Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Garnica v. Wash. Dep't of Corrections

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

August 13, 2013

MARCO GARNICA, Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ELDON VAIL, RONALD FRAKER, BRENT CARNEY, JAY A. JACKSON, JAMIE CALLEY, Defendants

Page 1251

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1252

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1253

Marco Garnica, Plaintiff, Pro se, CONNELL, WA.

For Washington Department of Corrections, Ronald Fraker, Superintendent, Clallam Bay Correction Center, Jamie Calley, Food Manager IV, Clallam Bay Correction Center, Defendants: Candie M Dibble, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON (Spokane), CORRECTIONS DIVISION, SPOKANE, WA.

For Eldon Vail, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Brent Carney, Dietary Services Manager, Department of Corrections, Jay A Jackson, Food Program Manager, Department of Corrections, Defendants: Candie M Dibble, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON (Spokane), CORRECTIONS DIVISION, SPOKANE, WA.

OPINION

Page 1254

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE

ROBERT J. BRYAN, United States District Judge.

This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. Dkt. 50. The court has reviewed the relevant documents, including plaintiff's objections (Dkt. 53) and the remaining record.

On June 19, 2013, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom issued a Report and Recommendation, concluding that (1) plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact to establish an Eighth Amendment violation, based upon his consumption of the food provided during the 2010 Ramadan fast; and plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact to establish that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his health and safety; (2) defendants cannot be held liable under RLUIPA for monetary damages; and any request for injunctive relief under RLUIPA is moot; (3) plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to his claim that the Ramadan 2010 policies and meals burdened the practice of his religion; and (4) plaintiff failed to exhaust his claims relating to the 2010 Eid ul-Fitr Feast. Dkt. 50.

On July 1, 2013, plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, arguing that (1) his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when defendants denied him enough calories and nutrition during the Ramadan 2010 fast to maintain his health,

Page 1255

requiring him to seek medical attention and to violate one of the tenets of his religion by breaking his fast; (2) the claim under RLUIPA is not moot; and (3) defendants' policies regarding the Ramadan 2010 fast violated his First Amendment rights to practice his religion. Dkt. 53.

On August 6, 2013, defendants filed a response to the objections, arguing that plaintiff failed to show that the 2010 Ramadan box meals were nutritionally deficient or that defendants acted with deliberate indifference; that the RLUIPA claim for injunctive relief is moot; and that plaintiff failed to show that defendants' actions substantially burdened the practice of his religion. Dkt. 54.

The court has carefully reviewed the record. The Report and Recommendation carefully and accurately set forth the facts, thoroughly analyzed the facts in relation to the law, and concluded that plaintiff has not raised a material issue of fact regarding his claims under the First and Eighth Amendments, and his claim under RLUIPA. The record shows that defendants attempted to accommodate the inmates' nutritional requirements during the 2010 Ramadan fast, while addressing the institution's need for cost effectiveness and efficiency, and, when deficiencies were identified, promptly addressed the problems. The court can add nothing more to the well reasoned Report and Recommendation, and concurs with the recommendation. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Further, the record shows that plaintiff's claim regarding the 2010 Ramadan Eid ul-Fitr Feast should be dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff failed to exhaust this claim.

This case was originally filed in Thurston County Superior Court, and was removed by defendants to federal court. See Dkt. 1. In the event that plaintiff files an appeal of this case, in forma pauperis status should be denied, without prejudice to plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 50) is ADOPTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 39) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claim relating to the 2010 Eid ul-Fitr Feast is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In the event that plaintiff files an appeal of this case, in forma pauperis status is DENIED, without prejudice to plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.