Mary Ames, et al. v. Trina Sexton, et al.

Summary

The document is a memorandum and order addressing defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a case brought by incarcerated plaintiffs who practice the Native American religion. The claims concern alleged interference with smudging and the handling of sacred medicine bags, including claims under RLUIPA, the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. The court grants the motion in part and denies it in part, dismissing claims that were unexhausted and claims against certain supervisory defendants.

Holdings

1. Claims that plaintiffs did not properly exhaust through the prison's required grievance process must be dismissed. Informal complaints, a personal smudging log, or merely initiating but procedurally failing to complete a grievance do not satisfy the PLRA's proper-exhaustion requirement.
2. Summary judgment was denied on the exhausted Free Exercise claims concerning the September 13, 2021, search of Ames's medicine bag and the November 21, 2023, and January 11, 2024, searches of Triplett's medicine bag.
3. Summary judgment was denied on the exhausted Free Exercise claims concerning the general smudging policy, the COVID-19 smudging policy, and the December 22, 2023, and January 6, 2024, denials of smudging.
4. Summary judgment was denied on plaintiffs' RLUIPA claims concerning improper denials of smudging, while other RLUIPA claims were dismissed because plaintiffs sought no available prospective remedy for them.
5. Qualified immunity could not be resolved in defendants' favor at summary judgment on the remaining medicine-bag and smudging claims because factual disputes remained concerning both constitutional violations and the existence of penological justification or a clearly established right.
6. All claims against Warden Sexton and Deputy Warden Beaton were dismissed because plaintiffs alleged liability against them only in their supervisory capacities and did not plead direct participation in the underlying violations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs exhausted their administrative remedies under the PLRA for the religious-practice claims asserted in the complaint.
2. Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on plaintiffs' First Amendment Free Exercise claims concerning the handling of medicine bags and denial of smudging.
3. Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on plaintiffs' RLUIPA claims concerning denial of smudging.
4. Whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims.
5. Whether claims against the warden and deputy warden could proceed when those defendants were alleged to be liable only because of their supervisory roles.
6. Whether plaintiffs' Establishment Clause and Equal Protection claims were exhausted.

Disposition

other