Walker v. Watson

• Decision Date: 06 June 2022
• Docket Number: CIVIL 6:20-cv-06114
• Parties: JONATHAN ROBERT JENNINGS WALKER PLAINTIFF v. SHERIFF JASON WATSON, ET AL DEFENDANTS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas

JONATHAN ROBERT JENNINGS WALKER PLAINTIFF
v.
SHERIFF JASON WATSON, ET AL DEFENDANTS

CIVIL No. 6:20-cv-06114

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division

June 6, 2022

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

HON. BARRY A. BRYANT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, Jonathan Robert Jennings Walker, proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3). Before the Court are two motions for summary judgment: the Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment by County Defendants (ECF No. 160); and the Second Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Separate Defendants, Brenda Piggee, Halbert Torraca, James Gainous, and Tiger Correctional Services, Inc. (ECF No. 164). The Court has considered the motions, and the responses and replies thereto. (ECF Nos. 181, 189, 192). The issues presented are ripe for decision.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint on October 1, 2020. (ECF No. 1). That same day, the Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3). The claims currently before the Court are set out in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, which was filed

1

on August 16, 2021. (ECF No. 140).^[1] At the time Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint, he was an inmate in the Clark County Detention Center awaiting trial on pending criminal charges. (ECF No. 140 at 2-3). According to a pleading entitled Notice of Transfer From Facility filed by Defendants Jason Watson, Raymond Funderburk, Michael Lesher, and Clay Atkins, Plaintiff was transferred from the Clark County Detention Center on April 14, 2022. (ECF No. 203). In addition, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address on May 4, 2022, indicating that he is now an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Corrections. (ECF No. 207).

Plaintiff's first claim as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint, is stated under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, against Defendants Sheriff Jason Watson, Chief Deputy Raymond Funderburk, Jail Administrator Michael Lesher, Jail Sergeant Clay Atkins, and Jail Administrator Fred Phillips (identified collectively as the “Clark County Defendants”); and Halbert Torraca, James Gainous, Brenda Piggee, and Tiger Correctional Services, Inc. (identified collectively as the “Tiger Defendants”).^[2] (ECF No. 140 at 6). This claim is stated against the Defendants in their official capacity only. Plaintiff states that Defendants “have tried to hinder Plaintiff from practicing his sincerely held religious beliefs” in Jewish dietary laws by “not providing proper Kosher diet, making Plaintiff choose between food and his religion, force Plaintiff to partake in Christmas and Christian worship services.” Id. With

2

respect to his official capacity claims, when asked to describe the custom or policy that caused the constitutional violation, Plaintiff states: “Arkansas Jail Standards Policy (AJSP) § 12-1001 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc; Clark County Detention Center Policy (CCDCP) 017 (IV)(A); AJSP § 6-1001 et seq.” (ECF No. 140 at 7).

Plaintiff's second claim is for “equal protection” and is stated against each Defendant in both their official and personal capacities. (ECF No. 140 at 7). Plaintiff states “Defendants have made Plaintiff's Jewish religion 2^nd class discriminating against him by failing to accommodate Plaintiff's religious needs while accommodating the religious needs of similarly situated persons who follow other religious beliefs.” With respect to his official capacity claims, when asked to describe the custom or policy that caused the constitutional violation, Plaintiff states: “AJSP § 81001 to 1002; AJSP § 12-1001 et seq.; AJSP § 10-1001 et seq.; 14 Amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S Constitution); Article 2 § 3 to the Arkansas Constitution (AR Constitution)” (ECF No. 140 at 8).

Plaintiff states his third claim is for “free exercise.” The claim is stated against all Defendants in both their official and personal capacities. (ECF No. 140 at 8). Plaintiff alleges “Defendants have tried to hinder Plaintiff from practicing his sincerely held religious beliefs in Kashruth, not providing proper Kosher diet, making Plaintiff choose between food and religion, passing off unkosher foods as Kosher to the Plaintiff, forced Plaintiff to partake in Christmas and Christian worship services.” Id. With respect to his official capacity claims, when asked to describe the custom or policy that caused the constitutional violation, Plaintiff states: “CCDFP 017(IV)(A); AJSP § 8-1001 & 1002; AJSP § 10-1008 to 1011; AJSP § 12-1001 et seq.; 1^stAmendment to the U.S. Constitution; Article 2 § 24 to the AR Constitution; AJSP § 6-1001 et seq.” (ECF No. 140 at 9).

3

Plaintiff's fourth claim is for “establishment of religion” and is stated against the Defendants^[3] in both their official and personal capacities. (ECF No. 140 at 9). Plaintiff asserts that “Defendants tried to hinder Plaintiff and try to get Plaintiff to stop practicing his sincerely held Jewish religious beliefs, force Plaintiff to partake in Christmas, force Plaintiff to listen to Christmas worship services, accommodated the religious beliefs of other similarly situated persons, given extra foods from the kitchen to non-Jewish inmates.” Id. With respect to his official capacity claims, when asked to describe the custom or policy that caused the constitutional violation, Plaintiff states: “CCDFP 017; AJSP § 12-1001 et seq.; 1^st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; AJSP § 6-1001 et seq.; Article 2 § 24 to the AR Constitution.” (ECF No. 140 at 10).

Plaintiff's fifth claim is for “retaliation” and is stated against Defendants Watson, Funderburk, Lesher, Atkins, Phillips, and Piggee. (ECF No. 140 at 10). Plaintiff states “Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by trying to hinder him from practicing his protected rights in his religious beliefs by withholding foods, feeding minute portions, taking Plaintiff's wedding band while similarly situated persons were allowed to keep theirs, refusing to order proper Kosher foods, allow Plaintiff to be assaulted then refused medical care to allow Plaintiff to file hate crime charges, put on suicide watch, and blocking Plaintiff's access to courts.” Id. With respect to his official capacity claims, when asked to describe the custom or policy that caused the constitutional violation, Plaintiff states: “1^st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; Article 2 § 13 to the AR Constitution.” (ECF No. 140 at 11).

Plaintiff states his sixth claim as “due process.” Plaintiff asserts the claim against each Defendant in both their official and personal capacities. (ECF No. 140 at 11). Plaintiff states: “Defendants denied Plaintiff's liberties without due process when they failed to properly feed

4

Plaintiff in accordance with his religion while doing so for similarly situated persons; Lesher did so when Plaintiff was assaulted by a prison inmate due to his religion and sexuality and then refused medical treatment for the Plaintiff or allow him to file hate crime charges; Watson, Funderburk, Atkins, and Phillips did so when Plaintiff was put on suicide watch on January 31, 2021 for not eating unkosher breakfast.” (ECF No. 140 at 11). With respect to his official capacity claims, when asked to describe the custom or policy that caused the constitutional violation, Plaintiff states: “CCDCP 11; CCDCP 18; AJSP § 8-1001 et seq.; AJSP § 10-1001 et seq.; AJSP § 12-1001 et seq.; 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; Article 2 § 8 to the AR Constitution.” (ECF No. 140 at 12).

Plaintiff's seventh claim is for “false representation of Kosher food.” (ECF No. 140 at 12). Plaintiff states his claim against the Defendants^[4] in their official and personal capacities. Plaintiff states: “Defendants have served foods to the Plaintiff claiming these foods are Kosher, claiming such foods do not need to hold a Kosher symbol, knowing such foods are not certified as nor prepared in a Kosher way, that the kitchen is not Kosher . . . nor has Rabbinical oversite, writing ‘Kosher' or a ‘K' upon the kitchen foods served.” Id. With respect to his official capacity claims, when asked to describe the custom or policy that caused the constitutional violation, Plaintiff states: “CCDCP 11; AJSP § 6-1002(d); Arkansas Code 20-57-401.” (ECF No. 140 at 13).

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages as relief for his stated claims. (ECF No. 140 at 13). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks: “(i) $500 per incident of discrimination per defendant; (ii) $500 per incident per defendant of adverse violations of free exercise; (iii) $500 per incident per defendant for retaliation; (iv) $500 per incident per defendant's violations of due process; (v) $500 per incident per defendant of establishment violations; (vi) $500 per meal per

5

defendant of false Kosher; (vii) $450,000 for the assault & denial of medical care; (viii) $3.75 per meal not prepackaged Kosher meal as stated in contract; (ix) Plaintiff's costs and fees.” Plaintiff also seeks “injunctive, declaratory judgments.” (ECF No. 140 at 13).

As stated above, both the Clark County Defendants and the Tiger Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 160, 164). Plaintiff has responded to the Defendants' motions. (ECF Nos. 181, 182, 183). The Court notes that Plaintiff's filings total 998 pages. While many of Plaintiff's exhibits are irrelevant to the claims set forth in his Second Amended Complaint and/or the issues presented the Defendants, the Court painstakingly has reviewed these documents in their entirety.

The...