sweat Lodge, giving rise to the lockup order. (Complaint, 1:3-4). The ten Native American inmates claimed they did not know of the order, and completed their Sweat Lodge Ceremony before returning to lockup. An internal prison appeals panel accepted this defense on October 6, 1994, and revoked the rules violation reports. (Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment, Exh. 6).

Later, on May 14, 1994, the participants of the Sweat Lodge held a summer solstice celebration in accordance with previously established policy and as approved by the Associate Warden. (Complaint, 1:16-19 and Exh. D; 1:25-27, Exh. E1 and E2). Part of the celebration involved a "gift give away," in which the inmates gave gifts to visiting family and guests. (Complaint, 1:19-21). After the ceremony, defendants allegedly confiscated the gifts and also seized four ceremonial hawk feathers. (Complaint, 1:22-25).

Last, on May 23, 1994, plaintiffs allege that defendant Bentley ordered cell searches and confiscated animal skins from plaintiffs. (Complaint, 2:2-9). Defendants contend that the animal skins create a security risk as they could be used in an escape attempt. (Complaint, 2:10; Defendants' motion for summary judgment, 12:15-18; Declaration of William Bentley, par. 3). Plaintiffs submit documentation indicating that prison authorities had previously approved the possession by inmates in their cells of certain animal skins and other religious artifacts, and contend that the confiscation of these religious items was part of a pattern of harassment. (Complaint, 2:10-11 and Exh. I, J, K). On May 23, 1994, defendants allegedly also searched the Sweat Lodge and Chaplain Belardes' office. (Complaint, 3:2-3). To attempt to resolve the conflict, defendants and Chaplain Belardes met on June 2, 1994; but on the next day, June 3, 1994, plaintiffs allege that defendant Hensley intentionally harassed Chaplain Belardes by searching religious items he brought into CMC. (Complaint, 3:6-18).

On August 30, 1995, both plaintiffs and defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which are now before the Court. Plaintiffs have also filed various motions for a preventive injunction,3 a writ of mandate, and recently filed a motion to amend the complaint.

DISCUSSION

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) authorizes the granting of summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The standard for granting a motion for summary judgment is essentially the same as for granting a directed verdict. Judgment must be entered "if, under the governing law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict.... If reasonable minds could differ ..." judgment should not be entered in favor of the moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-51, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying the elements of the claim in the pleadings, or other evidence, which the moving party "believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Adickes v. S.H. Kress and Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir.1982). "A material issue of fact is one that affects the outcome of the litigation and requires a trial to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth." S.E.C. v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1305-06 (9th Cir.1982). The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to establish, beyond the pleadings, that there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553. More than a "metaphysical doubt" is required to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Finally, the parties bear the same substantive burden of proof as would apply at a trial on the merits. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2512.

First Amendment Claims:

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants' refusal to allow them to possess animal skins in their housing units and failure to provide them with a full-time Native American spiritual leader violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.4 These claims must be analyzed under the standard set forth in the recently enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000bb-2000bb-4, et seq. In relevant part, RFRA provides:

(a) Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person —
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. In enacting RFRA, Congress set out to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a). In Smith, the Supreme Court had held that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Hasbrouck v. Yavapai Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • February 1, 2021
    ...F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1137 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002)). See also Lucero v. Hensley, 920 F. Supp. 1067, 1076 (C.D. Cal. 1996) ("Even in their official capacities, however, defendants must somehow be at fault to be liable under Section 1983.") (......
  • Coleman v. Hodges
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • November 30, 2018
    ...request for injunctive relief fails to state a claim for relief against the sole Defendant named herein. See e.g., Lucero v. Hensley, 920 F. Supp. 1067, 1075 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (finding defendants who had no policy making authority not proper party defendants where plaintiffs sought an injunc......
  • Doe v. Univ. of Wash., CASE NO. C16-1212JLR
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • October 4, 2016
    ...its complaint to conform with the requirements of [Ex Parte] Young." Ariz. Students' Assoc., 824 F.3d at 871; see Lucero v. Hensley, 920 F.Supp. 1067, 1075 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (granting leave to amend under Ex Parte Young to name the defendants "with policy making authority over religious prac......
  • Turner v. Hamblin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin
    • January 21, 2014
    ...might be some situations in which a failure to employ a chaplain could constitute religious discrimination, e.g., Lucero v. Hensley, 920 F.Supp. 1067, 1074 (C.D.Cal.1996), but plaintiff has not adduced any evidence regarding the reasons that the Columbia prison does not have a Muslim chapla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • RLUIPA at four: evaluating the success and constitutionality of RLUIPA'S prisoner provisions.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 28 No. 2, March 2005
    • March 22, 2005
    ...to show that confiscated Bible study materials prevented him from engaging in activity "mandate[d]" by his faith); Lucero v. Hensley, 920 F. Supp. 1067, 1073-74 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (dismissing RFRA claim because Native American prisoner did not establish that possession of animal hides was "ma......

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