Prison Watch

William Rouser Plaintiff V. Gavin newsom Defendant

Plaintiff first disagree that he should have to answer this motion for the defendants knew they never served plaintiff and had the audacity in their last filings to claim plaintiff never filed a opposition against their motion to dismiss when they knew he never received it for they never sent it. Second he does not have qualified immunity to tell someone to commit a crime be it a civil rights violation which is protected by the Constitution, or one that is a Felony he has an obligation to the people and the people never sanctioned for him to tell a prison they can fraudulently deprive a person of his constitutional right to practice his religion, that they can knowingly dis obey a court order from the 9th circuit, the consent decree and RLUIPA which stated they could not place a substantial burden upon plaintiff's ability to practice his religion without a genuine penological reason.  Let's look at the things they denied plaintiff, for almost 3 years they denied, the ability to have candles at the service. For the past 9 or so months they allowed plaintiff to have candles and there has not been a fire or no threat to the security which they knew it wouldn't be, for they had allowed candles for Wiccans here for years before they rushed to create a memo right before the 9th circuit memo. Not only doesn't the defendant have qualified immunity he may have violated his oath of office which should be to protect.  Points and authorities in support of response. Qualified immunity is not given when the defendant knowingly does an act or omit to do an act, he should Alexander V. Perrill, 916F2d 1392 Under 1983 the qualified immunity defense is not applicable whenever an official does an affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that cause the deprivation of an individual right under 1983 when an official fails to take an action that he has clearly   established duty to take, and that failure is foreseeable contributing factor to the violation of plaintiff constitutional rights the defense similarly unavailable.  The defendant had an obligation to his oath of office an  Prime example under the watch of Supervising Deputy Attorney General Gretchen K. Buechsenschutz and Deputy Attorney General Danielle Hemple, when the consent decree was not being complied with, they did what they could to bring the infraction to the defendants and worked to fix it. d the constitution to make sure that the consent decree settlement was complied with.   Instead, Defendant Wheeler had it in his mind that he was going to do what he could to deny plaintiff the ability to practice which he had did at CSP-SAC and the judge said it was moot after plaintiff was transferred even though he swore an oath of office under Cal Constitution all public officials, employee's, executive legislators, and judicial except inferior officers, employee's as may be exempted by law. 

 They take specific oath of allegiance commonly known as a oath of office. I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of California. I take this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Yet what did the defendant do when he knew the other defendants were violating the 1st amendment, the 9th circuit court order of 2016 and the consent decree which states in order to place a substantial burden on the    plaintiff ability to practice his religion they must show they had a compelling penological interest. Which is very hard to do when everything plaintiff is being denied others are being allowed in the same proximity.   The memo which they were using to deny plaintiff was created after Judge G. Klausne lied and ruled the defendants had complied to the settlement and dismissed it when he had just ruled weeks prior that they had been in violation of the consent decree, and they would have had to be in compliance for a year before case could be dismissed.  plaintiff ability to practice his religion they must show they had a compelling penological interest. Which is very hard to do when everything plaintiff is being denied others are being allowed in  The memo which they were using to deny plaintiff was created after Judge G. Klausne lied and ruled the defendants had complied to the settlement and dismissed it when he had just ruled weeks prior that they had been in violation of the consent decree, and they would have had to be in compliance for a year before case could be dismissed.     the same proximity.   (Plaintiff had not been able to order candles, incense, firewood at the time) Plaintiff filed an appeal even though the courts never sent him any of his orders. (see article in vice 2016 or 9th circuit decision 2016) during this time while he was waiting on the 9th circuit to rule in 2015.It was when they took her Deputy Attorney General off the case and put Defendant Wheeler on, he immediately, rejected the 9th circuit order, RLUIPA, the constitution consent decree, pushing only to go by the memo which had no foundation for everything they denied Wiccans others were being allowed so there was no genuine penological  interest which could be further shown when they did allow Plaintiff to have candles donated for the last 9 months the only problem is that staff stole them and don't want to replace a $21.99 Box of candles which we will be having hearing on. Defendant knows what is essential to the practice of Plaintiff's Khemetic tradition and that was because on 4-15-2010 the Late Honorable Judge Lawrence k. Karlton had ruled granting the preliminary injunction and establishing what was essential for the practice, he had presided over the case for 17 years and fully understood it. Plaintiff was bamboozled, hoodwinked and manipulated into taking a settlement consent decree, and the change of venue which was a stipulation for they knew what they had waiting.