Blake v. Dzurenda ( 2023 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 ALFONSO M. BLAKE, Case No. 3:19-cv-00321-ART-CSD 5 Petitioner, ORDER 6 v. 7 JAMES DZURENDA, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 Before the Court are competing proposals for language that would give 11 Plaintiff injunctive relief so that he can receive a vegan diet consistent with his 12 religious beliefs. (ECF Nos. 75; 76.) Before the Court is also Plaintiff’s request for 13 reconsideration of this Court’s Order. (ECF No. 75.) The Court previously granted 14 summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff with respect to his RLUIPA claim, granted 15 summary judgment in favor of Defendant Thomas (the only Plaintiff sued for 16 damages), and dismissed Plaintiff’s constitutional claims as duplicative of his 17 RLUIPA claim. (ECF No. 74.) The Court directed the parties to confer and submit 18 proposed language for injunctive relief and further ordered that if the parties are 19 unable to reach an agreement each should submit supplemental briefing. (Id.) 20 The parties are unable to reach an agreement with respect to the language of an 21 injunction and Plaintiff further requests reconsideration of the Court’s Order. 22 (ECF Nos. 75; 76.) The Court adopts Defendant’s proposed language and denies 23 Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration. 24 Plaintiff’s supplemental brief requests reconsideration of this Court’s Order 25 with respect to two issues. Plaintiff requests that the Court revisit its finding that 26 Defendant Thomas did not personally participate in any alleged constitutional 27 violation because he was merely a grievance responder and requests that the 28 1 Court revisit its decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s constitutional claims as duplicative 2 of his RLUIPA claim. 3 The Court declines to reconsider its Order with respect to Defendant 4 Thomas. Plaintiff incorrectly relies on Nevada Administrative Code (“AR”) 810.3 5 to support his contention that Thomas was not merely a grievance denier but 6 personally participated in the alleged deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional 7 rights. Defendant Thomas was the Deputy Director during the relevant time 8 frame. AR 810.3 gives the Deputy Director decision-making power with respect 9 to recognition of new faith groups and personal religious property. AR 810.3 does 10 not apply to the monitoring or implementation of religious diets. Another 11 regulation, AR 814, governs the monitoring and implementation of religious diets. 12 AR 814 does not give decision-making power to the Deputy Director. As such, AR 13 810.3 does not support Plaintiff’s argument for reconsideration. 14 The Court also declines to revisit its decision with respect to the dismissal 15 of the constitutional claims as duplicative of the RLUIPA claim. The Court 16 dismissed Plaintiff’s constitutional claims after it dismissed Defendant Thomas, 17 the only defendant sued in his personal capacity. After Defendant Thomas was 18 dismissed, the Court was left with an RLUIPA claim and constitutional claims 19 requesting identical injunctive relief. The Court found it imprudent to reach the 20 constitutional claims because the relief was duplicative of the RLUIPA claim. The 21 only case cited by Plaintiff that appears relevant is Jones v. Williams, which 22 supports this Court’s decision. 791 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2015). In Jones, the Ninth 23 Circuit found the plaintiff’s RLUIPA and free exercise claims moot with respect to 24 injunctive relief because he had been released from prison but addressed his 25 constitutional claims only to the extent the claims sought money damages, a 26 different form of relief. Id. Like in Jones, any request under the Constitution for 27 injunctive relief would be moot insofar as this Court already granted injunctive 28 relief under RLUIPA. 1 The Court adopts Defendant’s proposed language for injunctive relief, 2 || which is narrowly tailored to the Court’s decision. The Court rejects □□□□□□□□□□ 3 || proposed language because it would require the Court to unreasonably interfere 4 || with NDOC’s ability to manage its facility. Plaintiff requests, for example, that 5 || NDOC to allow Plaintiff to purchase vegan products from an outside vendor if 6 || food items are not available and requests personal delivery of his meals by food 7 || service cooks. These requests exceed the scope of the Court’s Order. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the proposed injunction set forth in ECF 9 || No. 76 is adopted and incorporated by reference. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent Plaintiff's supplemental brief 11 || (ECF No. 75) moves this Court for reconsideration of this Court’s Order (ECF No. 12 || 74) the motion is DENIED. 13 DATED THIS 3'4 day of January 2023. 14 15 An jlosed den 16 ANNE R. TRAUM 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28