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.

Quezada v. Long

United States District Court, C.D. California

May 11, 2015

ALVARO QUEZADA, Plaintiff,
v.
Warden D.B. LONG, et al, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

MARGARET A. NAGLE, Magistrate Judge.

On March 31, 2015, plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Complaint").

Congress has mandated that courts perform an initial screening of civil rights actions brought by prisoners with respect to prison conditions and/or that seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. The Court "shall" dismiss a prisoner civil rights action if the Court concludes that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks relief against a defendant who is immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).

In screening a pro se civil rights complaint, the Court must construe its allegations liberally and must afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012). The standard applicable on screening is the standard for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. The complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, but must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). If a complaint is dismissed, a pro se litigant must be given leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.2d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988).

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is an inmate at Ironwood State Prison ("Ironwood"). Defendants are: N. McDowell, the current Warden of Ironwood; D.B. Long, the former Warden of Ironwood; and Michelle Mayer, described as "lead legal counsel" for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR").

Plaintiff alleges that he is a practicing Orthodox Jew, having formally converted on February 4, 2014, although he has been complying with kosher dietary restrictions since 2011. Plaintiff's claims arise out of the prison's refusal to allow him to take his religious meals out of the dining hall to his cell, so that he can perform ritual washing of hands and recitation of prayers before eating. The prison prohibits the removal of meals from the dining room under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3055, which provides, in pertinent part: "Inmates shall not remove any food from the dining room, kitchen, or food storage areas, except as specifically authorized by facility staff." Warden Long and later Warden McDowell have refused to grant plaintiff a religious exemption from this policy. Plaintiff sent a letter to Michelle Mayer at the Legal Affairs Department in Sacramento describing the situation and requesting that she take remedial action, but she merely forwarded the letter to Ironwood Associate Warden Smith for response.

Plaintiff asserts claims against Long, McDowell, and Mayer under the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff's equal protection claim is based on allegations that a diabetic inmate has been allowed to take meals out of the dining room for medical reasons.

In addition to damages, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief permitting him and other Jewish inmates to remove their religious meals from the dining room to eat in their cells, ordering sensitivity training for Ironwood officials, and directing Ironwood to hire a rabbi.

DISCUSSION

At this early stage, the Complaint withstands screening with respect to the First Amendment and RLUIPA claims against defendants Long and McDowell. The Complaint must nevertheless be dismissed for the following reasons: (1) plaintiff fails to state a claim against defendant Mayer; and (2) plaintiff fails to state an equal protection claim against any defendant.

A. Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim Against Defendant Mayer.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Mayer is an attorney employed at the CDCR Legal Affairs Department in Sacramento. Plaintiff sent her a letter, dated January 23, 2014, regarding the prison's refusal to allow him to take his religious meals out of the dining room. He requested that she take steps to end this policy and advised her that, if this was not done, he would initiate litigation. (Complaint ¶¶ 16-20 at, Ex. 4.) On March 12, 2014, plaintiff received a response to his letter from Ironwood Associate Warden Smith. According to Smith's letter, the Office of Legal Affairs had forwarded plaintiff's letter to Ironwood officials for response. (Complaint ¶ 21, Ex. 4.)

Plaintiff contends that Mayer is "lead counsel for CDCR" and is "responsible for curtailing all possible litigations and constitutional deprivations within California's [p]rison system." He contends that his letter placed Mayer on notice of the continuing deprivations of his First Amendment rights, and that she had failed to make any attempt to ...


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.