Mohammed-Bey v. Cruzen et al

Filing 4

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION. Signed by Judge Hon. Lucy H. Koh on 8/13/2015. (sms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2015)

2

FILED

3
4

AUG 14 2015

5

RICHARD W. WIEKING
CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE

6

7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

JIHAD MOHAMMAD-BEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

vs.

)
)
)
)
)

)
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER J. CRUZEN, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

No. C 15-1891 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE;
DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO
FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR
NOTICE REGARDING SUCH
MOTION

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding prose, filed this civil rights action under

17
18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate

19

order. For the reasons stated below, the court orders service upon the defendants.
DISCUSSION

20
21
22

A.

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.

27

§ 1915A(b)(l), (2). Prose pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

28

Pacifica Police Dep 't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.J5\Mohammad-Bey891 srv .wpd

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § I983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
2

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

3

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

4

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (I988).

5

B.

6

Legal Claims
Plaintiff is a practicing Muslim incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison ("SQSP"). As

7

part of his religious beliefs, plaintiff must pray five times daily at specified times. Plaintiff also

8

believes that he will receive at least 25 times more blessings during a congregational prayer than

9

during individual prayer. Plaintiff began to offer congregational prayer with up to 30 Muslim

IO

prisoners in SQSP West Block. At some point thereafter, SQSP staff created a rule prohibiting

II

SQSP Muslim inmates from offering congregational prayer in groups of more than 4 inmates at a

I2

time.

I3

On September 22, 20I3, non-defendant Correctional Sergeant Dutton prohibited plaintiff

I4

and other Muslim prisoners from offering congregational prayers of more than 4 prisoners during

I5

"open dayroom" even though a group of about 25 Christian prisoners was simultaneously

I6

offering a congregational prayer and was not interrupted by correctional staff.

I7

Plaintiff and other Muslim prisoners filed a group administrative grievance, complaining

I8

that they were being discriminated against based on their religion. At the third level of review,

I9

plaintiffs appeal was granted, and the complaint was referred to the Religious Review

20

Committee. On May I4, 20 I4, the Religious Review Committee decided to allow Muslim

2I

prisoners at SQSP to participate in congregation prayer of no more than I5 prisoners during

22

"open dayroom."

23

Beginning on June 28, 20 I4, plaintiff and other Muslim prisoners offered congregation

24

evening/sunset prayer every day without incident until July 25, 20I4. On July 25, 20I4, plaintiff

25

and approximately I4 other Muslim prisoners began their congregational prayer. Before they

26

were finished, defendants Correctional Officers 1. Cruzen, C. Caldera, R. Christensen, and D.

27

Ogle interrupted the prayer group. Cruzen issued a direct order for plaintiff and the others to

28

stop. One of the Muslim prisoners told Cruzen that a group appeal had been granted and that
Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.15\Mohammad-Bey891 srv.wpd
2

they were authorized to perform congregational prayers. Cruzen angrily responded that the
2

appeal had been rescinded, and they were not allowed to have more than 4 people praying. Even

3

after Cruzen was shown a copy of the granted appeal and the memorandum authorizing Muslim

4

prisoners to engage in congregational prayer of up to 15 people, Cruzen stated that it did not

5

matter and insisted that the Muslim prisoners needed to leave. Cruzen's behavior began to turn

6

hostile, and all defendants placed their hands on their batons as if threatening to physically

7

assault plaintiff and the Muslim prisoners.

8
9

Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated cognizable claims that defendants violated the
First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, First Amendment Establishment Clause, First

10

Amendment right against retaliation, Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection, and the

11

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

12
13

CONCLUSION

1.

The clerk of the court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of

14

Service of Summons, two copies ofthe Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy ofthe complaint

15

and all attachments thereto (docket no. 1), and a copy ofthis order to Correctional Officers J.

16

Cruzen, C. Caldera, R. Christensen, and D. Ogle at San Quentin State Prison. The clerk of

17

the court shall also mail a courtesy copy of the complaint and a copy of this order to the

18

California Attorney General's Office. Additionally, the clerk shall mail a copy of this order to

19

plaintiff.

20

2.

Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

21

requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint.

22

Pursuant to Rule 4, if defendants, after being notified of this action and asked by the court, on

23

behalf of plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so, they will be required to bear

24

the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for their failure to sign and return the waiver .

25

form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if defendants had been served on the date

26

that the waiver is filed, and defendants will not be required to serve and file an answer before

27

sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent. Defendants are asked to

28

read the statement set forth at the bottom of the waiver form that more completely describes the
Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion
3
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.15\Mohammad-Bey891 srv.wpd

duties of the parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons. If service is waived after
2

the date provided in the Notice but before defendants have been personally served, the Answer

3

shall be due sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty

4

(20) days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later.

5

3.

No later than sixty (60) days from the date the waivers are sent from the court,

6

defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to

7

the cognizable claims in the complaint.

8

Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate factual documentation

9

and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants

10

are advised that summary judement cannot be eranted. nor qualified immunity found, if

11

material facts are in dispute. If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be

12

resolved by summary judement, they shall so inform the court prior to the date the

13

summary judement motion is due.

14

4.

Plaintiffs opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the court and

15

served on defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date defendants' motion is

16

filed. Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure and

17

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment must

18

come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of

19

his claim).

20
21
22
23
24

5.

Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after plaintiffs

opposition is filed.
6.

The motion shall be deemed submitted as ofthe date the reply brief is due. No

hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date.
7.

All communications by the plaintiff with the court must be served on defendants

25

or defendants' counsel, by mailing a true copy of the document to defendants or defendants'

26

counsel.

27
28

8.

Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

No further court order is required before the parties may conduct discovery.
Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.15\Mohammad-Bey891 srv. wpd
4

l
9.

It is plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

2

and all parties informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a

3

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

4

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

iJ/13/'201)

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion; Directing
Plaintiff to File Notice oflntent to Prosecute

5