Athiest’s Case Reversed On The Issue Of Damages.

Plaintiff was placed on parole in 2007 after pleading no contest in a methamphetamine case. One of his parole conditions was that he attend and complete a 90-day residential drug treatment program. He advised parole and correctional officers he is an atheist, and requested placement in a non-religious program, but he was sent to a religious-based program nonetheless. Plaintiff then filed an Inmate/Parolee Appeal to petition for a change in the conditions of parole, but his parole officer told him his parole would be revoked unless he continued with the religious-based program. The program presenters advised the parole officer plaintiff was acting in a passive aggressive manner, disrupting the class. Plaintiff was placed in jail and then prison. While re-incarcerated, his appeal was denied. Plaintiff then filed a complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief, alleging two causes of action, one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his First Amendment rights and the other for a taxpayer injunction under California law. A jury awarded plaintiff zero damages, and the district court denied his motion for new trial. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, stating: “We hold that the district judge erred in denying [plaintiff’s] motion for new trial based on the jury’s failure to award damages, and therefore reversed.” Hazle v. Department of Corrections    (Ninth Cir.; August 23, 2013) (Case No. 11-15354).