Henderson v. Hernandez et al

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PARTIAL LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Complaint due by 10/8/2014. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on September 8, 2014. (Attachments: # 1 Blank civil rights form, # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOHNDELL HENDERSON,

Case No. 14-cv-01857-JST (PR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PARTIAL LEAVE TO AMEND

9
10

A. HEDGPETH, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff Johndell Henderson, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), filed this

14

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining that SVSP is violating the religious

15

rights of its Muslim inmates. He brings this action on behalf of himself and twenty-two other

16

SVSP inmates, and he states that he seeks to proceed by way of a class action. By separate order,

17

plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint is now before the

18

court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
BACKGROUND

19
20

The complaint alleges the following:

21

On April 8, 2013, plaintiff submitted a group appeal at SVSP alleging that SVSP was

22

refusing to provide religious services and make religious purchases for Muslim inmates.

23

Specifically, according to plaintiff, SVSP staff have prevented Muslim inmates from assembling

24

for mandatory Friday prayer; have not hired a full-time Muslim chaplain; have not purchased any

25

Holy Quran's, prayer rugs, religious books, or prayer oils; have denied Muslims five daily prayers

26

in congregation as required by their religion; have prevented Muslim inmates from observing

27

breaking of the fast together during the month of Ramadan; and have denied Muslim religious

28

packets to order Halal.

On June 30, 2013, plaintiff submitted a group appeal at SVSP alleging that SVSP had

1

issued a memorandum on June 7, 2013 that altered the prison's protocols for observing the Muslim

3

religious observance of Ramadan. Specifically, according to plaintiff, Muslim inmates are served

4

regular meals (not certified Halal meals) at a later time of the day during Ramadan; are not given

5

certified Halal meals that have not been altered; are being served on paper trays; and are

6

prohibited from breaking their fast together and making the mandatory congregational prayer.

7

Plaintiff also alleged in his appeal that non-Muslim inmates and staff are being authorized to

8

prepare and serve Muslim inmate meals, and the Community Resource Manager is not allowing

9

Muslim inmates to choose other Muslim inmates to prepare and serve the meals for Ramadan.

10

Plaintiff alleges violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as his

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C.

12

§ 2000cc-1.
DISCUSSION

13
14
15

A.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

16

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28

17

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any

18

claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek

19

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),

20

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

21

Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

23

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

24

statement need only "'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon

25

which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in

26

order to state a claim a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's

27

obligation to provide the grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and

28

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . .
2

1

Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell

2

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint

3

must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

4
5

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

6

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v.

7

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

8

B.

9

Legal Claims
"Inmates retain the protections afforded by the First Amendment, 'including its directive

that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.'" Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883-84

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987)). In order to

12

establish a free exercise violation, a prisoner must show a defendant burdened the practice of his

13

religion, by preventing him from engaging in activities he sincerely believes are mandated by his

14

faith, without any justification reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Shakur,

15

514 F.3d at 884-85.

16

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that an inmate who is

17

an adherent of a minority religion be afforded a "reasonable opportunity of pursuing his faith

18

comparable to the opportunity afforded fellow prisoners who adhere to conventional religious

19

precepts," Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972). In order to establish an equal protection

20

violation, a prisoner must show he was treated differently than other similarly-situated prisoners,

21

without any justification reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Shakur, 514

22

F.3d at 891.

23

Inmates' religious freedoms also are protected by the Religious Land Use and

24

Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. Section 3 of RLUIPA provides:

25

"No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in

26

or confined to an institution, as defined in section 1997 [which includes state prisons, state

27

psychiatric hospitals, and local jails], even if the burden results from a rule of general

28

applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person
3

1

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of

2

furthering that compelling governmental interest." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). For an RLUIPA

3

claim, the plaintiff-inmate must show that the government has imposed a substantial burden on his

4

religious exercise. A "'substantial burden' on 'religious exercise' must impose a significantly great

5

restriction or onus upon such exercise." San Jose Christian College v. Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d

6

1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004).

7

The complaint has several defects and will be dismissed with partial leave to amend:

8

First, plaintiff has no standing to complain about problems experienced by another inmate.

9

"[A] litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself."
Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962). Plaintiff's allegations that suggest he

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

wants to pursue a class action are dismissed because pro se prisoner plaintiffs are not adequate

12

class representatives able to fairly represent and adequately protect the interests of a class. See

13

Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975); Griffin v. Smith, 493 F. Supp. 129,

14

131-32 (W.D.N.Y. 1980). The dismissal is without prejudice to the other twenty-two plaintiffs

15

filing new and separate actions on their own behalf. This action will be limited to plaintiff

16

Johndell Henderson's individual claims only.

17

Second, the Court cannot discern what facts plaintiff is basing his claims on. Plaintiff's

18

allegations fail to state clearly what happened, when it happened, what each defendant did, and

19

how those actions or inactions rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation. For the most

20

part the complaint refers to and recites the grievances plaintiff put forth in his inmate appeals,

21

apparently as a way to explain his problem. Plaintiff also attaches the grievances as exhibits to his

22

complaint. The Court will not read through exhibits to piece together a claim for a plaintiff who

23

has not pled one. The lack of detail prevents the Court from determining which claims deserve a

24

response and from whom, and also prevents individual defendants from framing a response to the

25

complaint. In his amended complaint, plaintiff must specifically identify what each named

26

defendant did or did not do in order to state a claim with regard to each separate claim. Sweeping

27

conclusory allegations will not suffice. Plaintiff should not refer to the defendants as a group

28

(e.g., "the defendants"); rather, he should identify each involved defendant by name and link each
4

1

of them to his claims by explaining what each involved defendant did or failed to do that caused a

2

violation of his rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff is

3

cautioned that there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, i.e. no liability under the

4

theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions of an employee. Liability under § 1983

5

arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d

6

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

7

Finally, the complaint is deficient because plaintiff failed to use the court form complaint,

8

which requires plaintiff to provide specific screening information, including a showing that he has

9

administratively exhausted his claims. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint using the court

10

form, though he may attach additional pages to the form.
CONCLUSION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as follows:

13

1.

Plaintiff's class action allegations and claims are DISMISSED without leave to

15

2.

Plaintiff's individual allegations and claims are DISMISSED with leave to amend.

16

3.

If plaintiff can cure the pleading deficiencies described above, he shall file a FIRST

14

amend.

17

AMENDED COMPLAINT within thirty (30) days from the date this order is filed. The amended

18

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 14-1857 JST (PR))

19

and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to file an amended

20

complaint within thirty days and in accordance with this order will result in a finding that

21

further leave to amend would be futile, and this action will be dismissed.

22

4.

Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original

23

complaint and all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the amended complaint

24

will not be considered by the Court. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012)

25

(en banc) ("For claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not require

26

that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for any

27

claims voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not repled.").

28

5.

It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this action. Plaintiff must keep the Court
5

1

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed "Notice of

2

Change of Address," and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so

3

may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

4

Procedure 41(b).

5

6.

6
7
8
9
10

The Clerk shall send plaintiff a blank civil rights form along with his copy of this

order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6