United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND (ECF NO. 1) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Ricky Rivera (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's
complaint, filed on December 2, 2016, is currently before the
Court for screening.
Screening Requirement and Standard
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . .
.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff's
allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required
to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss
v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is
not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls
short of satisfying the plausibility standard.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation
marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Allegations in Complaint
is currently housed at California State Prison - Corcoran
(“Corcoran”) where the events in the complaint
are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names the following
defendants: (1) Warden Dave Davey; (2) Community Resource
Manager M. Robicheaux; (3) Christian Chaplain Ed Crain; and
(4) S.M.V. Chapoleun, Catholic Priests. Plaintiff contends
that defendants violated his First Amendment rights to
practice the Jewish obligatory prayers and holiday events
during 2014 through 2016.
alleges that he arrived at Corcoran on June 23, 2014, from
Wasco State Prison (“WSP”). While at WSP,
Plaintiff was able to practice all requested religious
prayers and rituals under the Jewish faith. Upon
Plaintiff's arrival at Corcoran, however, the requested
prayers and holiday events have been repeatedly denied by
Defendants Robicheaux, Crain, Chapoleun and Davey since July
contends that he followed all instructional procedures and
guidelines after his arrival by submitted numerous CDCR-22
Inmate Request Forms to Facility 3A staff members, including
Defendants Davey, Robicheaux, Crain and Chapoleun to provide
him with the facility chapel to practice obligatory Jewish
prayers and holy day events. At the time of his requests in
2014 and 2015, all other inmates of the Christian, Islamic,
Catholic, Buddhist, and Kemectic Services were afforded their
obligatory religious services at the facility chapel.
made personal requests to Defendants Crain and Chapoleun that
went without accommodations and resulted in intentional
denial of religious services for the Jewish faith. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants Crain and Chapoleun intentionally
violated his First Amendment rights to practice and observe
Jewish prayers and holy day events by repeatedly denying
August 17 and 24, 2015, and November 21, 2015, Plaintiff sent
several CDCR-22 inmate request forms to Defendant Robicheaux
(Defendants Crain and Chapoleun's supervisor) requesting
her immediate assistance to rectify the continued denial and
deprivation of Plaintiff's requested obligatory Jewish
prayers and holy day events that were occurring at the
facility. Defendant Robicheaux did not respond to
Plaintiff's CDCR-22 requests. Plaintiff contends that her
failure to rectify the violations committed by Defendants
Crain and Chapoleun violated Plaintiff's First Amendment
November 15, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a CDCR-602 grievance
to Defendant Davey, objecting to Defendants Crain, Chapoleun
and Robicheaux's continued failure to comply with
policies to afford the Plaintiff his equal opportunity to
perform obligatory Jewish prayer services and holy day events
that were afformed to all other religious inmates for
Catholic, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Kemectic services.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Davey's failure to
timely intervene and rectify the violations committed by
Defendants Crain, Robicheaux and Chapoleun violated
Plaintiff's First Amendment rights to practice the
obligatory Jewish prayers and holy day events in Facility 3A
in 2014 and 2015. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants
Davey, Robicheaux, Crain and Chapoleun intentionally violated
Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to Equal
Protection under the law by failing to provide Plaintiff with
equal access to the 3A Facility Chapel religious services
that were afforded to all other inmates of Christian,
Islamic, Catholic, Buddhist and Kemectic faiths from 2014
relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
along with ...