RODRIGUES v. MAIN et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
LOUIS RODRIGUES,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPECIAL TREATMENT UNIT, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 19-14708 (MCA)
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment
motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 203.) By way of background, retired STU director Merrill Main
and Department of Corrections administrators Crystal Raupp and Marc Sims (“DOC Defendants”)
separately sought summary judgment in this matter. (ECF No. 182, 183.) The Court terminated
those summary judgment motions and required both sets of Defendants to supplemental their
Statement of Material Facts, legal arguments, and evidence regarding Plaintiff’s religious exercise
claim, which he raised under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (“NJCRA”).
(ECF No. 191.) 	The Court also provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to respond to the
supplemental briefing and administratively terminated this matter pending the completion of the
supplemental briefing.
After two extensions of time (ECF Nos. 193-196), Defendants filed their supplemental
briefing. (ECF Nos. 197-201.) In granting those extensions of time, the Magistrate Judge, like
this Court, provided Plaintiff with leave to file a response to the supplemental briefing. (ECF Nos.
193, 196.) Neither this Court nor the Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff with leave to file a cross-
Case 2:19-cv-14708-MCA-JSA Document 219 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID:
<pageID>

motion for summary judgment. 1 	Plaintiff, however, in lieu of a response, filed what he
characterizes as a cross motion for summary judgment and for sanctions. 	(ECF No. 203.)
Defendants have opposed the cross-motion for summary judgment and motion for sanctions. (ECF
Nos. 208-213.) 	At this time, the Court will administratively terminate the cross-motion for
summary judgment and consider it as a response to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment,
which Plaintiff was provided leave to file. 2 	The Court will reactivate and resolve the summary
judgment motions by separate opinion and order in due course.
The Court also denies Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions in connection with the filing of his
personal medical information without his permission. 	Plaintiff alleges that a 23-page medical
record was submitted without his authorization and should have been filed under seal. (See ECF
No. 203, at 13). He appears to refer Dr. Roger Harris’s 23-page October 2021 report, filed at ECF
No. 199 as Exhibit D. This document was in fact filed under seal and is only available to the Court
and the parties. Therefore, there is no basis to sanction the DOC Defendants in connection with
this filing, and the motion for sanctions is denied on this basis. To the extent the Court must refer
with specificity to any of Plaintiff’s personal medical information in resolving the motions for
summary judgments, it will redact that private medical information from its opinion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, on this 12 th day of January 2026,
1 As the basis for his cross-motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff principally argues 1) that the
Court should not rely on Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) to resolve his religious exercise
claim, 2) that analysis of the Turner factors weigh in his favor, and 3) that he is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law on his claim that Defendants have completely denied him religious services and
chaplain visits on the South Unit while simultaneously refusing to permit him to attend religious
services in the Annex with the general population.
2 Although Plaintiff was not provided leave to submit a cross-motion for summary judgment at
this late date, the Court will consider whether he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his
claim of complete denial of religious services in the South Unit.
Case 2:19-cv-14708-MCA-JSA Document 219 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID:
<pageID>

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 203) is DENIED; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE
Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 203) for docket management purposes;
the Court will reactivate and resolve the motions for summary judgment by separate opinion and
order in due course.
_______________________________
Madeline Cox Arleo, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 2:19-cv-14708-MCA-JSA Document 219 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID:
<pageID>