Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Demetrius Ahmed Wright v. A. Hedgepeth

September 30, 2012

DEMETRIUS AHMED WRIGHT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
A. HEDGEPETH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Claudia Wilken United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REFERRING CASE TO PRO SE PRISONER SETTLEMENT PROGRAM (Docket no. 48)

INTRODUCTION

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff Demetrius A. Wright, a state prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), filed the above-titled pro 11 se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12 13 amended complaint (SAC), Defendants have filed a motion for 14 summary judgment. Plaintiff has opposed the motion. Defendants, 15 although directed to do so in the order of service, have not filed 16 a reply. 17

In response to the Court's order for service of the second 18 judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

For the reasons discussed below, the motion for summary

The Court draws the following facts from the allegations in

Plaintiff's verified SAC and his opposition and declaration filed 22 in response to Defendants' summary judgment motion.*fn1

Plaintiff is a practicing Muslim. Since his arrival at SVSP

2 he has been, and continues to be, denied access to a properly 3 prepared, nutritionally adequate and medically sound Halal diet, 4 or, alternatively, to a Kosher diet. 5

For the entire month of November 2009, he was denied access

6 to all Muslim services, and on multiple other occasions he has 7 been, and continues to be, denied the ability to attend Islamic 8 services including Ta'leem (educational services), Jumu'ah 9

(mandatory Friday congregational prayer services), and to 10 celebrate the Eid festival twice a year. He maintains that one of the reasons for these denials is prison officials' reliance upon For the inaccurate information about Muslim religious requirements 13 provided by the Muslim clergyman, Chaplain Landau, who practices a 14 version of Islam that is widely regarded by most traditional 15 Islamists (such as Plaintiff) as unacceptable.

Plaintiff further maintains that the prison's Religious Review Committee, which includes several Defendants, has allowed 18 only two outside companies to provide religious artifacts to 19

Muslim inmates, but these companies have taken money without 20 providing items that have been ordered and their selection does 21 not provide for the religious needs of all Muslims, including 22

Plaintiff. He states this burdens the practice of his religion 23 because he is indigent and is not allowed to receive donations of 24 approved religious artifacts. 25

Plaintiff claims the above restrictions on his religious 26 practices violate his rights under the Free Exercise and 27 Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, his right to equal 28 protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, and the statutory protections afforded to him under the Religious Land Use and 2 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.