Submitted February 7, 2018 San Francisco, California
Appeal
from the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00286-NVW Neil V. Wake, District
Judge, Presiding Argued and
James
A. Sonne (argued), Supervisor; Kelsey A. Woodford (argued),
Jane E. Kessner (argued), Charles E.T. Roberts, and Gilbert
G. Walton, Elizabeth A. Callahan, Kevin C. Eaton, and William
C. Griscom, Certified Law Students; Zeba A. Huq, Attorney;
Religious Liberty Clinic, Stanford Law School, Stanford,
California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Gregory D. Cote (argued), McCarter & English LLP, Boston,
Massachusetts; Joseph E. Dylo (argued), Assistant Attorney
General; Mark Brnovich, Attorney General; Liability
Management Section, State Government Division, Office of the
Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona; for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and A. Wallace Tashima
and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY[*]
Prisoner
Civil Rights
The
panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of certain
defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and reversed
the district court's summary judgment and remanded in a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by an Arizona prison
inmate alleging violations of his right to religious liberty
under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, and
the denial of due process.
Plaintiff
is a devout Christian who was convicted of a disciplinary
violation and terminated from his kitchen job assignment
after he refused to work on a religious holiday. The district
court found that plaintiff did not satisfy the exhaustion
requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act because he
initiated, but failed to complete, the grievance procedure by
filing two inmate letters requesting an adjustment in his
work schedule. The district court further determined that
plaintiff's appeal of his disciplinary conviction did not
satisfy the exhaustion requirement because his religious
accommodation claim was not within the scope of, nor
addressed on the merits by, his disciplinary appeal.
The
panel held that although plaintiff's letters requesting a
work schedule adjustment did not suffice to exhaust
administrative remedies, plaintiff sufficiently exhausted his
administrative remedies through the disciplinary process. The
panel noted that plaintiff had completed every step of the
disciplinary appeal process and repeatedly voiced his need
for religious accommodation. There was nothing ambiguous
about plaintiff's request; defendants were clearly on
notice of the relief he sought. The panel concluded that on
this record, the purposes of the exhaustion requirement had
been fully served, and that plaintiff was not required to
pursue a separate administrative grievance on his religious
accommodation claim while simultaneously pursuing his
disciplinary appeal.
The
panel affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss
certain defendants at the screening stage pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, holding that plaintiff's complaint
had not explained how the dismissed defendants violated his
rights under the First Amendment or the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act.
OPINION
CHRISTEN, Circuit Judge
Plaintiff-Appellant
Michael Ray Fuqua is an Arizona inmate and a Christian who
was scheduled to work in the prison kitchen on a religious
holiday. Fuqua filed two inmate letters requesting that the
Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) reschedule his
kitchen shifts to accommodate the holiday, but his shifts
were not rescheduled. When Fuqua refused to work on the
holiday, he was returned to his cell and notified that he was
charged with a disciplinary violation. After this incident,
Fuqua was no longer scheduled to work as part of the kitchen
crew.
At his
subsequent disciplinary hearing, Fuqua was found guilty of
Aggravated Refusal of an Assignment and several sanctions
were imposed, including the loss of his job, disciplinary
detention, and hours of extra duty.
Fuqua
filed an unsuccessful disciplinary appeal, followed by a pro
se complaint in federal district court. His complaint alleged
violation of his right to religious liberty under the First
Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. He also
alleged that he was denied due process under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the due
process claims and a number of defendants at the screening
stage, and required the remaining defendants to answer the
complaint's other allegations. At summary judgment,
defendants argued that Fuqua failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), because he did
not seek an accommodation of his religious practice through
ADOC's prisoner grievance process. The district court
agreed and granted summary judgment to defendants. Fuqua
appeals the district court's summary judgment ruling and
its decision to dismiss certain defendants at the screening
stage pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because we conclude
that Fuqua did exhaust his administrative remedies, we
reverse and remand.
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
Factual History
Fuqua's
complaint alleges that he is a devout Christian whose
sincerely held beliefs require that he obey all biblical
laws.[1] The exercise of his faith requires him to
observe the seventh-day Sabbath on Saturdays and eight High
Sabbaths throughout the year, including Passover and the
Feast of
Trumpets.[2]
On
September 21, 2014, prison staff informed Fuqua that he had
been assigned a new job in the kitchen. The same day, Fuqua
submitted a letter to Defendant Francisco, the Corrections
Officer III responsible for all inmate work assignments,
requesting that he not be scheduled to work on Saturdays and
High Sabbaths, including Wednesday, September 24, the Feast
of Trumpets. Fuqua offered to work "all other days,
" or "[e]ven more than 5 days a week, " if
necessary to allow him to observe his religious holidays.
On
September 21, Fuqua reported to work as scheduled and
attempted to deliver a copy of his letter to a correctional
officer in the kitchen. He was instructed to give the letter
to his kitchen supervisor, Defendant Starns, the next day.
Fuqua
returned to the kitchen for work on Monday, September 22 and
tried to give the letter to Sgt. Starns. According to Fuqua,
Starns said, "we don't do that shit here, " and
refused to accept the letter.
On
Tuesday, September 23, Fuqua again reported to the kitchen
for work. He spoke to the kitchen manager, Defendant Clark,
about his inability to work as scheduled on the religious
holiday, and explained his need for religious accommodation.
Defendant Clark instructed him to "do what you have to
do, " but cautioned that Fuqua "will not have a job
here." Later on Tuesday, Francisco responded to
Fuqua's September 21 letter and explained that because
Fuqua already had Saturdays and Sundays off, his supervisor
(Starns) must address scheduling for "specific days you
need off for your various religious needs."
Francisco's response also explained, "[o]ur kitchen
must run 365 days a year."
Wednesday,
September 24, 2014 was the Feast of Trumpets. Fuqua sent
Francisco a second letter asking to trade his shift with a
fellow inmate. He professed that he "want[ed] to
work" and "[did] not want to get fired because I
have to choose between my God's laws and [ADOC]'s
rules." Fuqua reported to the kitchen "in order to
again attempt to reason with . . . Defendants Sgt. Starns and
Kitchen Manager Clark, " but he declined to work. Starns
and Clark denied Fuqua's request to switch shifts with
another inmate, and he was verbally cited with a disciplinary
infraction for refusing to work. Fuqua was returned to his
cell, and his complaint alleges that he was suspended from
work as of September 24. Fuqua alleges he was orally charged
with Aggravated Refusal of an Assignment, a 01B felony,
[3] via
an Inmate Disciplinary ...