Elghembri v. Muhammad

Elghembri · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · September 18, 2025 · No. 23-cv-03328-WHO (PR)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss Ahmed Mohamed Elghembri’s claims concerning religious exercise, equal protection, and RLUIPA. The court held that the complaint contained confusing and conclusory allegations and did not specifically show a substantial burden on religious practice or disparate treatment of similarly situated persons. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend by November 3, 2025, and several other pending motions were denied.

Holdings

  1. The complaint failed to state a Free Exercise claim because it did not allege specific facts showing that defendant substantially burdened plaintiff's religious practice; the generalized and confusing allegations were insufficient under Rules 8 and 12(b)(6).
  2. The complaint failed to state an Equal Protection claim because plaintiff did not identify similarly situated persons or groups who received different treatment, and his allegation that defendant acted discriminatorily was conclusory.
  3. The complaint failed to state a RLUIPA claim because it did not allege specific facts showing that plaintiff's religious exercise was substantially burdened.
  4. The plaintiff's four motions or notices concerning defendant's alleged failure to respond, mail issues, and receipt of defendant's reply were denied because the record showed he received the relevant filings and the court could provide no relief.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the first amended complaint plausibly stated a Free Exercise Clause claim under Rules 8 and 12(b)(6).
  2. Whether the first amended complaint plausibly stated an Equal Protection Clause claim by alleging differential treatment of similarly situated persons.
  3. Whether the first amended complaint plausibly stated a claim under RLUIPA by alleging a substantial burden on religious exercise.
  4. Whether the plaintiff's additional motions and notices concerning alleged failures to respond, mail, and receipt of a reply warranted relief.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (17)

  • O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 344 (1987)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699(followed)
  • Scott v. Kuhlmann, 746(followed)
  • Schneider v. CDCR, 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Ohno v. Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984, 1011 (9th Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Guru Nanak Sikh Soc’y of Yuba City v. Cnty. of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 17.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…