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.

YOUNG v. BASS

April 6, 2004.

RICKY YOUNG, Plaintiff,
v.
MARY BASS, JUDY BUKOWSKI, THOMAS MONAHAN, TIMOTHY BUDZ, ROBERT GLOTZ, SYMON HOPSON, EDWARD SMITH, RAYMOND WOOD, TRAVIS HEINZE, and LIBERTY HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendants



The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN W. DARRAH, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Ricky Young, filed suit against Mary Bass, Judy Bukowski, Thomas Monahan, Timothy Budz, Robert Glotz, Symon Hopson, Edward Smith, Raymond Wood, Travis Heinze, and Liberty Healthcare Corporation. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied his right to freely exercise his religion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Bass, Bukowski, Monahan, Budz, Glotz, and Hopson. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

  Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Flanders Elec. Motor Serv., Inc., 40 F.3d 146, 150 (7th Cir. 1994). "One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. . . ." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Thus, although the moving party on a motion for summary judgment is responsible for demonstrating to the court why there is no genuine issue of material fact, the non-moving party must go beyond the face of the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file to demonstrate, through specific evidence, that a genuine issue of material fact exists and to show that a rational jury could return a verdict in the non-moving party's favor. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-27; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254-56 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986); Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 923 (7th Cir. 1994).

  Disputed facts are material when they might affect the outcome of the suit. First Ind. Bank v. Baker, 957 F.2d 506, 507-08 (7th Cir. 1992). When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a court must view all inferences to be drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48; Popovits v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 185 F.3d 726, 731 (7th Cir. 1999). However, a metaphysical doubt will not suffice. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. If the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative or is no more than a scintilla, summary judgment may be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-250.

  BACKGROUND

  The undisputed facts, for the purposes of this motion, taken from the parties' Local Rule 56.1(a) & (b) statements of material facts (referred to herein as "Pl.'s 56.1" and "Def's 56.1") and exhibits, are as follows.

  Plaintiff, who is indigent, has been in the custody of the Department's Sexually Violent Persons Unit at either the Sheridan or Joliet Treatment and Detention Facilities in Illinois. He had been under the care of the Department since October 2000; and his formal commitment began on April 25, 2002. Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 1, Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 1. Until April 2002, Plaintiff was a civil detainee, which means that he was incarcerated based upon a probable cause finding under the Sexually Violent Persons Act. After April 25, 2002, Plaintiff was civilly committed under the Sexually Violent Persons Act. Def.'s Ex. E, Budz Dep. at 15. Plaintiff follows the Muslim faith, and he has affiliated himself with the Moorish Science Temple of America. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 2.

  Budz is the Facility Director of the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Treatment and Detention Facility in Joliet, Illinois. He has held that position since January 4, 1999, and is responsible for the overall operations of the site. These responsibilities include the Program's security, the treatment in the Program, the healthcare, the business office, and all of the Facility's operations and engineering. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 10. As Facility Director, Budz also recommends and formulates new policies and facilitates them through the Department's approval process, as well as ensuring enforcement of policies, Budz helps to revise the Department's Resident Handbook, which governs the residents of the Joliet Facility. He has the authority to change practices within the Facility that are not program directives that the Secretary of the Department formalizes into policy. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 11.

  Glotz was employed as the Security Director of the Joliet Facility. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 12. He helped to formulate the policy, and his staff carries out the policy. Def's 56.1 ¶ 13.

  Hopson is employed by the Facility as a security supervisor, in the position of Executive II. He began working for the Department in November 2000 as an internal investigator, and he was promoted to the position of Executive II in September 2001. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 14. Hopson's duties as an Executive II are to supervise security matters, which cover the safety of the inmates, the employees, and the building. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 15. He is also responsible for making sure the policies are enforced, and he makes suggestions for policy changes. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 16. However, complaints of discrimination do not fall within Hopson's duties. Hopson has no involvement in the food content or its service at the Facility, as well. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 17.

  Muslims are not allowed to eat or otherwise consume any product made from a pig. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 50. Moreover, a Muslim has a duty of diligence to make inquiry if he believes that food contains pork or a pork by-product. That duty does not extend to milk because it does not include pork by-products, Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 52. Plaintiff never consumed any of the items he contends contained pork; and there would be other food items present, such as roast beef, baked potatoes, and salad. Typically, these extra items would be enough food to eat. Def's 56.1 ¶¶ 50-51.

  Food service at the Joliet Facility is contracted through the Aramark Corporation. Oliver Hassett is the Food Service Director of Aramark. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 54. Budz approved the contract with Aramark and approved the meals served at the Joliet Facility. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 55. Aramark does not use pork or pork by-products in any of its meals. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 56.

  Once a year, all Muslims take part in Ramadan, which involves fasting from sunup until sundown for thirty days. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 44. Muslims are encouraged to eat before dawn and must break their fast on time at sundown; however, eating before dawn is not a religious requirement. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 47. The Department makes accommodations for the Muslim residents at the Joliet Facility who are observing Ramadan. Those residents get a sack breakfast before sunrise and after sunset, and, are allowed a meal with double portions to make up for the missed lunch meal. Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 45; Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 15. Typically, Plaintiff receives breakfast before sunrise during Ramadan while at the Sheridan Facility; and if he receives his breakfast after sunrise at the Joliet Facility, Plaintiff would not eat those meals, Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 46. However, ...


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.