Opinion
No. 2:03-CV-0209.
March 24, 2005
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff VINCENT WILEY JAMES, acting pro se and while a prisoner incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, filed suit pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 complaining against the above-referenced defendants and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
On March 2, 2005, a Report and Recommendation was issued by the United States Magistrate Judge analyzing defendants' motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's responsive pleadings and recommending defendants' motion for summary judgment be GRANTED and all of plaintiff VINCENT WILEY JAMES' claims be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous, for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, for requesting monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief, and because defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
The period for response and plaintiff's subsequent extension have expired; and no objections have been filed by plaintiff.
The defendants filed their objection on March 14, 2005. Defendants argue plaintiff did not plead a violation of his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in his original Complaint and never amended his Complaint to include this claim. Further, defendants point out, any pleading filed by plaintiff advancing a claim under the RLUIPA was filed after defendants had filed their motion for summary judgment.
Defendants object to those sections of the Report and Recommendation construing plaintiff's claim under the RLUIPA and ask, in the alternative, that this cause be stayed until the Supreme Court has reached a decision in Cutter v. Wilkinson, 349 F.3d 257 (6th Cir. 2003), cert. granted, 2004 WL 843727 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2004) (No. 03-9877).
The defendants are correct; plaintiff did not plead a claim under the RLUIPA in his complaint and did not advance that argument until after the filing of defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Nevertheless, plaintiff did assert, in his original complaint, a violation of his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the predecessor to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Moreover, plaintiff argued the RLUIPA in his March 5, 2004 and subsequent pleadings, including his response to defendants' motion for summary judgment, to which defendants did not reply. In addition, plaintiff did not add new facts to bring his claims under the RLUIPA. The Court is charged with the duty to liberally construe a pro se litigant's pleadings, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), and, in doing so, the "liberal reading of prisoner complaints extends necessarily to matters of both law and fact." Taylor v. Gibson, 529 F.2d 709, 714 (5th Cir. 1976).
Defendants' motion for summary judgment was filed March 1, 2004.
Defendants do not argue they suffered any prejudice from the Court's action in this regard. Further, although plaintiff explicitly advanced the RLUIPA in his response to their motion for summary judgment, defendants did not choose to file a reply brief or object to an untimely assertion of that argument. Defendants also did not include any argument addressing this claim in their objections, asking, instead, that the case be stayed pending Supreme Court ruling on a challenge to the validity of the RLUIPA.
The Court has made an independent examination of the records in this case and has examined the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, as well as the objection filed by defendants. The Court is of the opinion that the objection filed by defendants should be OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge should be ADOPTED by the United States District Court.
This Court, therefore, does hereby OVERRULE defendants' objections and ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and all of plaintiff VINCENT WILEY JAMES' claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE DUE TO DEFENDANTS' ENTITLEMENT TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND WITH PREJUDICE AS FRIVOLOUS, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED, AND FOR REQUESTING MONETARY RELIEF FROM DEFENDANTS WHO ARE IMMUNE FROM SUCH RELIEF.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
All pending motions are DENIED.
The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and to any attorney of record by first class mail. The Clerk shall also mail a copy to TDCJ-Office of the General Counsel, P.O. Box 13084, Capitol Station, Austin, TX 78711 and to the Pro Se Clerk at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.
IT IS SO ORDERED.