Eric Watkins v. Jody Upton ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-40220      Document: 00515502554         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/24/2020
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 19-40220                              FILED
    Summary Calendar                        July 24, 2020
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    ERIC WATKINS,
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    JODY UPTON, Warden; G. MALDONADO, JR., Regional Director; HARRELL
    WATTS, Administrator of National Inmate Appeals,
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:11-CV-244
    Before KING, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Eric Watkins, former federal prisoner # 55630-004, appeals the district
    court’s dismissal of his complaint under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
    of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
    (1971). The district court dismissed
    the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure
    to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We review the dismissal
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-40220    Document: 00515502554     Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/24/2020
    No. 19-40220
    de novo and apply the same standard of review to the dismissal for failure to
    state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as for a dismissal under Federal Rule of
    Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Geiger v. Jowers, 
    404 F.3d 371
    , 373 (5th Cir. 2005);
    Harris v. Hegmann, 
    198 F.3d 153
    , 156 (5th Cir. 1999).
    Watkins asserts that he adequately alleged that the defendants violated
    his First Amendment right to practice his religion. He contends that the
    religious menu served at the federal correctional facility in Beaumont, Texas—
    which is part of a pilot program under which religious meals are served on a
    certified unitized tray—did not satisfy the rules of his religion, i.e.,
    Rastafarianism.      He alleges that he informed the defendants of the
    constitutional violation through grievances, but they did not take appropriate
    action.
    Even if we assume that Watkins can raise a First Amendment claim in
    a Bivens action, he has not established that the district court erred. To the
    extent that he challenges the disposition or handling of his grievances, his
    claim does not implicate a constitutional right. See 
    Geiger, 404 F.3d at 374
    .
    He otherwise has not alleged facts to establish a connection between the acts
    of the defendants—whom he maintains were liable as supervisors—and his
    purported injury, i.e., he has set forth neither a deficient policy that the
    defendants implemented nor personal involvement by the defendants in the
    selection or preparation of his religious meals. See Cronn v. Buffington, 
    150 F.3d 538
    , 544 (5th Cir. 1998). In addition, we have held that prisons need not
    respond to particularized religious dietary requests to comply with the First
    Amendment. Baranowski v. Hart, 
    486 F.3d 112
    , 122 (5th Cir. 2007).
    Next, Watkins argues that the district court wrongly dismissed his claim
    under the Equal Protection Clause. He maintains that the religious meals
    2
    Case: 19-40220    Document: 00515502554     Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/24/2020
    No. 19-40220
    served as part of the unitized tray program met the religious dietary needs of
    Islam and Judaism but not Rastafarianism.
    The ground on which Watkins bases his equal protection claim, that the
    defendants as supervisors did not address his problems with the unitized tray
    program after his grievances alerted them to his issues, is the same as the
    ground on which he bases his First Amendment claim.            As noted, those
    allegations are insufficient to state a constitutional violation. See 
    Geiger, 404 F.3d at 374
    ; 
    Cronn, 150 F.3d at 544
    . Moreover, Watkins otherwise has not
    alleged facts to support that, even if he was treated differently from similarly
    situated inmates, any unequal treatment stemmed from a discriminatory
    purpose, i.e., Watkins offers nothing to suggest the religious menu was selected
    because of, and not merely in spite of, any adverse effect it may have on
    Rastafarians. See Woods v. Edwards, 
    51 F.3d 577
    , 580 (5th Cir. 1995).
    Watkins also argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claims
    against the defendants in their official capacities. However, the district court
    properly concluded that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred the claims.
    See Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 
    534 U.S. 61
    , 71-72 (2001); Hafer v.
    Melo, 
    502 U.S. 21
    , 25 (1991).
    Finally, Watkins argues that the district court dismissed his complaint
    without giving him the opportunity to amend it with additional facts. He has
    failed to identify any specific material facts that he would have set forth in an
    amended complaint to suggest that the defendants were liable for the alleged
    violations or to support that his claims were legally meritorious. Accordingly,
    he has not established that the allegations in his complaint could be adequate
    with additional factual development and specificity. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009). He therefore has not shown that the district court abused
    3
    Case: 19-40220    Document: 00515502554       Page: 4   Date Filed: 07/24/2020
    No. 19-40220
    its discretion by not allowing him to amend his complaint. See Eason v. Thaler,
    
    14 F.3d 8
    , 9-10 (5th Cir. 1994).
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    4