Laserfiche WebLink
8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 11 of 18 Page lD #:190 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />inquiry into whether a particular belief or practice is `central' to" an individual's <br />religion). Indeed, in Johnson v. Baker, the Ninth Circuit rejected a similar argument, <br />finding that the defendant "grossly missed] the mark" by insinuating that an <br />incarcerated individual's particular religious practice —using scented oils before <br />prayer —was "not really that important to his worship practice." 23 F.4th 1209, 1215 <br />(9th Cir. 2022) (emphasis in original). Johnson also emphasized that a plaintiff need <br />only demonstrate that a "particular facet" of his religious practice has been burdened <br />under RLUIPA, and that "it makes no difference" that a plaintiff may still practice his <br />"religion as a whole" under the government's restrictions. Id. at 1214-15. As alleged in <br />its Complaint, MW's feeding homeless individuals is an important part of its ministry <br />and is, at the very least, a "particular facet" of its religious expression. Compl. TT4, 7-8, <br />27, 31, 38-39. Accordingly, the City cannot prohibit MW's distribution of food and <br />drink by erroneously branding it of "minor significance" to its overall religious practice. <br />Citing to MW's many other services, such as providing ID vouchers and hygiene <br />products, the City argues that MW's operations "are purely administrative and are not <br />religious in nature." Mot. at 10. However, as the City acknowledges in its motion, it <br />denied MW's COO because MW distributed food and drink, not because it provided ID <br />vouchers or hygiene products. Mot. at 4. While MW's other activities are also part of <br />its religious mission, Compl. ¶¶ 6, 52, they are not at issue in this litigation. Rather, the <br />conduct in question is providing food and drink to the needy, and the City's Motion <br />simply ignores the Complaint's many allegations that MW has a "religious duty" to feed <br />homeless persons. See, e.g., id. ¶27; see also Intl Church of Foursquare Gospel v. City <br />of San Leandro, 673 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that district court may not <br />reject the plaintiff's "characterization of its core beliefs"). <br />Moreover, the premise of the City's argument —that certain activities are <br />intrinsically secular and therefore not religious exercise —has been repeatedly rejected <br />by courts. For example, in World Outreach Conf. Dr., the Seventh Circuit found that <br />"even the recreational and other nonreligious services provided at the community center <br />10 <br />