Cooper v. State of California et al

Filing 9

SCREENING ORDER AND ORDER SETTING CASE MANANGEMENT CONFERENCE: Joint Case Management Statement due by 3/11/2016. Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/18/2016 11:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 1/20/16. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VICTOR WAYNE COOPER,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-05800-JSW
SCREENING ORDER AND ORDER
SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Re: Docket No. 4

Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff, an inmate at the California Institution for Men, originally filed his Complaint in

14

the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, through counsel. On

15

December 17, 2015, Defendants removed the action to this Court, filed a waiver of reply, and a

16

request for screening. (Docket Nos. 1, 4.) Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening

17

of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

18

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or

19

dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or

20

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a

21

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).

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, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations and internal quotations

26

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a plaintiff “does not need detailed factual allegations,

27

… a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than

28

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

1

… Factual alle
egations mus be enough to raise a ri
st
h
ight to relief above the s
f
speculative le
evel.” Bell

2

Atl
lantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 54 555 (200 (citations and interna quoations omitted). A
,
44,
07)
s
al

3

com
mplaint must proffer “en
nough facts to state a cla for relief that is plausible on its f
t
aim
f
face.” Id. at

4

570
0.

5

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleg that he is a kosher-ob
C
P
ges
s
bservant Jew (Compl. ¶ 1, 22-23.)
w.
¶¶
)

6

In or about Nov
o
vember 2003 Plaintiff and the DCD entered in a settlem agreeme whereby
3,
a
DR
nto
ment
ent,
y

7

the CDCR agre to provid kosher me so long as he was h
e
eed
de
eals
housed by CD
DCR and, if he was

8

“tra
ansferred, re
elocated or re
emoved to another priso within the [CDCR] ko
a
on
e
osher meals would be

9

pro
ovided.” (Id ¶¶ 1, 29, Ex. A.) Plain alleges t
d.
ntiff
that he was t
transferred to the Califor
o
rnia
Ins
stitution for Men but, des
M
spite “numer
rous adminis
strative requ
uests and req
quests by his counsel”
s

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

has not been pr
s
rovided with kosher mea (Id. ¶ 1, 30-32.) Pla
h
als.
aintiff also a
alleges that a
after he

12

dem
manded to be provided kosher meals he was den
k
s,
nied a hearin before the Board of P
ng
e
Prison Terms
s

13

rela
ating to the possibility of early relea
p
o
ase. (Id. ¶¶ 6
63-68.) Plai
intiff alleges that the CD
s
DCR and the

14

oth named Defendants en
her
ngaged in ret
taliation and violated his first amend
d
s
dment rights and he
s,

15

see relief pur
eks
rsuant to 42 U.S.C. secti 1983. H also allege that Defen
ion
He
es
ndants action violated
ns

16

the Religious Land Use and Institution
e
L
d
nalized Perso Act, 42 U
ons
U.S.C. sectio 2000CC
on

17

(“R
RLUIPA”). Finally, he asserts a state law claim for breach o contract based on an a
a
of
alleged

18

bre
each of the provisions of the settleme agreemen
p
f
ent
nt.
When the Court con
t
nstrues these claims libe
e
erally, it concludes that t case surv
the
vives this

19
20

scr
reening Orde and Defen
er,
ndants shoul answer or otherwise r
ld
r
respond to th Complain by no later
he
nt
r

21

tha February 17, 2016. The parties sh appear f an initial case management confe
an
hall
for
erence on

22

Ma
arch 18, 2016, and they shall file a jo case ma
s
oint
anagement st
tatement by no later than March 11,
n

23

201
16.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: January 20, 2016
y
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

28
2