Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02604/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02604-1/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY GEROME YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-2604 CKD P

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is state prisoner proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 

initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 

Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 

the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 

Case 2:15-cv-02604-KJM-CKD Document 5 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 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

2

exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

II. Screening Standard

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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

////

////

Case 2:15-cv-02604-KJM-CKD Document 5 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 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

3

III. Allegations

Plaintiff alleges that he is a Rastafarian, committed to the religious practice of wearing a 

head covering (“crown”). (ECF No. 1.) On September 21, 2014, his daughter and a friend came 

to visit him at California Health Care Facility. Plaintiff’s daughter had traveled from out-of-state 

and not seen plaintiff in many years. Before plaintiff entered the visiting room, defendants 

Saephan and Gill conducted a clothed body search and told him to remove his crown and shoes. 

Plaintiff told them that his head covering was required by his faith.

Defendant Rodriguez spoke with plaintiff and concluded that plaintiff could not wear his 

crown into the visiting room. Rodriguez allegedly remarked that he “never heard” of plaintiff’s

religion, and “for all I know you made it up.” (ECF No. 1 at 11-12.) Plaintiff removed his head 

covering, showing Rodriguez his hair and the yarmulke he wore underneath, but still was not 

allowed to wear his crown into the visiting room. None of the defendants indicated that 

plaintiff’s crown posed a security threat. As a result of these events, plaintiff did not meet with 

his daughter and friend, damaging his relationship with them. Other inmates at CHCF, including 

Jewish and Muslim prisoners, were allowed to wear religious head coverings per prison policy.

Plaintiff asserts that defendants violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of 

religion. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) In addition to damages, he seeks injunctive relief enforcing his right 

to practice his religion and “restraining CHCF officials from denying any further visits with 

approved visitors.” (Id. at 16.) 

IV. Analysis

The Civil Rights Act provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] ... subjects, or causes 

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the 

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution ... shall be liable to the party injured in an action at 

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

“Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the 

Constitution.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987). Among the rights prisoners possess is 

the right to the free exercise of religion, subject to limitations justified by the considerations 

Case 2:15-cv-02604-KJM-CKD Document 5 Filed 01/07/16 Page 3 of 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

4

underlying our penal system. O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987).

To merit protection under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, a religious 

claim must satisfy two criteria. “First, the claimant’s proffered belief must be sincerely held.” 

Malik v. Brown, 16 F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Second, “the claim must be 

rooted in religious belief, not in ‘purely secular’ philosophical concerns.” Id. (citations omitted). 

Determining whether a claim is “rooted in religious belief” requires analyzing whether the 

plaintiff’s claim is related to his sincerely held religious belief. Id. (citations omitted). See 

Shakur v. Schiriro, 514 F.3d 878, 885 (9th Cir. 2008) (proper focus of free exercise analysis of 

diet request is whether inmate “sincerely believes eating kosher meat is consistent with his 

faith.”) 

Here, plaintiff’s allegations implicate the free exercise clause. His claims may proceed 

against defendants Rodriguez, Saephan, and Gill. As to defendant Lewis, her role in the alleged 

events is not clear from plaintiff’s allegations (see ECF No. 1 at 7), and plaintiff has not shown a 

causal connection between this defendant and any constitutional injury. However, plaintiff will 

have an opportunity to amend the complaint.

V. Leave to Amend

Plaintiff will be given 30 days from the date of service of this order to amend his 

complaint to cure the deficiencies set forth above. Plaintiff is not required to file an amended 

complaint, but failure to do so will be construed as plaintiff’s consent to dismiss defendant Lewis 

with prejudice.

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

////

Case 2:15-cv-02604-KJM-CKD Document 5 Filed 01/07/16 Page 4 of 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

5

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted;

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. The fee 

shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith;

3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Lewis are dismissed with leave to amend; 

4. If plaintiff elects to amend, any amended complaint must bear the docket number 

assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; 

5. If plaintiff elects to amend, the Amended Complaint shall be filed no more than thirty 

days from the date of this order; and

6. Upon the filing of an amended complaint or expiration of the time allowed therefor, the 

court will make further orders for service of process upon some or all of the defendants. 

Dated: January 7, 2016

2 / youn2604.1.new

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-02604-KJM-CKD Document 5 Filed 01/07/16 Page 5 of 5