Smith v. Davis et al
Filing
4
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL; ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION. Signed by Judge Hon. Lucy H. Koh on 3/21/2016. (**Includes service instructions for the Clerk's Office**) (sms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2016)
2
3
FIL.ED
4
MAR 2 2 2016
5
SUSAI' ' S'JONG
CLERK, U.S : .:iTRICT COURT
NORTHERN OISTR1CT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IO
II
ANTHONY BERNARD SMITH, JR.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
14
WARDEN RON DAVIS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
__________________________))
No. C 16-0156 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF PARTIAL
DISMISSAL; ORDER OF
SERVICE; DIRECTING
DEFENDANTS TO FILE
DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR
NOTICE REGARDING SUCH
MOTION
16
Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under
17
42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated below, the court dismisses two defendants because
18
plaintiff has failed to state a claim against them, and orders service upon the remaining
19
defendants. The court directs the surviving defendants to file a dispositive motion or notice
20
regarding such motion.
21
DISCUSSION
22
A.
Standard of Review
23
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner
24
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See
25
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss
26
any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or
27
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.
28
Order of Partial Dismissal; Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding
Such Motion
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.16\Smith 156srv. wpd
§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). Prose pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.
2
Pacifica Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696,699 (9th Cir. 1988).
3
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
4
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that
5
the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v.
6
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,48 (1988).
7 B.
Legal Claims
8
Plaintiff is a practicing Muslim incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison ("SQSP"). As
9
part of his religious beliefs, plaintiff must pray five times daily at specified times: specifically at
10
Zhur (noon) and Asr (afternoon) prayer during "opening dayroom" when all prisoners are
11
allowed to participate in recreational activities. By doing so, plaintiff believes that he will
12
receive between 25-27 times more blessings during a congregational prayer than during
13
individual prayer. At the time, SQSP staff had imposed a rule prohibiting SQSP Muslim inmates
14
from offering congregational prayer in groups of more than 4 inmates at a time.
15
Initially, Muslim prisoners on the West Block at SQSP were not permitted to engage in
16
congregational prayer groups with more than 4 Muslim prisoners during "open dayroom" even
17
though a group of about 25 Christian prisoners was simultaneously offering a congregational
18
prayer and was not interrupted by correctional staff. Plaintiff and other Muslim prisoners filed a
19
group administrative appeal, complaining that they were being discriminated against based on
20
their religion. At the third level of review, plaintiffs appeal was granted, and the complaint was
21
referred to the Religious Review Committee. On May 14, 2014, the Religious Review
22
Committee decided to allow Muslim prisoners at SQSP to participate in congregational prayer of
23
no more than 15 prisoners during "open dayroom."
24
However, on November 17, 2014, defendants Albritton and Kluger issued an order that
25
congregational Zhur and Asr prayer during open dayroom was no longer permitted. Plaintiff was
26
told that Muslim prisoners could have one congregational prayer per day during "open
27
dayroom." Muslim inmate Khalifah E.D. Saifullah filed an administrative appeal the next day
28
Order of Partial Dismissal; Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding
Such Motion
2
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l6\Smith 156srv. wpd
against defendants. At the third level of review, the appeal was granted, and the warden was
2
ordered to conduct another Religious Review Committee to modifY the May 14, 2014 order by
3
offering congregational prayer five times a day to Muslim prisoners, especially during "open
4
dayroom."
5
In the underlying federal complaint, plaintiff alleges that prison officials have refused to
6
comply with this third level of review directive, and have not conducted a Religious Review
7
Committee meeting. Plaintiff also alleges that Muslim prisoners are currently not allowed to
8
meet in groups of 5 or more for congregational prayer groups while Christians and Jewish
9
prisoners are permitted to meet for congregational prayer as often as they want during "open
10
11
dayroom."
Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated cognizable claims that defendants Albritton and
12
Kluger violated the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, First Amendment Establishment
13
Clause, First Amendment right against retaliation, Fourteenth Amendment right to equal
14
protection, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
15
Plaintiffs allegations against defendants Davis and Mitchell, however, are dismissed
16
with prejudice. According to plaintiff, Mitchell was assigned to the second level of review for
17
Inmate Saifullah's November 18, 2014 administrative appeal, but did not ultimately rule on the
18
appeal. Instead, Davis conducted the second level review and denied the appeal at the second
19
level. (Compl. at 7.) Plaintiffthen succeeded at the third level of review, but does not identifY
20
the third level reviewers.
21
Plaintiff also states that Davis and Mitchell have not complied with the third level of
22
review's decision to "determine, establish, and make available the least restrict alternative
23
through the [Religious Review Committee] to allow plaintiff and similarly situated Muslim
24
prisoners to offer more than one congregational prayer in West Block .... " (Id. at 7-8.)
25
However, Davis and Mitchell's role was limited to participating in the second level of review.
26
Neither participated in the actual restriction of the any prisoner's congregational prayer.
27
Plaintiffs allegations fail to state a cognizable claim against Davis and Mitchell.
28
Order of Partial Dismissal; Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding
Such Motion
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.I6\Smith 156srv. wpd
3
Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § I983 only if the plaintiff
2
can show that the defendant's actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a
3
federally protected right. See Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d
4
I062, I085 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. I988). Here, plaintiff
5
fails to show causation. According to plaintiff, neither Davis nor Mitchell were involved in the
6
November I4, 20 I4 directive to limit the number of congregational prayers or the number of
7
Muslim prisoners per congregational prayer, which is the event from which plaintiff's claims
8
stem. In fact, Davis and Mitchell could not have caused the alleged violations because Davis
9
and Mitchell were not involved until after the alleged violations had already occurred. See
I0
Taylor v. List, 880 F .2d I 040, I 045 (9th Cir. I989) ("A supervisor is only liable for
II
constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the
12
violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them."); Leer, 844 F.2d at 633
13
("A person deprives another of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section I983, if he
I4
does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act
15
which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains")
I6
(emphasis in original). Therefore, plaintiffhas failed to state a cognizable claim for relief
I7
against Davis and Mitchell.
I8
To the extent plaintiff alleges that Davis and Mitchell are liable for denying plaintiff's
I9
administrative appeal, there is no constitutional right to a prison grievance system. See Ramirez
20
v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that prisoners lack a separate
2I
constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance system). Consequently, the denial of
22
plaintiff's administrative appeal cannot be the basis of liability under Section I983. See, e.g.,
23
Wright v. Shapirshteyn, No. CV I-06-0927-MHM, 2009 WL 36I95I, *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb.l2,
24
2009) (noting that "where a defendant's only involvement in the allegedly unconstitutional
25
conduct is the denial of administrative grievances, the failure to intervene on a prisoner's behalf
26
to remedy alleged unconstitutional behavior does not amount to active unconstitutional behavior
27
for purposes of§ I983"); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-IO (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that
28
Order of Partial Dismissal; Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding
Such Motion
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l6\Smith 156srv. wpd
4
only persons who cause or participate in civil rights violations can be held responsible and that
2
"[r]uling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the
3
violation").
4
A district court must afford pro se prisoner litigants an opportunity to amend their
5
complaints to correct any deficiencies in their complaints. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d II22,
6
II26-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en bane). However, leave to amend need not be given where the
7
amendment of the complaint would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad
8
faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay. See Janicki Logging Co. v.
9
Mateer, 42 F.3d 56 I, 566 (9th Cir. I994). Here, Davis and Mitchell cannot be liable for the
I0
alleged violations because Davis and Mitchell did not become involved until after the alleged
II
violations occurred. In addition, Davis and Mitchell's involvement was limited to reviewing
I2
and/or denying plaintiffs administrative appeal, but there is no constitutional right to a prison
13
grievance system, and the denial of plaintiffs administrative appeal cannot be the basis of
I4
Section I983 liability. See Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 860 (holding that prisoners lack a separate
I5
constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance system). Thus, it is clear that any
I6
amendment would be futile. Davis and Mitchell are dismissed with prejudice and without leave
I7
to amend.
CONCLUSION
18
19
20
2I
I.
Defendants Davis and Mitchell are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a
claim against them.
2.
The clerk ofthe court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of
22
Service of Summons, two copies ofthe Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy ofthe complaint
23
and all attachments thereto (docket no. I), and a copy ofthis order to Associate Warden S.R.
24
Albritton and Correctional Lt. R. Kluger at San Quentin State Prison. The clerk of the
25
court shall also mail a courtesy copy of the complaint and a copy of this order to the California
26
Attorney General's Office. Additionally, the clerk shall mail a copy of this order to plaintiff.
27
3.
Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
28
Order of Partial Dismissal; Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding
Such Motion
5 ·
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.16\Smith156srv.wpd
requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint.
2
Pursuant to Rule 4, if defendants, after being notified of this action and asked by the court, on
3
behalf of plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so, they wiii be required to bear
4
the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for their failure to sign and return the waiver
5
form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if defendants had been served on the date
6
that the waiver is filed, and defendants will not be required to serve and file an answer before
7
sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent. Defendants are asked to
8
read the statement set forth at the bottom of the waiver form that more completely describes the
9
duties of the parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons. If service is waived after
10
the date provided in the Notice but before defendants have been personally served, the Answer
11
shall be due sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty
12
(20) days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later.
13
No later than sixty (60) days from the date the waivers are sent from the court,
4.
14
defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to
15
the cognizable claims in the complaint. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported
16
by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 ofthe Federal
17
Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary juda:ment cannot be
18
~:ranted,
19
the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary juda:ment, they shall so inform
20
the court prior to the date the summary juda:ment motion is due.
21
nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If defendants are of
5.
Plaintiffs opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the court and
22
served on defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date defendants' motion is
23
filed. Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
24
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 4 77 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment must
25
come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of
26
his claim).
27
6.
Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after plaintitrs
28
Order of Partial Dismissal; Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding
Such Motion
6
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l6\Smith 156srv. wpd
opposition is filed.
2
3
4
7.
The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No
hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date.
8.
All communications by the plaintiff with the court must be served on defendants
5
or defendants' counsel, by mailing a true copy of the document to defendants or defendants'
6
counsel.
7
8
9
9.
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.
10.
It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court
10
and all parties informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a
11
timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute
12
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
J/2t/ 201 {p
I I
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
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l6\Smith l56srv .wpd
7
I
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?