Fonseca v. Spearman

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/8/2017 ORDERING Plaintiff's 11 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint DISMISSED with 30 days to file an amended complaint. Failure to file a second amended complaint within that time will result in dismissal of this action. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RODERICK OLAF FONSECA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2: 16-cv-2651 KJN P

v.

ORDER

MARION E. SPEARMAN,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

17
18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint. (ECF No. 11.)

19

For the following reasons, plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

20

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Warden Spearman denied his request to change his name

21

for religious reasons. Plaintiff requested that he be allowed to use his Jewish name, Fleishman,

22

based on the Jewish belief of not permitting a family name to die out. Plaintiff alleges that

23

Fleishman is his great-grandmother’s maiden name and he does not want it be lost within his

24

family.

25

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall

26

make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....”

27

U.S. Const. amend. I. Prisoners “retain protections afforded by the First Amendment,” including

28

the free exercise of religion. O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348, 107 (1987).
1

1

However, “‘[l]awful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many

2

privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.’”

3

Id. (quoting Price v. Johnson, 334 U.S. 266, 285 (1948)).

4

The protections of the Free Exercise Clause are triggered when prison officials

5

substantially burden the practice of an inmate’s religion by preventing him from engaging in

6

conduct which he sincerely believes is consistent with his faith. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878,

7

884–85 (9th Cir. 2008); Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part

8

by Shakur, 514 F.3d at 884–85. “In order to establish a free exercise violation, [a prisoner] must

9

show the defendants burdened the practice of his religion, by preventing him from engaging in

10

conduct mandated by his faith, without any justification reasonably related to legitimate

11

penological interests.” Id. at 736. “In order to reach the level of a constitutional violation, the

12

interference with one’s practice of religion ‘must be more than an inconvenience; the burden must

13

be substantial and an interference with a tenet or belief that is central to religious doctrine.’” Id.

14

at 737 (quoting Graham v. C.I.R., 822 F.2d 844, 851 (9th Cir. 1987).

15

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the name change he seeks is mandated by his faith. For

16

this reason, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff files a second amended

17

complaint, he must provide more information supporting a claim that his Jewish faith mandates

18

that he change his name and that the requested name change is a tenet that is central to his

19

religious doctrine.

20
21
22

Plaintiff may also be alleging a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) which provides,

24

No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious
exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution ..., even
if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the
government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that
person—

25

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling government interest; and

26

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
government interest.

23

27
28

2

1

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc–1.

2

Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that defendants substantially burdened the

3

exercise of his religious beliefs. Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994–95 (9th Cir. 2005).

4

In any RLUIPA claim, one must first identify the “religious exercise” allegedly impinged upon,

5

and then must ask whether the prison regulation at issue “substantially burdens” that religious

6

exercise. Greene v. Solano County Jail, 513 F.3d 982, 987 (9th Cir. 2008). “RLUIPA is to be

7

construed broadly in favor of protecting an inmate's right to exercise his religious beliefs.”

8

Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 995. A burden on the exercise of religion is substantial if it substantially

9

pressures an inmate “to modify his behavior and to violate his [sincerely held] religious beliefs.”

10

Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 888 (9th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate that the denial of his request to change his name

11
12

for religious reasons substantially burdens him in the exercise of his religious beliefs. Plaintiff

13

does not allege that the denial of his request for a name change substantially pressured him to

14

modify his behavior and to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs. For these reasons, the

15

undersigned finds that plaintiff also does not state a potentially colorable RLUIPA claim.

16

Accordingly, IT HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 11)

17

is dismissed with leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this

18

order; failure to file a second amended complaint within that time will result in dismissal of this

19

action.

20

Dated: March 8, 2017

21
22
23
24
Fon2651.dis
25
26
27
28
3