Williams v. Gauna

• Decision Date: 20 December 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 2:22-CV-00005
• Parties: JEMADARI CHINUA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. JOEL GAUNA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

JEMADARI CHINUA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
JOEL GAUNA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:22-CV-00005

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division

December 20, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

JASON B. LIBBY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Jamadari Chinua Williams, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are: (1) a Motion to Dismiss filed by Bryan Collier and Joel Gauna (D.E. 26); and (2) a Motion to Dismiss filed by Melanie Quiroga (D.E. 33). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that these motions to dismiss be denied in their entirety.

I. JURISDICTION

The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for case management and making recommendations on dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

1

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a prisoner in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Criminal Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), and is currently residing at the Byrd Unit in Huntsville, Texas. Plaintiff's claims and allegations arise primarily in connection with his former housing assignment to the Garza West Unit in Beeville, Texas.

In the original complaint, Plaintiff named the following Garza West Unit and TDCJ officials as defendants in this case: (1) Joel Gauna (Gauna), the former Garza West Unit Warden; (2) Lori Rincon (Rincon), Garza West Unit Access to Courts (ATC) Supervisor; (3) Bryan Collier (Collier), TDCJ Executive Director; (4) Hall, Garza West Chaplain; (5) Melanie Quiroga (Quiroga), Garza West Food Service Captain; (6) K. Metz (Metz), Assistant Warden; (7) Alexander Mendoza (Mendoza), Garza West Unit Officer; and (8) Jacquelyn Toscano (Toscano), Property Supervisor. (D.E. 1). Plaintiff sued Collier in his official individual capacity and the other defendants in their individual capacities only. (D.E. 13). Plaintiff claimed in his original complaint that Defendants violated his constitutional rights in numerous instances. Plaintiff sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.

A Spears^[1] hearing was conducted on March 1, 2022. Plaintiff filed an “Amended Complaint” on March 17, 2022, which was construed as a supplement to his original complaint. (D.E. 13). In a Memorandum and Recommendation issued on April 19, 2022 (M&R), the undersigned recommended that the Court retain Plaintiff's:

2

(1) First Amendment claims regarding meal service to Muslim inmates observing Ramadan against Gauna and Hall in their individual capacities for monetary relief

(2) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims regarding meal service to Muslim inmates observing Ramadan against Gauna and Quiroga in their individual capacities for monetary relief

(3) First and Eighth Amendment claims related to the implementation of TDCJ's meal service policy during Ramadan against Collier in his official capacity for injunctive relief; and

(4) RLUIPA claim related to the implementation of TDCJ's meal service policy during Ramadan against Collier in his official capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief.

(D.E. 18, p. 20). The undersigned recommended dismissing the remaining claims against the remaining defendants. (Id. at 20-21). United States District Judge David A. Morales adopted the M&R in its entirety on May 18, 2022. (D.E. 22).

On May 19, 2022, the undersigned granted Plaintiff's motion to file a second supplemental complaint in which he sought to add allegations related to his retained claims. (D.E. 21, 23). Plaintiff's supplemental allegations were docketed as Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Amended Complaint. (D.E. 24).

On June 3, 2022, Collier and Hall filed an answer. (D.E. 25). That same day, Collier and Gauna filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (D.E. 26). On July 22, 2022, Quiroga filed her Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. (D.E. 33). Plaintiff has filed two responses to these motions. (D.E. 34, 37).

3

III. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleged the following relevant facts. Plaintiff is a Muslim who has been practicing Islam since 2007. (D.E. 1, p. 6; D.E. 14, p. 8). Plaintiff is required to observe Ramadan, which is a mandatory tenet of Islam. (D.E. 1, p. 11; D.E. 14, pp. 7-9). Plaintiff described the month-long Ramadan celebration as about “teaching self-restraint” and “drawing close to Allah.” (D.E. 14, p. 9). Thus, during this period, Muslims “restrain themselves from eating from” sunrise to sunset. (D.E. 14, p. 9). Despite this daily period of fasting, Muslims should not refrain from consuming “the same amount of food that [they] would during any other day.” (D.E. 14, p. 9).

Plaintiff was first assigned to the Garza West Unit after being taken into TDCJ custody, where he was housed from July 2020 through November 2021. (D.E. 1, pp. 6, 14). According to Plaintiff, TDCJ has a policy that permits its prison units to feed Muslim offenders who are observing Ramadan less food than they would feed every other inmate. (D.E. 14, p. 7). Plaintiff alleged Garza West Unit officials withheld a portion of Plaintiff's allotted food for practicing the Islamic faith during the Ramadan fast of 2021. (D.E. 1, p. 6). These officials took the position that Plaintiff had voluntarily sacrificed his lunchtime meals by fasting. (D.E. 1, pp. 8, 14-15).

Inmates are required to be served 2100-2700 calories of food per day. (D.E. 14, p. 7). According to TDCJ's meal planning policies, the regular menu for inmates provides between 2400 and 2700 calories per day. (D.E. 24, p. 2). During the Ramadan celebration in 2021, which took place from mid-April to mid-May, Plaintiff received a small breakfast portion in the morning before sunrise and a dinner tray in the evening after sunset.

4

(D.E. 1, p. 11; D.E. 14, pp. 9-10). Plaintiff's meals, however, were not supplemented to make up for calories missed during lunchtime. (D.E. 14, p. 9). Plaintiff alleged he was hungry and malnourished during Ramadan. (D.E. 1, p. 11). He further complained that he suffered the following during Ramadan: dizziness, abdominal pains, muscle cramps, dehydration, tremors, and disorientation. (D.E. 24, p. 3). The TDCJ's policy of withholding the required daily intake of calories to Muslims observing Ramadan caused Plaintiff to question whether he should continue with his fasting and ultimately forced him to break his fast by consuming commissary items in violation of his religious beliefs. (D.E. 14, p. 9; D.E. 24, p. 3).

Plaintiff alleged that Quiroga was the official responsible for feeding inmates and for determining how much food Plaintiff was given during the month of Ramadan. (D.E. 14, p. 18). During his time as warden, Gauna was the final policymaker at the Garza West Unit and had the authority to order subordinate employees to provide calorically-adequate food to the Muslim offenders. (D.E. 14, pp. 18-19). Plaintiff believed that Quiroga initially denied calorically-adequate food to Plaintiff and that Gauna ultimately ratified that decision. (D.E. 14, p. 19). With respect to his RLUIPA claim, Plaintiff seeks to hold Collier responsible as the final policymaker and the individual responsible for providing injunctive relief. (D.E. 13, p. 2; D.E. 14, pp. 17-18).

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

Section 1983 provides a vehicle for redressing the violation of federal law by those acting under color of state law. Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004). To prevail on a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must prove that a person acting under the color of state law

5

deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

In their respective motions to dismiss...