(PC) Plett v. Religious Committee ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIKEL PLETT, Case No. 2:23-cv-00683-DJC-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 RELIGIOUS COMMITTEE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff brings this section 1983 case against the religious committee at California state 22 Prison-Sacramento. ECF No. 1 at 3. For the reasons stated below, the complaint cannot proceed 23 as currently articulated. I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF 24 No. 2. 25 26 27 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 4 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 5 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 7 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 26 27 28 1 II. Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges that the religious committee at California State Prison-Sacramento 3 violated his First Amendment rights when it denied his request for a religious diet. ECF No. 1 at 4 3. This claim fails for two reasons. 5 First, plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to put any defendant on notice as to the 6 specific claims against that defendant. He alleges that he practices some combination of Judaism 7 and Christianity, but he has not explained what his religious beliefs require with respect to meals 8 or how the religious committee failed to accommodate those needs. In grievance documents 9 attached to the complaint, plaintiff appears to request a kosher diet—a request that was referred to 10 the religious committee by a chaplain with a note that plaintiff’s beliefs were “not clearly 11 articulated.” Id. Whatever additional follow-up there may have been to the request is 12 unaddressed. 13 Second, the religious committee is not a viable defendant because it is not a person within 14 the meaning of section 1983. See Allison v. California Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822, 823, (9th 15 Cir. 1969) (“[S]tate agencies which are but arms of the state government are not ‘persons’ for 16 purposes of the Civil Rights Act.”). It is, in effect, a committee that is part of the prison itself. 17 Plaintiff may, of course, name and sue the individuals who sit on the committee if he feels they 18 have violated his rights. 19 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that addresses these deficiencies. He is advised 20 that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 21 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will 22 need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 23 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. 24 Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each 25 claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint 26 should be titled “Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 27 28 1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 3 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 4 | complaint. If he does not, I will issue findings and recommendations that the complaint be 5 | dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 4 g IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ May 22, 2023 q——— 10 JEREMY D. PETERSON i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28