Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00271/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00271-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW A. CEJAS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

W.K. MYERS, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)_

1:12cv00271 AWI DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS

(Doc. 52)

Plaintiff Andrew Cejas (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983.

After the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, Plaintiff filed his Third 

Amended Complaint on December 11, 2014. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On January 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that

this action go forward on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, and that his Fourteenth Amendment 

claim be dismissed. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and 

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff filed 

objections on February 19, 2015, and Defendants replied to those objections on March 5, 2015. 

Defendants filed objections on February 26, 2015, and Plaintiff replied to the objections on 

March 13, 2015.

Case 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB Document 57 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 4
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the parties’ 

objections and replies, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by 

the record and proper analysis.

Plaintiff’s objections simply disagree with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff 

failed to support his Fourteenth Amendment claim with sufficient facts. Specifically, the Court 

explained that although Plaintiff alleged that Defendants acted “intentionally,” and with a 

“discriminatory purpose,” he failed to support his legal conclusions with facts plausibly showing 

that Defendants discriminatorily prohibited Buddhists from accessing the chapel. ECF No. 52, at 

7. 

Indeed, as the Magistrate Judge noted, the Court is not obligated to accept as true 

“threadbare recitals of a cause of action’s elements, supported by mere conclusory statements.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). In his objections, Plaintiff argues that he has shown 

a discriminatory intent and/or motive through circumstantial evidence. He points to 

memorandums attached to his Third Amended Complaint, but those memorandums are facially 

neutral, and simply set forth the prison’s procedures for accommodating a Muslim holiday and 

Jewish Friday Shabbat services. ECF No. 51, at 45-52, 54. While circumstantial evidence may 

be relied upon in certain circumstances, Plaintiff’s evidence does not, in any way, suggest a 

discriminatory intent.

Defendants object only to the finding of a cognizable claim against Defendants Van Leer, 

Foston and Pimentel.1 These Defendants reviewed and denied two of Plaintiff’s grievances at 

the third level of review, and the Court found that Plaintiff stated a claim against them on this 

basis.

Defendants argue, however, that “formulaic recitations” that Defendants could correct the 

deficiency are insufficient to state a claim. ECF No. 54, at 1. Defendants are correct that

generally, ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute 

to the violation. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). Defendants are also 

 

1 Defendants Van Leer, Foston and Pimentel do not work at Pleasant Valley State Prison.

Case 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB Document 57 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 4
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

correct that in certain circumstances, a claim can be stated against an appeal reviewer who “has 

the role, resources and responsibility to correct the violations.” ECF No. 54, at 3. Defendants 

contend that, unlike an Eighth Amendment claim, administrative review of a First Amendment 

claim does not cause or contribute to the underlying violation. Rather, to state a First 

Amendment claim, Plaintiff was required to show that prison officials substantially burdened the 

practice of his religion by preventing him from engaging in conduct which he sincerely believes 

is consistent with his faith. 

In this regard, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot make such a showing against 

Defendants Van Leer, Foston and Pimentel because he cannot show that they had any knowledge 

of the alleged violations at the time they occurred, or participated in the alleged violations at 

Pleasant Valley State Prison. However, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants Foston, Van Leer 

and Pimentel knew of the violations and were in a position to correct them, when considered in 

light of the fact that Plaintiff has stated a claim for the underlying First Amendment violation, 

are sufficient to state a claim under the liberal screening rules. See, e.g., Shabazz v. Giurbino, 

2014 WL 4344368, *4 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (recognizing a claim of infringement upon free exercise 

rights in violation of the First Amendment against defendants whose only role in the violation 

was allegedly failing to remedy the violation when presented to them in an administrative 

appeal). At this time, it is premature to determine whether Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of 

law. 

///

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB Document 57 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 4
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, dated January 27, 2015, are ADOPTED IN 

FULL;

2. This action SHALL proceed on the First Amendment claim against Defendants 

Myers, McGee, Fisher, Trimble, Foston, Van Leer and Pimentel; 

3. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND; and 

4. Defendants SHALL file a responsive pleading within thirty (30) days of the date 

of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00271-AWI-DLB Document 57 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 4