Murillo v. Smith

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California screens a prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court finds cognizable First Amendment free-exercise and Equal Protection claims against four Pelican Bay State Prison officials, orders partial service, and dismisses claims against two defendants, including dismissal of one defendant with leave to amend. The order also sets deadlines for amendment, dispositive motions, discovery, and related case management.

Holdings

1. Liberally construed, the complaint stated cognizable First Amendment free-exercise and Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claims against Stephen Smith, Robert Lassaco, Jim Robertson, and Barneburg.
2. The complaint failed to state a § 1983 claim against J. Moeckly because it contained no specific allegations connecting Moeckly to a constitutional deprivation; Moeckly was dismissed with leave to amend.
3. K. Love's alleged review or denial of Murillo's grievance, without more, did not state a cognizable § 1983 claim, and Love was dismissed.
4. Moeckly was dismissed with leave to amend because the deficiency might be cured by alleging specific facts concerning Moeckly's conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated cognizable First Amendment free-exercise and Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claims against the identified Pelican Bay officials.
2. Whether the complaint stated a § 1983 claim against J. Moeckly when it contained no specific allegations describing Moeckly's conduct.
3. Whether K. Love could be held personally liable under § 1983 based solely on reviewing or denying Murillo's grievance.
4. What relief and service procedures were appropriate after screening the prisoner complaint.

Disposition

other