UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 26, 2013
BILLY RAY SHA'NEE MALDONADO,
JAMES YATES, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ECF No. 1 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS
Plaintiff Billy Ray Sha'Nee Maldonado ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed his complaint. ECF No. 1.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a 2 claim upon which relief may be granted." Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 3
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
4 is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 5
"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 6 do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 7
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a 8 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual 9 allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
II. Summary of Complaint
Plaintiff was incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") in Delano, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants warden James Yates, CDCR, and W. K. Myers, acting religious coordinator. Plaintiff also names J. Morgan, D. Foreman, and L. Harton, appeals coordinators.
Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff complains that PVSP does not allow Plaintiff to attend more than one religious service at PVSP. Plaintiff complains that he has not attended Native American spiritual ceremonies, or Jewish ones. Plaintiff also complains that he is denied a Jewish kosher diet, which he contends is better for his health and mental disability.
Plaintiff contends a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff requests as relief compensatory and punitive damages.
A.First Amendment -- Free Exercise
The right to exercise religious practices and beliefs does not terminate at the prison door. The free exercise right, however, is necessarily limited by the fact of incarceration, and may be curtailed in order to achieve legitimate correctional goals or to maintain prison security." McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 197 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing O'Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987)); see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545 (1979). Only beliefs which are both sincerely held and rooted in religious beliefs trigger the Free Exercise Clause. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2 2008) (citing Malik v. Brown, 16 F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 1994)); Callahan v. Woods, 658 F. 2d 679, 683 (9th Cir. 1981)).
Plaintiff fails to state a First Amendment claim regarding the exercise of his religion.
Plaintiff alleges no facts which indicate that he has a sincerely held and deeply rooted religious 6 belief that he is being denied the right to exercise. Plaintiff appears to seek the option to sample 7 whatever religion suits his interest, which is not the purpose of the rights protected by the Free 8 Exercise Clause. 9
B.Eighth Amendment -- Medical Care
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. "The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quotation and citation omitted). A prisoner's claim of inadequate medical care does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) "the prison official deprived the prisoner of the 'minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,'" and (2) "the prison official 'acted with deliberate indifference in doing so.'" Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). The deliberate indifference standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, "sufficiently serious . . . ." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must "know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety . . . ." Id. at 837.
"Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard." Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060. "Under this standard, the prison official must not only 'be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,' but that person 'must also draw the inference.'" Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). "'If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.'" Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Plaintiff fails to allege facts which demonstrate that he suffers from an objectively serious harm. Plaintiff also fails to allege facts indicating that any Defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk of serious harm to Plaintiff's health by denying him a Kosher diet.*fn1
IV. Conclusion and Recommendation
Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any Defendants. The undersigned does not find that Plaintiff can amend his pleadings to cure the deficiencies identified. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 5 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this 6 action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 7
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United
States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days 9 after being served with these
Findings and Recommendations, the Plaintiff may file written
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned
"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The
Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's
order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.