Nelson v. Jackson, Civil Action 2:12-cv-1167
| Decision Date | 18 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2:12-cv-1167 |
| Parties | JOSHUA COPENHAVER NELSON, Plaintiff, v. WANZA JACKSON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
ORDER and
Plaintiff, an inmate at London Correctional Institution ("LoCI"), brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a denial of his rights under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in connection with the alleged denial of Kosher meals, service of non-Kosher food products and other alleged service problems with his meals at LoCI. Plaintiff also asserts violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1988, 2000d and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc ("RLUIPA"). This matter is before the Court on several pending motions.
Plaintiff alleges that he "is an observant practitioner of Judaism" and was deemed "sincerely Jewish" for participation in the Kosher meal program of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections ("ODRC") since February 25, 2010. Amended Complaint, Doc.No. 32, ¶¶ 18-20. Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at LoCI, was transferred from the Marion Correctional Institution to LoCI on August 17, 2012 and began participating in LoCI's "Kosher Meal Program" the next day. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 22-23.
Plaintiff alleges that, from about August 18, 2012 to August 28, 2012, defendant William Gallaer, LoCI's Food Service Manager, and defendant Gallaer's "subordinates" knowingly violated plaintiff's religious rights in the following ways: (1) served plaintiff meat and dairy products at the same meal, and (2) required plaintiff to cook or reheat his meal on plaintiff's "Sabbath, in order to receive his required amount of calories[.]" Id. at ¶¶ 13, 24-25.
Plaintiff also alleges that, from about August 28, 2012 to March 1, 2013, defendant Gallaer and his subordinates, "upon directive or order given by" defendant Wanza Jackson, ODRC's Religious Services Administrator, and "vicariously promulgated through" defendant Steven Cahill, LoCI's Chaplain, violated plaintiff's religious rights in the following ways: (1) served plaintiff meat and dairy products at the same meal, and (2) required plaintiff to cook or reheat his meal on plaintiff's "Sabbath, in order to receive his required amount of calories[.]" Id. at ¶¶ 10, 15, 26-27.
Plaintiff further alleges that, from about August 18, 2012 to the present, defendant Gallaer, "upon order or directive issued by Defendant Jackson and vicariously implemented through Defendant Cahill[,]" continued to serve plaintiff non-Kosher dairy products. Id. at ¶ 28. According to plaintiff, the dairy products are producedat ODRC's Pickaway Correctional Institution ("PCI"), which "is not a Kosher certified facility, and consumption of products manufactured at this facility" violate plaintiff's Jewish faith. Id. at ¶ 29. Plaintiff also alleges that he "is unable to ingest the non-Kosher dairy products, and defendants do not provide vitamin or other supplements to fulfill the missing vitamins, absent from the diet of Plaintiff." Id. at ¶ 30.
Plaintiff goes on to allege that, between August 18, 2012 and March 1, 2013, defendant Gallaer and his subordinates violated plaintiff's religious beliefs by knowingly denying plaintiff "fresh fruit other than apples[.]" Id. at ¶ 31.
Plaintiff filed this action on November 29, 2012. Complaint, Doc. No. 5. Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. No. 12. After defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to this motion, Doc. No. 21, plaintiff filed a motion to strike the affidavit(s) of Vickey Justus attached to that memorandum. Motion to Strike Affidavit(s) of Vickey Justus, Doc. No. 24 ("Plaintiff's Motion to Strike").
On March 18, 2013, plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleging a denial of his rights under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in connection with the alleged food service incidents described supra. Plaintiff also asserts violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1988, 1997(e), 2000d and 2000-cc. Plaintiff names as defendants Jackson, Gallaer and Cahill in their official andindividual capacities. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 10-16. Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief. Id. at ¶¶ 45-49.
Defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims, Defendants Wanza Jackson, Steven Cahill, and William Gallaer's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 36 ("Motion to Dismiss"), which plaintiff opposes, Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 37 ("Memo. in Opp."). After defendants filed a reply memorandum, Defendants Wanza Jackson, Steven Cahill, and William Gallaer's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 39 ("Defendants' Reply"), plaintiff filed yet another responsive brief, Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 40 ("Plaintiff's Sur-Reply"). Defendants have moved to strike Plaintiff's Sur-Reply. Defendants Wanza Jackson, Steven Cahill, and William Gallaer's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Sur-Reply (Doc. 40), Doc. No. 41 ("Defendants' Motion to Strike").
The Court shall address each motion in turn.1
Plaintiff has filed a sur-reply responding to Defendants' Reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss. Defendants move to strike Plaintiff's Sur-Reply because plaintiff filed it without leave of the Court and without establishing good cause, in violation of the Court'slocal rules. Defendants' Motion to Strike, p. 2.
Ordinarily, the Court's local rules do not permit the filing of memoranda other than a response and reply memorandum. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2 (). However, in light of the fact that plaintiff is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, the Court will nevertheless consider Plaintiff's Sur-Reply. See, e.g., Mettke v. Hewlett Packard Co., No. 2:11-CV-00410, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49164, at *1-2 (S.D. Ohio April 6, 2012) (). Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Strike, Doc. No. 41, is DENIED.
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's claims, arguing that the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars plaintiff's claims against them in their official capacity, that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and that defendants have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and that plaintiff is not entitled to monetary damages under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e) ("PLRA"). The Court shall address each argument in turn.
Plaintiff has sued defendants in their official capacities. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 10-16. "[A] suit against a state official inhis or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office." Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). See also Wolfel v. Morris, 972 F.2d 712, 718-719 (6th Cir. 1992). A plaintiff seeking to prevail in a § 1983 suit against a governmental entity must first prove, of course, that a constitutional violation actually occurred, and then prove that it was a policy or custom of the governmental entity that was the "moving force" behind the constitutional violation. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Such a policy or custom may consist of: "(1) the [governmental entity's] legislative enactments or official agency policies; (2) actions taken by officials with final decision-making authority; (3) a policy of inadequate training or supervision; or (4) a custom of tolerance of or acquiescence in federal rights violations." Thomas v. City of Chattanooga, 398 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir. 2005).
Amended Complaint, ¶ 41. See also id. ¶¶ 42-43 (). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages andprospective injunctive relief, including, inter alia, "amending the current 72-REG-07, which addresses Jewish religious practice to include a provision for Kosher meals" and "drafted in conjunction with standing Orthodox Jewish Rabbinical Authorities" as well as "enjoining the defendants from violating the tenets of Kosher observance of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction[.]" Id. at ¶¶ 46-49.
Defendants argue that the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff's claims against them in their official capacities. Motion to Dismiss, pp. 3-5. The Eleventh Amendment bars a suit for money damages against a state agency and state employees named in their official capacity unless the State has waived its immunity or Congress has overridden immunity under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Will, 491 U.S. at 65. The Eleventh Amendment does not, however, preclude official capacity claims for prospective injunctive relief. Ex parte...
To continue reading
Request your trial