Williams v. Conway ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MALI W. WILLIAMS, Case No. 19-cv-03988-EMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 9 v. TO AMEND 10 R. CONWAY, et al., Docket No. 1 11 Defendants. 12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Mali W. Williams, an inmate at the Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights 15 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1915A. 17 II. BACKGROUND 18 A. The Breakfast/Lunch Meal Sack Served During Ramadan 19 Mr. Williams, a Muslim inmate, alleges the following about the food served to him during 20 the 2017 Ramadan month (i.e., May 16 – June 15, 2017) at Salinas Valley. Inmates who observed 21 a daylight fast during Ramadan were supposed to be given a breakfast/lunch sack containing two 22 complete meals each day. Docket No. 1-2 at 3. (They apparently also took part in the normal 23 dinner service at the prison; Mr. Williams does not mention or complain about the dinner service). 24 Mr. Williams was not given a full breakfast meal in his meal sack; the meal did not include a main 25 course – which he believes should have consisted of hard-boiled eggs, tuna, or some kind of 26 pastries. Id. at 4; see also id. at 12 (inmate grievance stating that the morning meal “didn’t have a 27 main course such as: boil eggs, tuna or any kind of pas[tries].”) The meal was not the equivalent 1 filed an inmate grievance about the meal sack after Ramadan ended. Supervising correctional 2 cook Mustafa responded that the meals provided were pursuant to the same standardized memo 3 used for both 2016 and 2017, an assertion that Mr. Williams finds “impossible” to believe. Id. 4 Mr. Williams contends that Defendants Conway, Castillo, Mustafa and Binkele are liable because 5 they “allowed a process to be displayed against plaintiff.” Id. at 3. Mr. Williams also contends 6 that the breakfast deficiencies deprived him of adequate food as well as his religious freedom 7 rights. Id. at 5. 8 The attachments to the complaint include an excerpt from a November 2008 CDCR “Food 9 Service Handbook” that states that inmates fasting during Ramadan will be given three meals per 10 day; “[i]f sack meals are not [to] be eaten for several hours, only include ingredients that do not 11 require refrigeration to remain safe.” Docket No. 1-2 at 14. The handbook provides a list of 12 “sample” Ramadan meals provided at the California State Prison – Los Angeles County, but does 13 not mandate that those particular meals be served to all prisoners observing Ramadan. Id. at 14- 14 15. 15 Also attached to the complaint are Mr. Williams’ grievances and responses thereto about 16 the Ramadan meal service. In response to Mr. Williams’ inmate appeal complaining that he had 17 not received proper breakfasts with a main course during Ramadan, prison officials denied Mr. 18 Williams’ request “to have boiled eggs, tuna or any kind of pastries for the breakfast and lunch 19 sack meals.” Id. at 18. The first-level response explained that the “current Ramadan menu is 20 based on an approved memorandum dated April 27, 2017, Procedures for Annual Muslim 21 Ramadan Fast.” Docket No. 1-2 at 17. According to the first-level response, the April 27 22 memorandum listed the specific items that were to be included in the meal sack on a daily basis1 23 and that list did not include tuna, hard boiled eggs, or pastries. Id. at 18. Also according to the 24 first-level response, the listed items provided a total of 1,674 calories, which was more than the 25 26 1 The memorandum’s list of items that were to be provided in the meal sack included the following: 1 box cold cereal, 2 oz. powdered milk, 1 coffee packet, 2 pieces fresh fruit, 6 slices 27 bread, 3 pieces American cheese, 1 packet peanut butter, 1 oz. jelly, 1 bag chips or pretzel, 2 pack 1 1,582 calories “required by the Food Service Handbook.” Id. at 17-18. Prison officials relied on 2 the same information to deny Mr. Williams’ inmate appeals at the second and third level. Id. at 3 19-23. 4 B. Jumuah Prayer Services 5 Mr. Williams alleges the following about the arrangements for Jumuah prayer services at 6 Salinas Valley. Jumuah prayer service is a Friday prayer service that is “mandatory” for Muslims 7 to attend every week. Id. at 6. From about February or March 2017 until about June or July 2018, 8 there was not an assigned Imam/chaplain for the Muslim community on C-yard. Id. As a result, 9 the Jumuah prayer service was only available to Mr. Williams every other week. Id. He had 10 access to regular Jumuah prayer services during the even weeks of the month but not the odd 11 weeks. Id. During the odd weeks (i.e., when the regular Jumuah prayer service was not being 12 held), Jumuah prayer services were only available if the Muslims had a volunteer. Carole 13 Hernandez, the community resource manager, said that supervisory correctional cook Halloush 14 was interested in volunteering. Id. Mr. Halloush only came to volunteer three times in the year. 15 Other than those few times Mr. Halloush showed up, if Mr. Williams still wanted to attend 16 Jumuah services during the odd weeks, Mr. Williams would have had to use the C-yard outdoor 17 religious grounds. The outdoor religious grounds area was located on the C-yard recreational yard 18 and was loud and filthy because it was part of the general recreational area, and was right next to 19 the bathrooms which were not blocked from view of the prayer participants. Id. According to Mr. 20 Williams, the outdoor religious grounds were not appropriate for religious services. Id. at 6-7. 21 Also according to Mr. Williams, he should have been allowed to conduct the Jumuah services on 22 the odd weeks in the C-yard chapel because there was a guard stationed nearby and Mr. Williams 23 was documented as the C-yard minister for the Muslim community who had conducted nightly 24 Ramadan services in that chapel. Id. at 7. Members of other religions were allowed to attend their 25 religious services without disruptions similar to those Mr. Williams experienced. Id. at 8. 26 Defendants T. Foss and Carole Hernandez are named as defendants for this claim because events 27 “didn’t properly get handle[d] correctly,” and this “led to” the denial of Mr. Williams’ ability to 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 3 seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 5 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 6 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at 7 § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 8 Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 9 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 10 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 11 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 12 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 13 Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's 14 obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and 15 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual 16 allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic 17 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer 18 “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 19 A. The Meal Sacks Served During 2017 Ramadan 20 Mr. Williams’ claims regarding the breakfasts served during Ramadan have several 21 problems that require dismissal with leave to amend. One significant problem with the complaint 22 is that it does not adequately link any Defendant to the claims regarding the meal sacks served 23 during Ramadan.. The allegation that Defendants Conway, Castillo, Mustafa, and Binkele 24 “allowed a process to be displayed against” Mr. Williams, Docket No. 1-2 at 3, is unclear in 25 meaning and does not adequately describe what each Defendant did or failed to do that caused a 26 violation of Mr. Williams’ constitutional rights. 27 The allegation that Defendant Mustafa responded to Mr. Williams’ grievance does not 1 prison or jail administrative appeal or grievance system in California, and therefore no due process 2 liability for failing to process or decide an inmate appeal properly. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 3 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). A prison 4 official who denies an inmate appeal about an ongoing constitutional violation might have liability 5 for the constitutional violation itself if that official is in a position to prevent or stop a 6 constitutional violation and fails to do so, but a prison official who denies an inmate appeal about 7 a constitutional violation that already has occurred and is complete (e.g., an exclusion of the 8 inmate from a religious ceremony on a past date) does not have liability for that violation because 9 he is not in a position to avert the constitutional violation. See generally Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 10 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006) (supervisor may be liable for deliberate indifference to a serious 11 medical need, for instance, if he or she fails to respond to a prisoner’s request for help). Here, 12 Ramadan had ended before Mr. Williams filed his inmate appeal complaining about the meal 13 sacks provided during Ramadan so there was no constitutional violation that could have been 14 prevented or stopped by an official responding to the inmate appeal even if that official agreed 15 with Mr. Williams’ position. 16 In his amended complaint, Mr. Williams must list the defendants for each claim and 17 adequately link each defendant to the claim(s). Mr. Williams should not refer to them as a group 18 (e.g., “the defendants”); rather, he should identify each involved defendant by name and link each 19 of them to his claim by explaining what each involved defendant did or failed to do that caused a 20 violation of his rights, and stating when the violation occurred. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 21 634 (9th Cir. 1988). To sue a supervisor, the plaintiff must allege facts showing (1) personal 22 involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the 23 supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 24 1207 (9th Cir. 2011). Mr. Williams is cautioned that there is no respondeat superior liability under 25 Section 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions 26 of an employee. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). 27 The next problem with the complaint is that it does not state a claim for a denial of 1 Foster v. Runnes, 554 F.3d 807, 812 (9th Cir. 2009). To state an Eighth Amendment claim based 2 on a denial of food, a plaintiff must allege an objectively serious deprivation and also must allege 3 facts showing that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the inmate’s health or 4 safety, i.e., the official deliberately disregarded the risk to an inmate’s health or safety of which he 5 was aware. See id. at 812, 814. The sustained denial of food service presents a sufficiently 6 serious condition to meet the objective prong of the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 7 analysis. Id. at 812. Mr. Williams must provide further information about his contention that that 8 he was denied adequate food. The Court is unsure what the exact nature of his denial-of-adequate- 9 food claim is because some of his allegations and his inmate appeal suggest that the gravamen of 10 his complaint is that he did not receive specific items that he wanted (i.e., boiled eggs, tuna, and 11 pastries) rather than that he did not receive meal sacks that contained the items on the list in the 12 April 27, 2017, memorandum (see footnote 1, above) for Ramadan fasters. If he received meal 13 sacks that contained the items on the list in the April 27, 2017 memorandum or comparable items, 14 Mr. Williams must allege facts plausibly showing why those meals were not nutritionally 15 adequate. 16 The next problem is that the complaint does not state a claim for the violation of Mr. 17 Williams’ religious freedom rights based on the meal sacks provided. The First Amendment 18 guarantees the right to the free exercise of religion. In order to establish a free exercise violation, 19 a prisoner must show a defendant burdened the practice of his religion without any justification 20 reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883- 21 84 (9th Cir. 2008). Inmates’ religious freedoms also are protected by the Religious Land Use and 22 Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. RLUIPA provides: “No 23 government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or 24 confined to an institution, as defined in section 1997 [which includes state prisons, state 25 psychiatric hospitals, and local jails], even if the burden results from a rule of general 26 applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person 27 (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of 1 claim, the plaintiff-inmate must show that the government has imposed a substantial burden on his 2 religious exercise. A “‘substantial burden’ on ‘religious exercise’ must impose a significantly 3 great restriction or onus upon such exercise.” San Jose Christian College v. Morgan Hill, 360 4 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, Mr. Williams alleges that the meal sacks violated his 5 religious freedom rights, but does not allege how the meal sacks burdened the exercise of his 6 religion. In his amended complaint, Mr. Williams needs to allege what it was about the meal 7 sacks that were provided that interfered with Mr. Williams’ religious freedom rights under the 8 First Amendment and/or under RLUIPA. 9 Lastly, Mr. Williams alleges that he received meals that were different from those provided 10 to other inmates at the prison. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires that 11 similarly situated persons be treated alike. “To state a § 1983 claim for violation of the Equal 12 Protection Clause a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to 13 discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class.” Thornton v. City 14 of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 15 Here, an attachment to the complaint indicates that the meals for Ramadan fasters were different 16 due to food safety issues related to leaving food unrefrigerated for several hours. If the only 17 difference between the meal sacks and the meals served to other inmates is that the meal sacks 18 contained items that were different simply because they had to be safe for consumption after 19 sitting unrefrigerated for several hours, Mr. Williams must allege facts to plausibly suggest that 20 this difference shows a purpose to discriminate against him based on his religion rather than 21 promoting basic food safety concerns. As with his other claims, Mr. Williams must link one or 22 more defendants to this claim. 23 B. Jumuah Prayer Services 24 The complaint’s allegations regarding Jumuah Prayer Services fail to state a claim against 25 any Defendant for interfering with Mr. Williams’ religious freedom rights or equal protection 26 rights. The only allegation regarding the acts or omission of a defendant is that Defendant Carole 27 Hernandez, the community resource manager, said that Mr. Halloush was interested in 1 interference with Mr. Williams’ constitutional and RLUIPA rights. Mr. Williams also alleges that 2 || events “didn’t properly get handle[d],” but that is too vague to state a claim. In his amended 3 |} complaint, Mr. Williams must link one or more Defendants to the claims by describing what each 4 || Defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his rights under the constitution or 5 || RLUIPA. 6 IV. CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 8 which relief may be granted. Leave to amend is granted so that Mr. Williams may attempt to 9 allege one or more claims in an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be filed no 10 later than February 17, 2020, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this 11 order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Mr. Williams is cautioned that 12 || his amended complaint must be a complete statement of his claims. See Lacey v. Maricopa 13 County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“For claims dismissed with prejudice and 14 || without leave to amend, we will not require that they be repled in a subsequent amended 3 15 complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily dismissed, we will consider a 16 || those claims to be waived if not repled.”) Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline 3 17 will result in the dismissal of the action. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: January 17, 2020 22 — / ED M. CHEN 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28