United States District Court, D. Nevada
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ECF NO. 10
WILLIAM G. COBB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M.
Du, United States District Judge. The action was referred to
the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice, LR IB 1-4.
the court is Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Relief,
Preliminary Injunction or Permanent Injunction against
Richard Snyder, Chaplain. (ECF No. 10.) Defendant Richard
Snyder filed a response. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff did not file
a reply brief.
thorough review, it is recommended that Plaintiffs motion be
denied as moot.
is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of
Corrections (NDOC), proceeding prose with this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl,, ECF No. 15.) The
events giving rise to this action took place while Plaintiff
was housed at Warm Springs Correctional Center (WSCC).
(Id.) Defendant is WSCC Chaplain Richard Snyder.
complaint, Plaintiff alleges that from January 1, 2016 to
March 3, 2016, he was the appointed inmate facilitator for
Muslim inmate services at WSCC. (ECF No. 15 at 3.) He avers
that Snyder created an unwritten policy requiring Plaintiff
to submit a handwritten copy of each word he planned to say
during Muslim services one week prior to the scheduled
services, and if he failed to do so, he would not be
permitted to speak at the services at all. (Id. at
3-4.) Snyder i allegedly told Plaintiff that
if he deviated at all from the written statement, he would be
removed from his facilitator position and written up for
disciplinary charges. (Id. at 4.) On two occasions,
Plaintiff did not provide a written statement to Snyder a
week in advance, and Snyder refused to permit Plaintiff to
speak as facilitator. (Id.) He claims that he filed
a grievance, and Snyder became enraged and relieved Plaintiff
of his facilitator position. (Id. at 5.)
on these allegations, the court allowed Plaintiff to proceed
with claims under the First Amendment, the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), as well as a
retaliation claim. (Screening Order, ECF No. 14.)
also alleges that Snyder intentionally prohibited Muslim
inmates from religiously communicating during their service
while Christian inmates are permitted to do so. (Id.
at 7-9.) The court allowed Plaintiff to proceed with an equal
protection claim based on these allegations. (ECF No. 14.)
Plaintiff alleges that between October 3, 2015 and May 20,
2016, he was the inmate facilitator for Muslim services, and
he asked Snyder to reschedule the Jumah Friday Muslim prayer
services from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.,
to more correctly reflect the appropriate time Muslims are
supposed to pray in accordance with Islamic law and
tradition. (ECF No. 15 at 11-12.) Snyder refused.
(Id.) Based on these allegations, Plaintiff was
permitted to proceed with additional claims under the First
Amendment and RLUIPA. (ECF No. 14.)
motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff claims that Snyder
suspended Islamic services at WSCC until he could find an
outside Imam to preside over the service. (ECF No. 10 at 2.)
Plaintiff claims that NDOC has never required an outside Imam
in the past, and it is not required by his faith.
(Id. at 2-4.) He asks for Snyder to be removed from
his duties until this case is heard. (Id. at 4.)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a
"court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice
to the adverse party." Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(1).
purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status
quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving
party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure
the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately
determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451
U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is an
"extraordinary and drastic remedy" that is