Walker v. Watson
| Decision Date | 30 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 6:20-cv-6114 |
| 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
No. 6:20-cv-6114
United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
September 30, 2022
ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 211. Plaintiff has filed objections. ECF No. 216. The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.
I. BACKGROUND
The factual background to this matter is voluminous and has different dimensions that reflect Plaintiff's several claims against Defendants. Plaintiff brings three claims under the First Amendment based on alleged infringement of his free exercise of religion, establishment of religion, and retaliation for filing an initial lawsuit. Plaintiff brings two claims under the Fourteenth Amendment based on alleged violations of his right to equal protection and right to constitutional conditions of confinement. Plaintiff brought a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, alleging infringement on the exercise of his religion. Plaintiff also brought a claim under Arkansas Code § 20-57-401, alleging misrepresentations of non-kosher foods as kosher. The Court attempts to provide the most succinct and clearest recitation of the facts underlying these claims.
On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff became a pretrial detainee at the Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”). Upon entry and intake into the CCDC, Plaintiff informed the jail staff that he
was Jewish and required a strict kosher diet. At the time of Plaintiff's detainment, the CCDC had a contractual agreement with Tiger Correctional Services (“Tiger”) to provide meals and other food services for its inmates and detainees. Plaintiff began receiving sack meals on August 9, 2020. There is a documented request by Plaintiff for kosher meals dated August 9, 2020, in which Plaintiff asserts that the foods he had been served were not compliant with kosher requirements because of different cross contamination occurring with pork products. The CCDC Jail Administrator at that time, Michael Lesher, responded stating that pork products were not being served at the CCDC. Plaintiff also asserts that the sack meals contained meat and dairy products within the same meal, which is also in violation of kosher requirements. Plaintiff asserts that at the onset of his detainment the bagged of chips in the sacked meals was the only food he could eat for a roughly ten-day period.
Tiger was not informed of Plaintiff's request for kosher meals until August 16, 2020. Tiger staff then began serving Plaintiff a Common Fare diet that a registered dietician had informed them was kosher compliant. Plaintiff first received a Common Fare meal on August 16, 2022. Thereafter, in preparing Plaintiff's meals, CCDC staff attempted to comply with what they believed were kosher requirements. These efforts included giving Plaintiff disposable utensils that were never in contact with non-kosher foods, washing cookware used to prepare Plaintiff's meals in a dedicated sink, and serving Plaintiff's meals in disposable styrofoam trays that were never in contact with non-kosher food.
Tiger began serving Plaintiff prepacked meals from HMR[1] around mid-October 2020. Tiger believed these pre-packaged foods were kosher compliant after consulting with a registered dietician who stated that the HMR meals were kosher. Plaintiff raised complaints regarding the
HMR meals, asserting that these meals violated certain kosher principles, such as having meat and dairy items in the same meal. Plaintiff began receiving different pre-packaged foods on November 21, 2020, which Plaintiff does not dispute complied with kosher requirements. However, Plaintiff asserts that between November 21, 2020, and May 9, 2021, various other food items provided to supplement the pre-packed kosher items were not kosher compliant. From October 2020 until April 2021, Plaintiff filed multiple grievances complaining that the food he was receiving was not kosher compliant. Plaintiff asserts that he began to receive genuine kosher compliant foods on May 10, 2021. Plaintiff also asserts that he was informed by CCDC Jail Administrator Michael Lesher that kosher foods could not be delivered or dropped off at the CCDC. According to Fred Phillips, who became CCDC Jail Administrator on January 1, 2021, Plaintiff is the only known inmate under the present Clark County administration to request a kosher diet.
Fred Phillips asserts that after he became Jail Administrator, the CCDC consulted with an individual they believed could inform them of proper kosher dietary requirements. Fred Phillips also asserts that CCDC staff would purchase food at local grocery stores in an attempt to provide Plaintiff with kosher food items when Tiger was unable to provide kosher compliant meals. Around mid-January 2021, Plaintiff received access to a microwave meant for his personal use to avoid cross-contamination with other food items. Plaintiff asserts that there were occasions when other individuals used the microwave when he was not present.
During Christmas season, CCDC permits local churches to provide holiday meals and host prayer and church services within the CCDC common day room. No inmate is denied participation in the meal or church service and no inmate is forced to participate. Plaintiff asserts that he was forced to hear the Christmas services due to his proximity to the day room. CCDC staff assert that no denomination is prevented from donating meals and that meals from Tiger are still available
during the Christmas season. Plaintiff asserts that on December 25, 2020, he only received breakfast from Tiger and that the only available lunch meal was the non-kosher Christmas meal brought in by local volunteers. CCDC staff assert that other food apart from the Christmas meal is available to inmates on Christmas day.
On September 28, 2020, Plaintiff's wedding ring was confiscated by CCDC staff. Plaintiff asserts that other inmates were permitted to keep jewelry items on their person. CCDC staff assert that CCDC policy prohibits jewelry, thus Plaintiff's ring should have been confiscated during intake but was overlooked.
Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by an Arkansas Department of Corrections inmate who was temporarily housed in the CCDC in November 2020. Plaintiff states that he reported the assault the day after the incident, while Michael Lesher disputes that Plaintiff immediately reported the assault. Michael Lesher states that at the time Plaintiff reported the assault, he had no apparent physical injuries or physical markings. Plaintiff contends that he had internal injuries. Plaintiff made a medical request and was eventually seen by Dr. Elkins on multiple occasions after his request. Michael Lesher states that he consulted with the Criminal Investigation Department regarding this assault and that the conclusion was that there was not enough evidence to bring any charges against the inmate Plaintiff alleges assaulted him. Michael Lesher founded this decision on the lack of apparent injuries, witnesses to the assault, or other proof.
In January 2021, Plaintiff was placed on suicide watch after he refused to eat numerous consecutive meals. Plaintiff was placed in a particular cell and was on suicide watch for approximately four to five hours in order to ensure that he was not a danger to himself. After determining Plaintiff was not a danger to himself, CCDC staff took him off suicide watch but kept him in that particular cell for seven days.
Plaintiff was transferred out of the CCDC on April 14, 2022, and is now an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Corrections.
On October 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint. ECF No. 1. The Court subsequently granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 3. Plaintiff eventually submitted his Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 140) against Defendants Sheriff Jason Watson, Chief Deputy Raymond Funderburk, Jail Administrator Michael Lesher, Jail Sergeant Clay Atkins, Jail Administrator Fred Phillips, Halbert Torraca, James Gainous, Brenda Piggee, and Tiger Correctional Services, Inc.[2] The Second Amended Complaint is the operative complaint in this matter. In his complaint, Plaintiff seeks a mix of compensatory and punitive damages along with certain injunctive relief and declaratory judgments. Id. at p. 13.
On December 13, 2021, Defendants Sheriff Jason Watson, Chief Deputy Raymond Funderburk, Jail Administrator Michael Lesher, Jail Sergeant Clay Atkins, and Jail Administrator Fred Phillips filed their motion for summary judgement. ECF No. 160. That same day, Defendants Halbert Torraca, James Gainous, Brenda Piggee, and Tiger Correctional Services, Inc. filed their motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 164. On February 11, 2022, Plaintiff responded in opposition to both motions. ECF No. 181. Defendants have replied. ECF Nos. 189 and 192.
On June 6, 2022, Judge Bryant issued the instant report and recommendation, recommending that Defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted and Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 140) be dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 211, p. 27. On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed his objections. ECF No. 216.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Hess v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 898 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is a “threshold inquiry of . . . whether there is a need for trial-whether, in other words, there are genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they...
To continue reading
Request your trial