Opinion
No. 2:11-cv-02555 MCE AC P
03-11-2016
ANDRE JAMAL ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at the Sierra Conservation Center (SCC), under the authority of the California Department of Corrections (CDCR). Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which plaintiff, a Muslim, seeks a fully Halal diet or, alternatively, a fully Jewish Kosher Diet. The current dietary options available to plaintiff are the Halal meat dinner entree and/or the vegetarian Religious Meat Alternative Diet (RMAD). This action proceeds on plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed March 27, 2013, against defendant George J. Giurbino, former Director of CDCR's Division of Adult Institutions, on plaintiff's claims for declaratory and prospective injunctive relief under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). See ECF Nos. 85-6.
Following this court's decision on defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court found that appointment of counsel is warranted to assist plaintiff with the further proceedings in this action. See ECF No. 89. The court's Alternative Dispute Resolution Coordinator is currently seeking an attorney willing to accept this appointment.
Plaintiff previously filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief seeking to obtain a fully Halal diet pending resolution of this case. See ECF No. 90. Plaintiff's motion was denied on February 17, 2016. See ECF Nos. 90-2.
Plaintiff now moves for preliminary injunctive relief seeking to obtain a fully Jewish Kosher Diet as a "stopgap" measure, pending final resolution of this case. See ECF No. 93 at 2. Plaintiff contends that he is likely to succeed on the merits of this action, and addresses the merits of each of his legal theories. Plaintiff also contends that Kosher food is a religiously acceptable alternative to Halal food but acknowledges, nevertheless, that "there is a high likelihood he will consume haram meat with a kosher symbol." Id. at 9; see also id. at 7 ("[e]at[ing] the Jewish Kosher Diet . . . may not meet halal requirements"). Finally, plaintiff contends that "denying [him] kosher meals denies him all means of religious practice." Id. at 6-7, 9.
As previously noted by this court, "[a] preliminary injunction is an 'extraordinary and drastic remedy,' 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, p. 129 (2d ed.1995) [] (footnotes omitted); it is never awarded as of right, Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 440 (1944)." Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008). "The sole purpose of a preliminary injunction is to "preserve the status quo ante litem pending a determination of the action on the merits." Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1023 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing L.A. Memorial Coliseum Comm'n v. NFL, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir.1980)); see also 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2947 (2d ed. 2010)
In evaluating the merits of a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the court considers whether the movant has shown that "he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). A preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates . . . "serious questions going to the merits and a hardship balance [] tips sharply toward the plaintiff, . . . assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met." Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). An injunction against individuals who are not parties to the action is strongly disfavored. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969).
Additionally, in cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction "must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
As this court has previously noted, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to succeed on the merits of his claims. See ECF No. 91 at 3. A reasonable opportunity, however, is not the same as a likelihood of success. Moreover, as the court has also previously noted, "the harm that plaintiff alleges is neither imminent (plaintiff alleges that the harm has been ongoing since 2008 [when he converted to Islam]), nor clearly irreparable (plaintiff's continuing efforts to obtain a fully Halal diet reflect some confidence that any prior diet transgressions may be forgiven within his religion)." Id. Additionally, despite his instant arguments to the contrary, plaintiff has previously acknowledged that "diet aside, he practices his religion in several ways, including reading the Quran, Sunnah and Hadith, Pl. Depo. at 14:23-4; regularly attending the religious services Jummah and Talim, id. at 30:22-31:18; and observing the religious holy days Ramadan and Eid A-Fitr, id. at 31:19-21:4." Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 85 at 32.
Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he may eat non-Halal food if it is the only food available and he is not being willfully disobedient. See Findings and Recommendations (discussion and citations), ECF No. 85 at 16-7. --------
CDCR policy currently limits the Jewish Kosher Diet to Jewish inmates, "as determined by a Jewish Chaplain." 15 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3054.1(a). Pending a final decision on plaintiff's challenges to this regulation and related regulations, this policy is supported by legitimate considerations concerning CDCR's budget and management. Granting plaintiff individual temporary relief could result in CDCR being inundated with requests for the same relief by other Muslim inmates. Moreover, these legitimate penological considerations outweigh plaintiff's equivocal arguments seeking temporary relief. Significantly, preliminary injunctive relief is not necessary to preserve the court's authority to render a meaningful decision this case. For these reasons, this court finds that the balance of equities tips clearly in favor of defendant.
Accordingly, this court recommends that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, ECF No. 93, be denied.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: March 11, 2016
/s/_________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE