Ahdom v. Etchebehere et al

Filing 17

DISMISSAL ORDER, signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 4/20/2015. Amended Complaint Due by 6/8/2015. (Marrujo, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BILAL AHDOM,
Case No. 1:13-cv-01623-RRB
Plaintiff,
DISMISSAL ORDER
vs.
C. ETCHEBEHERE, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
a verified civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Ahdom’s complaint arises out of
his incarceration at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Corcoran, California
(“CSATF”).
I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT
This Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.2 This Court must
dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
“frivolous or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that

1

In addition to Associate Warden C. Etchebehere, Ahdom names as Defendants: F.
Cote, Community Partnership Manager; the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; and Does 1 through 20.
2

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

DISMISSAL ORDER
Ahdom v. Etcheb ehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 1

“seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”3 Likewise, a
prisoner must exhaust all administrative remedies as may be available,4 irrespective of
whether those administrative remedies provide for monetary relief.5
In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading
standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”6
“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but
it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”7
Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), including the rule that complaints filed by pro se prisoners
are to be liberally construed, affording the prisoner the benefit of any doubt, and dismissal
should be granted only where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can plead no facts in
support of his claim that would entitle him or her to relief.8

3

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
1122, 1126 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
4

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93–95 (2006) (“proper
exhaustion” under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires proper adherence to administrative
procedural rules); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001) (exhaustion of administrative
remedies must be completed before filing suit).
5

See Booth, 532 U.S. at 734.

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

7

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)).
8

Wilhelm v. Rotham, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012).

DISMISSAL ORDER
Ahdom v. Etcheb ehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 2

This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim
for relief.9 “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s
liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’”10
Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint,
a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true.11 “Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”12
II.

GRAVAMEN OF COMPLAINT
Ahdom alleges three causes of action arising out of two separate incidents.
With respect to his first two causes of action Ahdom alleges that unidentified CDCR

officials at CSATF, Does 1 through 20, interfered with his right to receive mail sent to him by
the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs (“VA”). According to Ahdom, he had applied to the
VA for disability benefits. Correspondence dated July 26, 2011, sent by the VA addressed
to Ahdom scheduling an examination at the VA’s Central California Healthcare System was
returned to the VA without notification to Ahdom in violation of CDCR regulations. According
to Ahdom he did not receive notice that his mail had been returned until May 2012. Ahdom
contends that, as a result of this failure, he was unable to attend the required VA examination,
which resulted in the denial of benefits.

9

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–69; see Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
Cir. 2009) (quoting and applying Iqbal and Twombly).
10

Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

11

Id.

12

Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

DISMISSAL ORDER
Ahdom v. Etcheb ehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 3

In his First Cause of Action, entitled “Administrative Remedy,” Ahdom alleges a
violation of his First Amendment rights. In his Second Cause of Action Ahdom alleges that
in returning his mail Defendants acted with extreme indifference to his serious physical and
mental health, subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.
Ahdom’s administrative grievance was denied at the Director’s level.
This matter was reviewed on behalf of the Director of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) by Appeals Examiner R. Manuel,
Captain. All submitted documentation and supporting arguments of the parties
have been considered.
I
APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT: It is the appellant's position that his
original appeal, Log #SATF-E-12~02995, was inappropriately cancelled by
institutional staff. The appellant relates that he submitted the aforementioned
appeal on June 21, 2012; however, institutional appeals staff rejected it on June
25, 2012. The appeals staff issued him a CDC Form 695, Inmate/Parolee
Appeals Screening Form, informing him that he, "failed to provide proof that he
was not informed of VA Letters until May 30, 2012." The appellant claims that
he resubmitted the appeal with the required proof (VA letter post dated May 25,
2012). However, appeals staff cancelled the appeal, documenting on a CDC
695, that he had exceeded time frames to file an appeal on returned letters
from 2011. The appeals staff further claimed that the date of the submitted VA
letter had been marked out, therefore, there was no way to verify the date of the
letter. The appellant disagrees with this conclusion and maintains that he
resubmitted the aforementioned appeal within the required time constraints.
The appellant requests on appeal that he be allowed to resubmit Appeal, Log
#SATF-E-12-02995, with a darker copy of the VA letter in question.
lI
SECOND LEVEL’S DECISION: It is staff's position that the institution
is in compliance with state law and departmental regulations in the processing
of inmate appeals. The appeal was submitted outside of the time frames
prescribed by the regulations and was therefore rejected. The reviewer
affirmed that the appellant submitted the appeal in question on or about July 27,
2012. However, he was unable to provide proof that he was not notified by the
VA until May 25, 2012. The date on the envelope he submitted had been
marked out; therefore, staff were unable to verify the post mark. In that the
appellant had ample time to submit an appeal regarding this issue, the appeal
was denied at the Second Level of Review (SLR).
DISMISSAL ORDER
Ahdom v. Etcheb ehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 4

III

THIRD LEVEL DECISION: Appeal is denied.
A. FINDINGS: The documentation and arguments are persuasive that
the appellant failed to support his appeal issues with sufficient evidence
or facts to warrant modification of the SLR. The examiner notes the
appellant was advised that all inmates have a right to file a complaint
through the inmate appeals process. However, the appeal may be
cancelled if it is submitted beyond the prescribed time constraints if the
appellant had the opportunity to file within the appropriate time frames.
An appellant must submit the CDCR Form 602, Inmate/Parolee Appeal
Form within 30 working days of the event or decision being appealed,
or of receiving an unacceptable lower level appeal decision. The
appellant submitted the CDCR Form, 602, more than 30 days after he
was aware of the circumstances which he felt adversely affected him.
As he did not submit the CDCR Form 602, within the required time
frames, it was appropriately cancelled. Further review at the Third Level
of Review is not warranted.
B. BASIS FOR THE DECISION:
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section: 3001, 3084.3, 3084.6
C. ORDER: No changes or modifications are required by the
Institution.13

Ahdom’s Third Cause of Action, brought against Defendants C. Etchebehere, F. Cote,
and Does 1 through 10, arises out of an alleged refusal to provide him with appropriate
religious meals.14 In his Complaint Ahdom raises an amalgam of contentions regarding his
entitlement to appropriate religious meals covering a period spanning the period between on
or about June 1, 2013, and an unspecified date in September 2013. Although Ahdom alleges
that he sought appropriate administrative relief, the documents attached to the Complaint as
Exhibit B address solely the denial of his Halal religious meals between July 19 and July 25,
2012. With respect to that claim Ahdom was denied administrative relief at the Director’s
level.

13

Docket 1, p. 27.

14

Ahdom is a practicing adherent to the Muslim faith.

DISMISSAL ORDER
Ahdom v. Etcheb ehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 5

This matter was reviewed on behalf of the Director of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) by Appeals Examiner K. l. Allen. All
submitted documentation and supporting arguments of the parties have been
considered.
I APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT: It is the appellant's position that he was
unfairly denied his right to receive the Ramadan Meals at the California
Substance Abuse Treatment: Facility (SATF). The appellant claims that the
institution restricted him from participating in the Ramadan event based solely
upon the fact that he was not a participant in the religious Meat Alternative
Program (halal diet). The appellant contends that the institution's decision to
require that he be receiving the halal diet before he can participate in Ramadan
was a violation of departmental rules and regulations.
The appellant requests that the illegal requirement be reversed and that he be
provided with his Ramadan meal and regular evening meal during the month of
Ramadan. The appellant also requested that he not be subjected to reprisals
for submitting this appeal.
II SECOND LEVEL’S DECISION: The reviewer found that following a
thorough review of the matter, staff at the SATF concluded that the institution
temporarily used the list of inmates receiving the halal diet as the list of
participants for Ramadan. Following the hiring of a new Muslim Chaplain, the
institution changed this policy and allowed those inmates wishing to participate
in Ramadan a chance to do so regardless of their diet.
The appeal was partially granted at the Second Level of Review in that the
appellant was allowed to participate in the end of Ramadan services.
Additionally, the appellant was advised that no reprisals will be, taken against
him for submitting this appeal. However, the appellant's request to receive
compensation for the Ramadan meals he missed could not be granted, as
those days had passed.
III THIRD LEVEL DECISION: Appeal is denied,
A. FINDINGS: Following analysis of the submitted documentation, the
Appeals Examiner has determined that the appellant's allegations have
been reviewed and properly evaluated by administrative staff at the
SATF. An appeal inquiry was conducted by Chaplain Harboun and the
appeal was reviewed by the institution's Warden. Despite the
appellant's dissatisfaction, this review finds no evidence of a violation
of existing policy or regulation by the institution based upon the
arguments and evidence presented.
The appellant's appeal request that he not be required to participate in
the halal diet to be considered for participation in Ramadan services
was granted. Without a Muslim Chaplain, the institution attempted to
develop a list of participants for Ramadan services as expeditiously, as
possible. Following a review of this practice by the newly hired Muslim
DISMISSAL ORDER
Ahdom v. Etcheb ehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 6

Chaplain, institutional staff agreed that the requirement that inmates
must be receiving the halal diet was inappropriate, therefore, the
appellant was afforded the opportunity to participate in Ramadan
services. The appellant was informed that the Muslim Chaplain will
review inmate eligibility to participate in future Ramadan meals
accordingly. Further relief in this matter at the Third Level of Review is
unwarranted.
The appellant added a request for monetary
compensation following the First Level of Review. While. the appellant
has the right to submit an appeal, his request for monetary
compensation is beyond the scope of the departmental appeals
process.
B. BASIS FOR THE DECISION:
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section: 3001, 3054, 3054 3,
3054.4, 3054.5, 3084.1, 3270, 3380
CDCR Operations Manual, Section: 54080.13, 54080.14
C. ORDER: No changes or modifications are required by the
Institution.15
III.

DISCUSSION
A. First Cause of Action
Analysis of Ahdom’s First Cause of Action starts with the proposition that prisoner’s

have a constitutionally protected First Amendment right to receive mail.16 Likewise, any
interference with this right by prison officials must be “reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests.”17 Furthermore, prison officials must provide notice to prisoners of a
decision not to deliver mail.18 Ahdom’s first Cause of Action clearly falls within the parameters
of these standards. That does not, however, end the Court’s inquiry.

15

Docket 1, pp. 47–48.

16

Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing
Thornburg v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 408 (1989)).
17

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

18

Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417–19 (1974).

DISMISSAL ORDER
Ahdom v. Etcheb ehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 7

As noted above, with respect to his First Cause of Action, Ahdom names solely CDCR
and ten Does. Unfortunately for Ahdom, his suit against CDCR is barred by the Eleventh
Amendment.19 Accordingly, as against CDCR, Ahdom’s claim must be dismissed without
leave to amend.20 Although in some circumstances a prisoner may be allowed to proceed
against Doe defendants,21 this case does not fall within the ambit of those circumstances. In
this case, Ahdom does not name any CDCR official upon whom the complaint may be served
who is or may be liable under this cause of action.22 While the First Cause of Action must be
dismissed, to allow Ahdom to identify and name a CDCR official who is or may be liable
under the First Cause of Action, dismissal will be with leave to amend.
In amending his complaint Ahdom is reminded that, in addition to naming the
responsible CDCR officials, Ahdom must allege the existence of a compensable injury. That
is, Ahdom must allege and prove that but for the actions of the defendants he would have been
permitted to attend the examination at the VA Center under otherwise applicable CDCR
regulations and received a favorable determination as a result of that examination. Likewise,

19

Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009).

20

See Hartman v. California Dept. of Corr. and Rehab., 707 F.3d 1141, 1130 (9th
Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”).
21

See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that,
while the use of “John Doe” to identify a defendant is not favored, dismissal of Doe defendants
is improper if the identity of the Doe defendant may be ascertained through discovery).
22

The two individual defendants identified in his Third Cause of Action involve an
entirely separate claim based upon different facts, involving different rights, and arising at
different time. Nothing in the discovery rules would permit this Court to compel either named
defendant to provide Ahdom with the names of the responsible officials.
DISMISSAL ORDER
Ahdom v. Etcheb ehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 8

Ahdom cannot prevail unless he can truthfully allege and prove that as a result of the
Defendants’ actions he is precluded from receiving VA benefits retroactively.
Finally, the Court notes that as part of Exhibit A to the Complaint Ahdom attached a
copy of a document bearing a VA letterhead entitled “Evidence.” It is noted that the exhibit
shows two matters: (1) a VA letter dated December 7, 2011, “requesting an examination
through our private medical facility,” and (2) noting in two places that Ahdom “did not show for
your Compensation and Pension Examination scheduled at QTC on May 4, 2010.”23 While
the second notation concerning the date Ahdom failed to appear for his examination may be
the result of a typographical error,24 the fact that the VA subsequently scheduled an
examination eviscerates Ahdom’s claim underlying his First Cause of Action.25
B. Second Cause of Action
Ahdom’s Second Cause of Action suffers from the same infirmity as does his First
Cause of Action. In addition, the Second Cause of Action, which appears to be based upon
an Eighth Amendment theory, fails to state a cause of action. Reading the Complaint liberally
as the Court must, at most it alleges that the injury Ahdom suffered was the right to receive an

23

Docket 1, p. 38. The Court notes that the date of this document is not only blacked
out, but is indicative that the reasons that the VA denied Ahdom benefits were more likely than
not unrelated to the failure to deliver Ahdom’s mail.
24

This is noted because the document lists matters in chronological order and the
notation regarding the May 4, 2010, examination appears both in its proper chronological
order and at the end, following the reference to the December 27, 2011, VA letter.
25

The Court further notes that the date on that Exhibit is not only blacked out, but
appears to be part of a subsequent decision of the VA to deny benefits. In amending his
Complaint Ahdom must include as an exhibit not only an unredacted copy of that exhibit, but
also the entire document of which that VA generated document is a part.
DISMISSAL ORDER
Ahdom v. Etcheb ehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 9

unspecified amount of compensation for a service connected disability. How this constitutes
cruel and unusual punishment within the scope of the Eighth Amendment is both unexplained
and inexplicable. Consequently, the Second Cause of Action will be dismissed without leave
to amend.
C. Third Cause of Action
As noted above, the allegations underlying Ahdom’s Third Cause of Action and the
Exhibits attached to the Complaint are inconsistent. The Complaint alleges that he was
improperly denied a change in his religious meals, i.e., the imposition of a six-month waiting
period between the cancellation of a request for one religious meal and the right to substitute
replacement religious meal. The administrative appeal record attached to the Complaint
addresses an entirely separate issue, not pleaded in the Complaint: the denial of Halal meals
during Ramadan. In short, the documents attached to the Complaint at best establish
exhaustion of remedies with respect to one potential claim, but not the claim actually pleaded.
While this Court must liberally construe the pleadings of pro se prisoners, as presently drafted,
the Third Cause of Action fails to state a cause of action on its face and, as such, must be
dismissed.
Because it is not evident that Ahdom cannot truthfully plead a plausible cause of action,
dismissal in this instance must be with leave to amend. In amending his Complaint, Ahdom
may plead with respect to this claim: (1) solely his exhausted claim; (2) solely on his Third
Cause of Action as presently pleaded showing proper exhaustion; or (3) a combination of the
two.

DISMISSAL ORDER
Ahdom v. Etcheb ehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 10

IV.

ORDER
The Complaint on file herein as against the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety without leave to amend.
The Second Cause of Action in the Complaint on file herein is hereby DISMISSED as
against all Defendants without leave to amend.
The First and Third Causes of Action in the Complaint on file herein are hereby
DISMISSED with leave to amend.
Plaintiff has through and including June 8, 2015, within which to file an amended
complaint consistent with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of April, 2015.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DISMISSAL ORDER
Ahdom v. Etcheb ehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 11