Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California screened a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint challenging restrictions related to California’s religious diet program. The court granted in forma pauperis status but found that the complaint failed to state cognizable First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, or RLUIPA claims, including because it did not link the named defendants to the alleged deprivation and appeared to challenge a superseded regulation. The court declined to serve the complaint and granted leave to amend within thirty days.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint stated a cognizable claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or RLUIPA against the named state officials.
- Whether the complaint stated a claim for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against the state officials.
- Whether the complaint stated claims under the First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, or RLUIPA.
- Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend after the complaint failed screening.
Holdings
- The complaint failed to state cognizable damages claims because it did not allege facts personally linking either defendant to the alleged deprivation, and state officials sued in their official capacities are not proper defendants for damages under § 1983 or RLUIPA.
- The complaint failed to state a claim for prospective injunctive relief because it appeared to challenge a former version of § 3054.5 that had been amended and recodified before the complaint was filed, and the complaint did not establish a causal connection between the challenged regulation and plaintiff's alleged injury.
- The complaint failed to state a valid claim for relief under the First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, or RLUIPA.
- Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days.
Key quotations
“For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned finds that the complaint fails to state any cognizable claims but will grant plaintiff leave to amend.” (at 1)
“there must be a “causal connection” between the alleged injury and the conduct plaintiff hopes to enjoin.” (at 5)
“Because of these defects, the court will not order the complaint to be served on defendants.” (at 6)
Factual background
Plaintiff, a state prisoner at the California Medical Facility, alleged that after inadvertently ordering non-halal food he was warned and threatened with removal from the Religious Meat Alternative list and was then denied halal meat for six months. He challenged California Code of Regulations, title 15, § 3054.5, asserting violations of the First and Eighth Amendments and RLUIPA. The complaint named Warden Daniel E. Cueva and CDCR Secretary Connie Gibson but did not allege facts describing either defendant's personal participation in the alleged deprivation.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state prison officials and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted in forma pauperis status but determined that the complaint failed to state cognizable First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, or RLUIPA claims and would not be served. The court granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint.
Remand instructions
No appellate remand occurred. Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint within thirty days, identifying the regulation challenged and alleging specifically how each defendant was involved. Failure to amend may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed under Rule 41(b).