Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03988/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03988-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALI W. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. CONWAY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-03988-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Docket No. 1

I. INTRODUCTION

Mali W. Williams, an inmate at the Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Breakfast/Lunch Meal Sack Served During Ramadan

Mr. Williams, a Muslim inmate, alleges the following about the food served to him during 

the 2017 Ramadan month (i.e., May 16 – June 15, 2017) at Salinas Valley. Inmates who observed

a daylight fast during Ramadan were supposed to be given a breakfast/lunch sack containing two 

complete meals each day. Docket No. 1-2 at 3. (They apparently also took part in the normal 

dinner service at the prison; Mr. Williams does not mention or complain about the dinner service).

Mr. Williams was not given a full breakfast meal in his meal sack; the meal did not include a main 

course – which he believes should have consisted of hard-boiled eggs, tuna, or some kind of 

pastries. Id. at 4; see also id. at 12 (inmate grievance stating that the morning meal “didn’t have a 

main course such as: boil eggs, tuna or any kind of pas[tries].”) The meal was not the equivalent 

of the food provided to the rest of the Salinas Valley prison population. Id. at 4. Mr. Williams 

Case 3:19-cv-03988-EMC Document 9 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 8
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

filed an inmate grievance about the meal sack after Ramadan ended. Supervising correctional 

cook Mustafa responded that the meals provided were pursuant to the same standardized memo 

used for both 2016 and 2017, an assertion that Mr. Williams finds “impossible” to believe. Id.

Mr. Williams contends that Defendants Conway, Castillo, Mustafa and Binkele are liable because 

they “allowed a process to be displayed against plaintiff.” Id. at 3. Mr. Williams also contends 

that the breakfast deficiencies deprived him of adequate food as well as his religious freedom 

rights. Id. at 5.

The attachments to the complaint include an excerpt from a November 2008 CDCR “Food 

Service Handbook” that states that inmates fasting during Ramadan will be given three meals per 

day; “[i]f sack meals are not [to] be eaten for several hours, only include ingredients that do not 

require refrigeration to remain safe.” Docket No. 1-2 at 14. The handbook provides a list of 

“sample” Ramadan meals provided at the California State Prison – Los Angeles County, but does

not mandate that those particular meals be served to all prisoners observing Ramadan. Id. at 14-

15. 

Also attached to the complaint are Mr. Williams’ grievances and responses thereto about 

the Ramadan meal service. In response to Mr. Williams’ inmate appeal complaining that he had 

not received proper breakfasts with a main course during Ramadan, prison officials denied Mr. 

Williams’ request “to have boiled eggs, tuna or any kind of pastries for the breakfast and lunch 

sack meals.” Id. at 18. The first-level response explained that the “current Ramadan menu is 

based on an approved memorandum dated April 27, 2017, Procedures for Annual Muslim 

Ramadan Fast.” Docket No. 1-2 at 17. According to the first-level response, the April 27 

memorandum listed the specific items that were to be included in the meal sack on a daily basis1

and that list did not include tuna, hard boiled eggs, or pastries. Id. at 18. Also according to the 

first-level response, the listed items provided a total of 1,674 calories, which was more than the 

 

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 

bread, 3 pieces American cheese, 1 packet peanut butter, 1 oz. jelly, 1 bag chips or pretzel, 2 pack 

graham crackers, 2 beverage packets. Docket No. 1-2 at 18. The calorie count for each of these 

items was included in the list.

Case 3:19-cv-03988-EMC Document 9 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 8
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1,582 calories “required by the Food Service Handbook.” Id. at 17-18. Prison officials relied on 

the same information to deny Mr. Williams’ inmate appeals at the second and third level. Id. at 

19-23.

B. Jumuah Prayer Services

Mr. Williams alleges the following about the arrangements for Jumuah prayer services at 

Salinas Valley. Jumuah prayer service is a Friday prayer service that is “mandatory” for Muslims 

to attend every week. Id. at 6. From about February or March 2017 until about June or July 2018, 

there was not an assigned Imam/chaplain for the Muslim community on C-yard. Id. As a result, 

the Jumuah prayer service was only available to Mr. Williams every other week. Id. He had 

access to regular Jumuah prayer services during the even weeks of the month but not the odd 

weeks. Id. During the odd weeks (i.e., when the regular Jumuah prayer service was not being 

held), Jumuah prayer services were only available if the Muslims had a volunteer. Carole 

Hernandez, the community resource manager, said that supervisory correctional cook Halloush

was interested in volunteering. Id. Mr. Halloush only came to volunteer three times in the year. 

Other than those few times Mr. Halloush showed up, if Mr. Williams still wanted to attend 

Jumuah services during the odd weeks, Mr. Williams would have had to use the C-yard outdoor 

religious grounds. The outdoor religious grounds area was located on the C-yard recreational yard 

and was loud and filthy because it was part of the general recreational area, and was right next to 

the bathrooms which were not blocked from view of the prayer participants. Id. According to Mr. 

Williams, the outdoor religious grounds were not appropriate for religious services. Id. at 6-7. 

Also according to Mr. Williams, he should have been allowed to conduct the Jumuah services on 

the odd weeks in the C-yard chapel because there was a guard stationed nearby and Mr. Williams

was documented as the C-yard minister for the Muslim community who had conducted nightly 

Ramadan services in that chapel. Id. at 7. Members of other religions were allowed to attend their 

religious services without disruptions similar to those Mr. Williams experienced. Id. at 8. 

Defendants T. Foss and Carole Hernandez are named as defendants for this claim because events 

“didn’t properly get handle[d] correctly,” and this “led to” the denial of Mr. Williams’ ability to 

practice his religious beliefs. Id. at 8. 

Case 3:19-cv-03988-EMC Document 9 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 8
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 

claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at 

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's 

obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual 

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer 

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.

A. The Meal Sacks Served During 2017 Ramadan

Mr. Williams’ claims regarding the breakfasts served during Ramadan have several 

problems that require dismissal with leave to amend. One significant problem with the complaint 

is that it does not adequately link any Defendant to the claims regarding the meal sacks served 

during Ramadan.. The allegation that Defendants Conway, Castillo, Mustafa, and Binkele 

“allowed a process to be displayed against” Mr. Williams, Docket No. 1-2 at 3, is unclear in 

meaning and does not adequately describe what each Defendant did or failed to do that caused a 

violation of Mr. Williams’ constitutional rights. 

The allegation that Defendant Mustafa responded to Mr. Williams’ grievance does not 

adequately plead a claim against Defendant Mustafa because there is no constitutional right to a 

Case 3:19-cv-03988-EMC Document 9 Filed 01/17/20 Page 4 of 8
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

prison or jail administrative appeal or grievance system in California, and therefore no due process 

liability for failing to process or decide an inmate appeal properly. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 

F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). A prison 

official who denies an inmate appeal about an ongoing constitutional violation might have liability 

for the constitutional violation itself if that official is in a position to prevent or stop a

constitutional violation and fails to do so, but a prison official who denies an inmate appeal about 

a constitutional violation that already has occurred and is complete (e.g., an exclusion of the 

inmate from a religious ceremony on a past date) does not have liability for that violation because 

he is not in a position to avert the constitutional violation. See generally Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 

1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006) (supervisor may be liable for deliberate indifference to a serious 

medical need, for instance, if he or she fails to respond to a prisoner’s request for help). Here, 

Ramadan had ended before Mr. Williams filed his inmate appeal complaining about the meal

sacks provided during Ramadan so there was no constitutional violation that could have been 

prevented or stopped by an official responding to the inmate appeal even if that official agreed 

with Mr. Williams’ position.

In his amended complaint, Mr. Williams must list the defendants for each claim and 

adequately link each defendant to the claim(s). Mr. Williams should not refer to them as a group 

(e.g., “the defendants”); rather, he should identify each involved defendant by name and link each 

of them to his claim by explaining what each involved defendant did or failed to do that caused a 

violation of his rights, and stating when the violation occurred. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 

634 (9th Cir. 1988). To sue a supervisor, the plaintiff must allege facts showing (1) personal 

involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the

supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 

1207 (9th Cir. 2011). Mr. Williams is cautioned that there is no respondeat superior liability under 

Section 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions 

of an employee. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). 

The next problem with the complaint is that it does not state a claim for a denial of 

adequate food. Adequate food is a basic human need protected by the Eighth Amendment. See 

Case 3:19-cv-03988-EMC Document 9 Filed 01/17/20 Page 5 of 8
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Foster v. Runnes, 554 F.3d 807, 812 (9th Cir. 2009). To state an Eighth Amendment claim based 

on a denial of food, a plaintiff must allege an objectively serious deprivation and also must allege 

facts showing that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the inmate’s health or 

safety, i.e., the official deliberately disregarded the risk to an inmate’s health or safety of which he 

was aware. See id. at 812, 814. The sustained denial of food service presents a sufficiently 

serious condition to meet the objective prong of the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 

analysis. Id. at 812. Mr. Williams must provide further information about his contention that that 

he was denied adequate food. The Court is unsure what the exact nature of his denial-of-adequatefood claim is because some of his allegations and his inmate appeal suggest that the gravamen of 

his complaint is that he did not receive specific items that he wanted (i.e., boiled eggs, tuna, and 

pastries) rather than that he did not receive meal sacks that contained the items on the list in the 

April 27, 2017, memorandum (see footnote 1, above) for Ramadan fasters. If he received meal 

sacks that contained the items on the list in the April 27, 2017 memorandum or comparable items, 

Mr. Williams must allege facts plausibly showing why those meals were not nutritionally 

adequate. 

The next problem is that the complaint does not state a claim for the violation of Mr. 

Williams’ religious freedom rights based on the meal sacks provided. The First Amendment 

guarantees the right to the free exercise of religion. In order to establish a free exercise violation, 

a prisoner must show a defendant burdened the practice of his religion without any justification 

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883-

84 (9th Cir. 2008). Inmates’ religious freedoms also are protected by the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. RLUIPA provides: “No 

government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or 

confined to an institution, as defined in section 1997 [which includes state prisons, state 

psychiatric hospitals, and local jails], even if the burden results from a rule of general 

applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person 

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of 

furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). For an RLUIPA

Case 3:19-cv-03988-EMC Document 9 Filed 01/17/20 Page 6 of 8
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

claim, the plaintiff-inmate must show that the government has imposed a substantial burden on his 

religious exercise. A “‘substantial burden’ on ‘religious exercise’ must impose a significantly 

great restriction or onus upon such exercise.” San Jose Christian College v. Morgan Hill, 360 

F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, Mr. Williams alleges that the meal sacks violated his 

religious freedom rights, but does not allege how the meal sacks burdened the exercise of his 

religion. In his amended complaint, Mr. Williams needs to allege what it was about the meal

sacks that were provided that interfered with Mr. Williams’ religious freedom rights under the 

First Amendment and/or under RLUIPA.

Lastly, Mr. Williams alleges that he received meals that were different from those provided 

to other inmates at the prison. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires that 

similarly situated persons be treated alike. “To state a § 1983 claim for violation of the Equal 

Protection Clause a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to 

discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class.” Thornton v. City 

of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Here, an attachment to the complaint indicates that the meals for Ramadan fasters were different 

due to food safety issues related to leaving food unrefrigerated for several hours. If the only 

difference between the meal sacks and the meals served to other inmates is that the meal sacks 

contained items that were different simply because they had to be safe for consumption after 

sitting unrefrigerated for several hours, Mr. Williams must allege facts to plausibly suggest that 

this difference shows a purpose to discriminate against him based on his religion rather than 

promoting basic food safety concerns. As with his other claims, Mr. Williams must link one or 

more defendants to this claim.

B. Jumuah Prayer Services

The complaint’s allegations regarding Jumuah Prayer Services fail to state a claim against 

any Defendant for interfering with Mr. Williams’ religious freedom rights or equal protection 

rights. The only allegation regarding the acts or omission of a defendant is that Defendant Carole 

Hernandez, the community resource manager, said that Mr. Halloush was interested in 

volunteering to help with Jumuah prayer services. That alleged conduct does not amount to an 

Case 3:19-cv-03988-EMC Document 9 Filed 01/17/20 Page 7 of 8
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

interference with Mr. Williams’ constitutional and RLUIPA rights. Mr. Williams also alleges that 

events “didn’t properly get handle[d],” but that is too vague to state a claim. In his amended 

complaint, Mr. Williams must link one or more Defendants to the claims by describing what each 

Defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his rights under the constitution or 

RLUIPA. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. Leave to amend is granted so that Mr. Williams may attempt to 

allege one or more claims in an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be filed no 

later than February 17, 2020, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this 

order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Mr. Williams is cautioned that 

his amended complaint must be a complete statement of his claims. See Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“For claims dismissed with prejudice and 

without leave to amend, we will not require that they be repled in a subsequent amended 

complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily dismissed, we will consider 

those claims to be waived if not repled.”) Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline 

will result in the dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-03988-EMC Document 9 Filed 01/17/20 Page 8 of 8