Cottriel v. Jones

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 15, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JON ANDREW COTTRIEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 14-6037
(D.C. No. 5:03-CV-00125-W)
JUSTIN JONES, Director, (W.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before KELLY, PORFILIO, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Jon Andrew Cottriel, an Oklahoma prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s order denying his motion to hold the Director (Director) of the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) in contempt for violating a permanent
injunction requiring that he be provided kosher meals. Because the order under
review disposed of all relief sought in a post-judgment motion, we take jurisdiction
over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing appellate jurisdiction over “final
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
decisions of the district courts”); cf. Consumers Gas & Oil, Inc. v. Farmland Indus.,
Inc., 84 F.3d 367, 370 (10th Cir. 1996) (holding order finding party in contempt
during the post-judgment stage was appealable).
I. Background
This matter arises from a permanent injunction entered February 8, 2006, that
required the Director, in his official capacity, to provide Mr. Cottriel a kosher diet
at no cost to Mr. Cottriel. The injunction required that the kosher diet comply with
the nutritional requirements of the diets served to other inmates. R. at 942. On
March 27, 2013, Mr. Cottriel filed an Application to Hold Defendant in Contempt
alleging that the meals served to him were not kosher and did not provide sufficient
nutrition. He claimed that some of the food served to him was not kosher because
(1) non-kosher utensils were used to prepare and serve it; (2) the inmate preparing
and serving the kosher meals was not properly trained and supervised; and (3) the
Shabbos and holiday meals did not include the required “wine (non-alcoholic or
grape juice), two loaves of bread (or rolls or whole matzos), fish and meat,”
id. at 1211. Mr. Cottriel asserted that he was required to supplement the prison meals
with kosher food he paid for with his personal funds.
A magistrate judge recommended denying Mr. Cottriel’s contempt motion.
Mr. Cottriel sought review by the district court, which then ordered the Director to
address in writing Mr. Cottriel’s assertions that inmate Marvin Gibson was not
properly trained or supervised, the kitchen utensils were not kosher, and the Shabbos
-2-
and holiday meals did not meet recognized nutritional requirements. The Director
responded that the prison had complied with the permanent injunction by training
inmate Gibson to comply with the prison’s kosher diet protocol when preparing
kosher meals for Mr. Cottriel and other inmates on a kosher diet. Inmate Gibson was
supervised by a prison-food-service manager, Baldemar Hernandez, and the kosher
meals were prepared in a separate kitchen area with utensils separate from the
non-kosher meals. Moreover, pursuant to the affidavit of William Weldon, prison
Food Service Manager III, inmate Gibson had been trained in the preparation and
service of kosher meals and he understood and followed the accepted protocol. The
Director further asserted that the kosher meals were nutritionally adequate and that
prison officials had attempted to resolve Mr. Cottriel’s complaints about the kosher
diet within the rules and protocols applicable to kosher diets. In addition, after the
court ordered the Director to respond, Mr. Cottriel met with prison officials to
address and correct his concerns about kosher meals.
The district court found that Mr. Cottriel had conceded that the prepackaged
kosher food served to him was generally acceptable and that the prison kitchen staff
had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that it complied with the permanent
injunction. Further, the court found that the prison kitchen had a separate preparation
area for the kosher meals and the kosher meals exceeded the required nutritional
guidelines. Finally, the court rejected Mr. Cottriel’s claim that inmate Gibson had
not been properly trained or supervised by a qualified kosher supervisor.
-3-
Accordingly, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
denied Mr. Cottriel’s motion to hold the Director in contempt. Mr. Cottriel appeals,
renewing his arguments presented to the district court.
II. Discussion
We liberally construe Mr. Cottriel’s pro se filings. See Ledbetter v. City of
Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003). We do not, however, “take on the
responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and
searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840
(10th Cir. 2005).
Mr. Cottriel’s contempt motion was properly characterized as seeking a
finding of civil, rather than criminal, contempt. “A contempt sanction is considered
civil if it is remedial and for the benefit of the complainant.” Federal Trade Comm’n
v. Kuykendall, 371 F.3d 745, 752 (10th Cir. 2004) (brackets and internal quotation
marks omitted).
We review a district court’s determination of civil contempt for
abuse of discretion. A district court abuses its discretion if the court’s
adjudication of the contempt proceedings is based upon an error of law
or a clearly erroneous finding of fact. As the moving party in this case,
[Mr. Cottriel] had the initial burden of proving, by clear and convincing
evidence, that a valid court order existed, that [the Director] had
knowledge of the order, and that [the Director] disobeyed the order.
Once [Mr. Cottriel] made that showing, the burden then shifted to [the
Director] to show either that he had complied with the order or that he
could not comply with it.
ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 651 F.3d 1200, 1210 (10th Cir. 2011) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Reliance Ins. Co. v. Mast Constr. Co.,
-4-
159 F.3d 1311, 1315 (10th Cir. 1998) (“We review the district court’s denial of a
civil contempt motion for an abuse of discretion.”). Neither party disputed that
Mr. Cottriel met his burden to prove that a valid court order existed and that the
Director had knowledge of it. The disputed element was whether the Director was in
compliance with the permanent injunction.
Mr. Cottriel challenges the district court’s determination that the Director was
not in contempt, arguing: (1) the court did not have sufficient information to
determine that the kosher meals served to Mr. Cottriel complied with the nutritional
and caloric requirements of the permanent injunction; (2) he submitted a photograph
of a non-kosher meat slicer in the area designated as separate for kosher food
preparation; (3) the kosher food preparation did not follow the protocol approved by
Chaplain Gary Friedman, Chairman, Jewish Prisoner Services International, for
preparation and supervision of kosher meals; and (4) a qualified kosher supervisor
must be available to verify that the meals are kosher.1
Mr. Cottriel claims the district court had insufficient information to support a
finding that the kosher meals were nutritionally adequate. The court relied on
documents showing that the Kosher Master Menu exceeded ODOC’s nutritional
guidelines, and thus complied with the permanent injunction’s mandate that the “diet
1
Mr. Cottriel pursues on appeal his claim that Shabbos and holiday meals did
not include the required “wine (non-alcoholic or grape juice), two loaves of bread (or
rolls or whole matzos), fish and meat,” Aplt. Opening Br. at 4, but he has not
identified any authority requiring these components.
-5-
[provided to Cottriel] shall comply with all nutritional requirements and standards
currently applicable to the diets served to all other inmates in . . . [ODOC] custody.”
R. at 1418-19 (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Cottriel’s claim on appeal that
the court was not informed of what he “was actually being served,” Aplt. Opening
Br. at 6, without evidentiary or legal support, is inadequate appellate argument. See
Simpson v. T.D. Williamson Inc., 414 F.3d 1203, 1206 n.4 (10th Cir. 2005) (rejecting
general argument unsupported by legal authority and noting that an appellate
argument is insufficient if the party fails to cite legal authority or present a developed
argument). Similarly, the photograph of a meat slicer, without more, is not evidence
of a violation of the permanent injunction.
We turn to the question of supervision, which the district court and
Mr. Cottriel acknowledged was the critical issue. Mr. Cottriel contends that the
preparation of kosher meals requires supervision by “highly-competent skilled and
learned Jews [who] have supervised the entire process: the source, preparation and
service of the [meal or individual product”]. Aplt. Opening Br. at 7 (internal
quotation marks omitted). He relies on the prison protocol approved by Chaplain
Friedman for supervision of kosher-meal preparation at the prison.
The district court also relied on the protocol approved by Chaplain Friedman,
which states that “the procedures contained in the referenced protocol are acceptable
for correctional food service operations” provided certain conditions are met,
including as relevant here, “personnel involved in the handling and preparation [be]
-6-
provided with adequate training.” R. at 1234. Based on the affidavits of the prison
food service managers, Hernandez and Weldon, the district court determined that
inmate Gibson’s training was not deficient. And the district court pointed out that
“[t]here is no requirement in the [permanent injunction] that [the Director] provide
training to any individual, including [inmate] Gibson, by a rabbi or a practicing Jew,
and the fact that Gibson was not trained by a rabbi or practicing Jew does not render
his training inadequate or deficient.” Id. at 1421. Mr. Cottriel has not provided any
basis for his challenge to the district court’s holding that the supervision of kosher
meals complied with Chaplain Friedman’s approved protocol and the preliminary
injunction. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding
that the Director was not in contempt.
Mr. Cottriel argues that the Director’s failure to provide him an acceptable
kosher diet was in bad faith. But bad faith is irrelevant to civil contempt. See
McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949) (“Since the purpose is
remedial, it matters not with what intent the defendant did the prohibited act.”);
cf. In re Kendall, 712 F.3d 814, 831 (3d Cir. 2013) (distinguishing criminal and civil
contempt, stating good faith is not a defense to civil contempt); United States v.
Puerto Rico, 642 F.3d 103, 108 n.8 (1st Cir. 2011) (noting that “good faith will not
excuse civil contempt” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Chao v. Transocean
Offshore, Inc., 276 F.3d 725, 728 (5th Cir. 2002) (“Good faith is not a defense to
-7-
civil contempt; the question is whether the alleged contemnor complied with the
court’s order.”).
Mr. Cottriel also argues that the steps the Director took to address and correct
his complaints about the kosher meals did not absolve him of contempt. He
maintains that because those steps were taken after he filed the contempt motion and
after the district court ordered the Director to respond, the Director’s past failures
require a finding that he was in contempt of the permanent injunction. As noted
above, the purpose of a civil-contempt sanction is remedial and is intended to benefit
the complainant. Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at 752. “In civil contempt, the contemnor is
able to purge the contempt . . . by committing an affirmative act [to bring himself
into compliance].” Lucre Mgmt. Group, LLC v. Schempp Real Estate, LLC (In re
Lucre Mgmt. Group, LLC), 365 F.3d 874, 876 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Therefore, under these circumstances, the fact that the Director
addressed Mr. Cottriel’s complaints about the kosher meals after he filed his
contempt motion does not dictate a finding of contempt.
III. Pending Motions
Mr. Cottriel’s “Request to Take Judicial Notice” is denied. He asks this court
to take judicial notice of an undated newspaper article, as well as prison grievances
he filed in June, July, and August of 2014. These documents were not submitted to
the district court, so we do not consider them. See Keith v. Koerner, 707 F.3d 1185,
1190 (10th Cir. 2013) (refusing to consider correspondence submitted with appellate
-8-
brief because it was “additional evidence not submitted to the district court”).
Mr. Cottriel’s “Motion in Limine” asking this court to omit any reference to the
nature of his underlying conviction or the length of his sentence is denied as moot.
IV. Conclusion
The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Director was
not in contempt. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-9-