Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Terry Goddard Attorney General Susanna C. Pineda, Bar No. 011293 Assistant Attorney General 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Phone: (602) 542-4951 Fax: (602) 542-7670 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Kristofer M. Seneca, Plaintiff, v. State of Arizona, et al., Defendants. Defendants1, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment [under Rule 60(b) (2) and (3)],or Motion to Supplement Record and asks that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motions in their entirety. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. Relevant Factual and Procedural History. On July 13, 2003, Plaintiff filed his Complaint alleging that Defendants had violated his right to free exercise of his religion and RLUIPA by implementing certain religion policies at the Arizona Department of Corrections ("ADC"). (Dkt. 1.) Of his State of Arizona, ADC Director Dora Schriro, Mike Linderman, Sandra Walker and Wanda Hofmann.
1

No. CV 03-1350 PHX SRB (ECV) RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD

Case 2:03-cv-01350-SRB

Document 145

Filed 10/16/2006

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

three claims for relief, Count I and Count II were permitted to proceed following this Court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) screening. (Dkt. 6.) Count III, involving religious books, was dismissed. (Id.) Count I of the remaining counts alleged that ADC policy requiring verification before Plaintiff could change his religious preference violated his right to free exercise of religion. (Dkt. 1, 6.) Count II alleged that ADC policy which limited the number of religious items an inmate may possess to seven unduly restricted the exercise of his religion in violation of RLUIPA. (Id.) It also alleged that ADC policy required that inmates purchase their religious items through the inmate store "limited to the items ADOC has picked to sell in the inmate store" and prevents the donation of religious items. (Dkt. 6 at pp. 5-6.) Subsequently, the parties each filed Motions for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 27 and Dkt. 72.) On September 1, 2004, this Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in part, and denied it in part. (Dkt. 82.) This Court dismissed Count I of Plaintiff's complaint as moot (plaintiff had been permitted to change religious affiliation), and left Count II-the question of whether ADC's policy restricting the number of religious items an inmate may possess to seven items significantly infringed on Plaintiff's ability to practice his religion. (Id.) Prior to the trial date for Count II, ADC changed its religion policy and the corresponding property policy mooting Plaintiff's claim that ADC's restriction on the number of religious items an inmate could possess violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). (Dkt. 100.) As a 2
Case 2:03-cv-01350-SRB Document 145 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

result, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this claim as moot. (Id.) On November 17, 2005, this Court granted Defendants' motion. (Dkt. 119.) In doing so, the Court noted that the portion of Count II that involved inmate purchases and donations of religious items had been overlooked by both parties, and granted the parties the opportunity to address this issue, including exhaustion. (Id. at 5-6.) Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies regarding this claim prior to bringing suit. (Dkt. 123.) This Court agreed. (Dkt. 139.) II. Legal Argument. Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may grant relief from judgment on the following grounds: On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Here, Plaintiff seeks to vacate the court's dismissal of his action by alleging that "[j]ust as Plaintiff predicted, Defendants have effectively `reneged' on their changed policy." (Dkt. 44 at 1.) Plaintiff apparently alleges that Defendants have perpetrated a fraud upon the Court by allegedly manipulating the prison's religious policy to moot his 3
Case 2:03-cv-01350-SRB Document 145 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

case while proceeding to infringe on his religious rights. However, he then goes on to complain about matters that are completely unrelated to the claims raised in his suit. His current allegation is not that he is unable to change religions without a letter from a religious organization, it is that an inmate who sought to belong to the same religion as he, was mislabeled a "buddist" without specification to the particular type of buddism practiced. In an apparent attempt to connect this unrelated matter to Count I of his Complaint, plaintiff attaches responses to inmate letters that predate the change in policy that mooted Count I. (See Plaintiff's Exhibit C.) Whether this particular inmate's religious choice was misstated, however, does not demonstrate that ADC has reneged on the policy changes that mooted Plaintiff's claim of action. Plaintiff also complains that certain of his approved religious items do not fit in the authorized religious box.2 However, as this Court is aware, the question posed in Plaintiff's lawsuit was whether ADC could limit the number of religious items an inmate may possess to seven. That issue was mooted when the policy was changed to increase the size of the box dedicated to religious items and allow inmates to possess those approved items that fit into the box. As Plaintiff's own exhibits demonstrate, ADC continues to approve religious items, without numerical limitation. (See Plaintiff's Exhibits B, D, and E.)

Plaintiff has previously alleged that these items could not be found in the sizes permitted by ADC which will fit into the larger dedicated religious box. 4
2

Case 2:03-cv-01350-SRB

Document 145

Filed 10/16/2006

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

III.

Conclusion.

Plaintiff has made absolutely no showing of fraud. Defendants respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiff's motion to vacate, as well as his attempt to "supplement" the record with irrelevant matters that will only serve to cloud the matter currently pending appeal.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 16th day of October, 2006. Terry Goddard Attorney General

s/ Susanna C. Pineda Susanna C. Pineda Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants

5
Case 2:03-cv-01350-SRB Document 145 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Original e-filed this 16th day of October, 2006, with: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of Arizona 401 West Washington Street, SPC 1 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118 Copy mailed the same date to: Kristofer M. Seneca #113423 ASPC - Eyman - Meadows Unit P.O. Box 3300 Florence, AZ 85232-3300 s/ Colleen S. Jordan Secretary to: Susanna C. Pineda IDS03-0340/RSK:G03-03514 #982646

6
Case 2:03-cv-01350-SRB Document 145 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 6 of 6