Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

William P. Garcia v. Ken Clark

July 8, 2011

WILLIAM P. GARCIA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
KEN CLARK, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC. 8) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN / THIRTY DAYS

Findings And Recommendations

I. Background

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff William P. Garcia ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on March 12, 2010. On May 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint.

Pending before the court is Plaintiff's May, 5, 2010, motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff alleges that he cannot perform his religious practices and is being denied a diet in accordance with his religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment and RLUIPA. By the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks an order directing defendants to allow him (and other prisoners) the right to practice his religion and to provide him with a reasonable accommodation to eat his religious diet.*fn1

On March 29, 2011, the court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief. On April 19, 2011, Defendants filed their opposition to the motion. On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed his reply.

II. Motion For Preliminary Injunction

A. Legal Standard

"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish 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, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable injury pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). "A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 376. An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the movant is entitled to relief. Id.

B. Analysis

Plaintiff is currently detained at California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility and State Prison ("SATF"). Plaintiff's action concerns an alleged deprivation of his right to perform his religious Jewish Orthodox practices. Plaintiff contends that there is no place to pray, wash, and stand and face East during breakfast. Correctional officers harass, degrade and mock him, and other Jewish inmates, during breakfast. Defendant Ibarra and other correctional officers continuously take his Kosher food. For a period of time, Plaintiff refused to eat breakfast because he could not perform his religious duties. Plaintiff contends that Defendants now are attempting to deny him all Kosher meals because he is not picking up his morning meal.

Defendants oppose.*fn2

1. Likelihood of Success On ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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