Williams v. Beltran

• Decision Date: 01 August 2008
• Docket Number: Case No. CV 03-7394-GHK (MLG).
• Citation: 569 F.Supp.2d 1057
• Parties: Jeffrey Allen WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. R. BELTRAN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

Page 1057

569 F.Supp.2d 1057

Jeffrey Allen WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. R. BELTRAN, et al., Defendants.

Case No. CV 03-7394-GHK (MLG).

United States District Court, C.D. California.

August 1, 2008.

Jeffrey Allen Williams, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

Leena M. Sheet, CAAG—Office of Attorney General of California, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

GEORGE H. KING, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the "Motion"). This Motion was initially referred to Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman, who issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on February 5, 2008. We have conducted a de novo review of the papers filed in support of, and in opposition to the Motion. We have also considered Judge Goldman's R & R and the parties' objections to that R & R. We agree with and adopt the findings and conclusions reached by Judge Goldman in the R & R, with the exception of his conclusion regarding the availability of monetary damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc-2000cc-5.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jeffrey Allen Williams ("Plaintiff") is a Muslim inmate at the state prison in Lancaster, California. Pursuant to prison grooming regulations then in effect within the California correctional system, Plaintiff was forced to shave his beard, which he had worn for religious reasons. Plaintiff filed this suit on October 15, 2003, alleging, among other things, a violation of RLUIPA.¹ Due to a change in the grooming regulations, we agree with and adopt the conclusion in the R & R that injunctive and declaratory relief for Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim are now moot. The availability of monetary damages, however, presents a question on which the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits have reached opposite conclusions. Compare Madison v. Virginia, 474 F.3d 118 (4th Cir.2006) (concluding that monetary damages are precluded by the Eleventh Amendment in a suit brought against officials of the Commonwealth of Virginia under RLUIPA) with Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir.2007) (concluding that monetary damages are available under RLUIPA in a suit against Alabama state officials). Numerous district courts are also divided on the issue. Compare, e.g., Price v. Caruso, 451 F.Supp.2d 889, 895 (E.D.Mich.2006) ("under RLUPA, Plaintiff may have a claim against Defendant, in her official governmental capacity, for monetary damages"); with, e.g., Boles v. Neet, 402 F.Supp.2d 1237, 1241 (D.Colo.2005) ("it does not appear that [RLUIPA] permits a claim for damages").

II. RLUIPA

RLUIPA offers heightened protection to religious exercise by providing, among other things, that "[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution ... even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."² 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc-1(a). Congress enacted RLUIPA after the Supreme Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), as applied to States, exceeded the remedial powers afforded to Congress by the Fourteenth Amendment. See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 532-36, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997). RLUIPA was enacted, in part, to cure this defect in RFRA by invoking congressional authority under the spending and commerce clauses. See generally Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005) (upholding the constitutionality of RLUPA, and discussing the history of the Act). RLUIPA is narrower in scope than RFRA, applying only where the substantial burden "is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance," or affects foreign, interstate, or Indian commerce. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc-1(b).

In its remedial section, RLUIPA provides that, "[a] person may assert a violation of this chapter as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(a) (emphasis added). This language mirrors the remedial clause in RFRA, which provides that, "[a] person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government." 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c) (emphasis added).

III. ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY

The Eleventh Amendment states:

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." U.S. CONST. amend XI.

The Eleventh Amendment also precludes citizens from bringing suit against their own State in federal court. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 13, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). The Supreme Court has explained that, "[d]espite the narrowness of its terms ... we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty; and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the plan of the convention." Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak and Circle Village, 501 U.S. 775, 779, 111 S.Ct. 2578, 115 L.Ed.2d 686 (1991) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

There are three main exceptions to the broad grant of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. "First, Congress may authorize such a suit in the exercise of its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment—an Amendment enacted after the Eleventh Amendment and specifically designed to alter the federal-state balance. Second, a State may waive its sovereign immunity by consenting to suit." College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 670, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999) (citations omitted). Third, suit may be brought to enjoin a state official under Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) rather than against the State itself. The exception afforded by Ex Parte Young, however, does not permit a suit for monetary damages. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 658-59, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974); see also Miranda B. v. Kitzhaber, 328 F.3d 1181, 1187-89 (9th Cir.2003). Further, as discussed above, because City of Boerne held that RFRA exceeded congressional authority under the Fourteenth Amendment, RLUIPA instead purports to invoke the spending and commerce clauses. Congress cannot abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity pursuant to the spending and commerce clauses. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 72-73, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). As such, insofar as RLUIPA avoids the Eleventh Amendment, it can only be because the State has waived its immunity by consenting to suit.

A court may only conclude that a State has waived immunity under the Eleventh Amendment in limited circumstances. "In deciding whether a State has waived its constitutional protection under the Eleventh Amendment, we will find waiver only where stated `by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as (will) leave no room for any other reasonable construction.'" Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (quoting Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U.S. 151, 171, 29 S.Ct. 458, 53 L.Ed. 742 (1909)). A court may not "infer that a State's immunity from suit in the federal courts has been negated." Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89; 99, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) ("Pennhurst II"). For a court to find waiver, a federal spending program must manifest "a clear intent to condition participation in the programs funded ... on a State's consent to waive its constitutional immunity." Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 247, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985). Here, we must determine whether RLUIPA conditions receipt of federal prison funds on state waiver of sovereign immunity and construe whether such waiver extends to monetary damages.

IV. WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UNDER RLUIPA

As quoted above, RLUIPA permits an action for "appropriate relief against a government." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(a). The statute defines "government" to include, among other things, "a State, county, municipality, or other governmental entity created under the authority of a State," and "any branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official" of such entities. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(4)(A)(i)-(ii). RLUIPA also clearly applies to any "program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance." 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc-1(b). Given this express language, we conclude that RLUIPA unambiguously conditions receipt of federal prison funds on waiver of sovereign immunity pursuant to RLUIPA. The Fourth and Eleventh Circuits have reached the same conclusion. Madison, 474 F.3d at 130; Smith, 502 F.3d at 1276 n. 12 (citing Benning v. Georgia, 391 F.3d 1299, 1306 (11th Cir.2004)). Defendants concede, and we find, that California receives federal prison funds, and so waiver applies here.

That waiver applies is only the start of our inquiry, however. The more pressing question, on which the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits split, is whether the remedial clause in RLUIPA providing for "appropriate relief" is sufficiently broad and explicit to waive state immunity from money damages. As we have stated above, we conclude that it is not....