Smith v. Tamayo
| Decision Date | 10 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-00537 BLF (PR) |
| Parties | JASON SMITH, Plaintiff, v. A. TAMAYO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Plaintiff, a state prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility ("CTF"), filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against CTF prison officials and the Chief of the Office of Appeals in Sacramento. Dkt. No. 1.1 Finding the complaint stated cognizable claims, the Court ordered service upon Defendants. Dkt. No. 4. Defendants M. Voong, M. Atchley, Y. Friedman, and A. Tamayo filed a motion for summary judgment based on various grounds, including failure to exhaust administrative remedies, on the merits, and qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 16.2 Plaintiff filed anopposition, Dkt. No. 18, exhibits in support, Dkt. No. 18-1, and an affidavit, Dkt. No. 18-2. Defendants filed a reply, Dkt. No. 22, and a declaration from counsel Ryan Gille with an exhibit in support, Dkt. No. 22-1. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
This action is based on Plaintiff's claim that he is a practicing Rastafarian and needs a special diet in accordance with his religious beliefs. Smith Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3; Dkt. No. 18-2. He applied for a kosher diet at CTF and was denied. Dkt. No. 1 at 9. Defendant M. Atchley was the Chief Deputy Warden at CTF during the relevant period. Atchley Decl. ¶ 1; Dkt. No. 16-1. Defendant A. Tamayo is the Community Resources Manager at CTF. Tamayo Decl. ¶ 1; Dkt. No. 16-2. Defendant Y. Friedman is a Jewish Rabbi at CTF. Friedman Decl. ¶ 1; Dkt. No. 16-3. Defendants Atchley, Tamayo, and Friedman are members of CTF's Religious Review Committee ("RRC"). Defendant M. Voong was the Chief of the Office of Appeals in Sacramento during the relevant period. Voong Decl. ¶ 1; Dkt. No. 16-6.
Inmate applications to the Religious Diet Program are guided by the Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3054 et seq. Tamayo Decl. ¶ 2. The policies and procedures related to the Kosher Diet Program ("KDP") are set out in § 3054.2. Inmates may seek participation in the KDP by submitting to any chaplain a CDCR Form 3030, Religious Diet Request. Id. ¶ 5; Friedman Decl. ¶ 3; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3054.4(a). As part of the process, an inmate is interviewed by a chaplain to assist in determining eligibility for a religious diet.Tamayo Decl. ¶ 2. Form 3030 consists of three parts, with the inmate filing out Part I, a chaplain or designee completing Part II after interviewing the inmate, and Part III is completed by the RRC. Id. ¶ 5. According to the regulations, any chaplain or the RRC shall determine inmate entry into the KDP upon review of Form 3030. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3054.2(g)(2). Only the RRC may make the determination to deny the CDCR Form 3030. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3054.2(g)(3). The RRC meets once a month to examine inmate applications to the Religious Diet Program. Tamayo Decl. ¶ 2; Atchley Decl. ¶ 6. In determining eligibility, the RRC considers the inmate's responses to a chaplain interview, their past food purchases, and any supporting documentation provided by an inmate. Atchley Decl. ¶ 6.
On April 1, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a CDCR Form 3030 requesting to be placed on the KDP. Dkt. No. 1 at 26-28; Dkt. No. 16-1 at 18; Dkt. No. 18-2 at 2. Plaintiff's stated reason for requesting the KDP was to satisfy his religious beliefs as a member of the House of the Lion of Judah, also known as Rastafarian. Id. Plaintiff was interviewed by Pastor B.D. Min on April 16, 2018, and the application was forwarded to the RRC for review. Dkt. No. 16-1 at 20; Dkt. No. 18-2 at 2.
The RRC's next monthly meeting took place on June 28, 2018. Atchley Decl., Ex. A at 5; Dkt. No. 16-2 at 4. While Defendant Atchley was present along with other RRC members not a party to this action, neither Defendants Tamayo nor Friedman attended that meeting. Tamayo Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A at 1; Friedman Decl. ¶ 4. Plaintiff's application was discussed and denied. Tamayo Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A. Plaintiff's responses to interview questions six and seven, as well as non-kosher food purchases in April 2018, were listed as the basis for the denial. Dkt. No. 1 at 28; Dkt. No. 16-2 at 5. Plaintiff's answers to questions 6 and 7 on his application indicated that he needed to avoid food made with preservatives or additives, and that he did not eat meat. Dkt. No. 16-4 at 31. According to A. Steiber, the Correctional Food Manager for the CDCR, inmates who participate in the KDP receive prepackaged kosher meals prepared by an off-site vendor, and because theyare prepacked off-site, the kosher meals have the greatest amount of preservatives when compared with normal (mainline) meal, vegetarian, and halal diets. Steiber Decl. ¶ 3. Defendant Tamayo completed Part III of Plaintiff's Form 3030 on July 22, 2018, which informed Plaintiff that the application was denied by the RRC based on his answers to interview questions and non-kosher food purchases. Id.; Tamayo Decl. ¶ 6.
According to Plaintiff, Defendant Tamayo told him on July 13, 2018, that the reason why his application had not been processed was because kosher diets were exclusively reserved for Orthodox Jewish prisoners, and that when his application was processed, it was more likely than not that it would be denied since Plaintiff was not of the Jewish faith.4 Smith Decl. ¶ 10; Dkt. No. 18-2 at 3.
Plaintiff also states that the answers which were submitted to the RRC on his application under questions 4, 6, and 7 were not the actual answers that he gave to Pastor Min during his interview on April 16, 2018. Smith Decl. ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 18-2 at 2. Plaintiff described the correct answers during a deposition5 taken in connection with this lawsuit on October 15, 2019. Dkt. No. 18-1. Question 4 of the application asked how long theinmate had participated in the religious/spiritual activities, and the written response was Dkt. No. 16-1 at 20. Plaintiff stated in his deposition that the correct answer was March 2018. Dkt. No. 18-1 at 38. Question 6 asked for a description of the religious/spiritual needs as they pertain to food, and the written response was "No food made with the preservatives or additives." Dkt. No. 16-1 at 20. Question 7 asked for the "characteristics of the religious diet you selected that meet your religious/spiritual needs," and the written response stated, Id. Plaintiff stated in deposition that during the interview with Pastor Min, he only recalled being asked Questions 6 and 7 "in pertaining to the Ital diet," which was the diet he had previously requested specifically because it did not have preservatives and additives and was primarily a fish diet. Dkt. No. 18-2 at 38-39, 41. Plaintiff explained that he did eat foods with preservatives or additives because that was the only available food source that he had while incarcerated. Id. at 39. Plaintiff affirmed that the written responses on the interview questions were not the responses he recollected giving during the interview. Id. at 41.
Prior to the issuance of a denial of his application, Plaintiff submitted a grievance to the CTF appeals office on July 19, 2019, that was issued log number CTF- 18-02047. Atchley Decl., Ex. A at 5-7, (Dkt. No. 16-1); Vila Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. C, (Dkt. No. 16-4). In the appeal, Plaintiff claimed that he was the subject of religious discrimination because he had still not received a response to his application as of July 17, 2018. Id. He also claimed that Defendant Tamayo informed him that the KDP is reserved only for Orthodox Jewish inmates. Id. Plaintiff filed the grievance based on Defendant Tamayo's statement that his accommodation would likely be denied. Smith Decl. ¶¶ 10, 11; Dkt. No. 18-2. Plaintiff did not allege in this grievance that his application had actually been denied, since that had not yet occurred. Id.
The grievance bypassed the first level of review and received a second level review. Atchley Decl., Ex. A at 2. Defendant Tamayo conducted the second level inquiry into Plaintiff's grievance. Vila Decl., Ex. C at 28-29. Defendant Tamayo submitted proposed findings and recommendations for review and approval as part of the second level grievance response to Defendant Atchley, who approved Defendant Tamayo's findings and recommendations on August 14, 2018. Id. Plaintiff contested Defendant Tamayo's finding and requested a third-level review, which included for the first time, the issue of his application being denied. Vila Decl., Ex. B; Ex. C at 2 ¶ F; id. at 4 ¶ F. On December 18, 2018, the grievance was reviewed and denied at the third level of review by Defendant Voong's office in Sacramento, based on the determination that Plaintiff's application was appropriately denied without discrimination. Vila Decl. ¶ 6, Exs. A-B. According to Plaintiff's Appellate Appeal History for third-level reviews, this appeal was the only one that Plaintiff exhausted concerning the issues in this case. Id.
Based on the allegations in the complaint, the Court found Plaintiff stated the following cognizable claims: (1) a violation of his First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion; (2) a violation of Equal Protection based on the allegation that Plaintiff was discriminated against and was denied rights that are afforded other religions; and (3) a violation of his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-a(a), based on his claim that the denial of a kosher diet created a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial