Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00006-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIFA MUHAMMAD,

NO. CIV. S-02-6 LKK/CMK P

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, et al., 

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff was incarcerated at the San Joaquin County Jail at all

times relevant to the complaint. Plaintiff is a practicing

Muslim, and in keeping with his faith, observes Ramadan, which

requires fasting during the day. Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)

at 1. He asserts that although he requested that accommodations

be made to allow him to avoid eating during the day and to eat

after sundown in 2001, jail officials ignored his requests for

special meals, and when they did provide bagged meals, did so only

Case 2:02-cv-00006-LKK-CMK Document 70 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 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

1 Plaintiff alleges that Ramadan lasts for 30 days. See

Compl. at 2. See also Ex. A to plaintiff’s declaration filed

September 16, 2005.

2

for a couple of days.1 Plaintiff also contends that jail official

refused to provide him Friday services for Muslims. He claims that

defendants violated his First Amendment rights, his Fourteenth

Amendment Due Process rights, and that these actions constituted

cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment.

Pending before the court is defendants’ motion for summary

judgment.

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No.

262. On January 20, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations (“F&Rs”) finding that defendants have submitted

evidence which shows that plaintiff was offered a nighttime meal

after 7:00 p.m., that breakfast was served at 5:00 a.m., and that

plaintiff never requested that a Muslim spiritual leader visit the

County Jail and that a copy of the Koran is available at all times.

F&Rs at 5. The magistrate judge also found that plaintiff has not

set forth any evidence which creates a material, disputed fact as

to his claims. He explains that plaintiff’s “conclusory

allegations in his responsive pleadings . . . will not do.” 

I cannot agree.

Plaintiff has filed a “declaration in support of his motion

and opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment” which

creates triable factual issues. Plaintiff states in his

Case 2:02-cv-00006-LKK-CMK Document 70 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 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

2 As a result of this order, the magistrate judge should

consider defendants’ arguments regarding qualified immunity and

municipal liability.

3

declaration that he was fed “between 5:00 am and 6:00 am during

Oct. 1 through Nov. 1, 2001,” at which time the “sun would have

been up.” Dec. at 1:19-21. Further, plaintiff states that he was

“denied bag lunchs [sic] after a couple of days.” Id. at 1:24-25.

Plaintiff also submits his deposition which is replete with

testimony which disputes the evidence provided by defendants. See,

e.g., Dep. at 41:8-22 (plaintiff ate food that other inmates gave

him; County provided food trays “for a couple of days”); Dep. at

42:5-20 (sack meals or food trays were provided only occasionally

during Ramadan and all other food was provided by other inmates);

Dep. at 43:8-22 (plaintiff was disciplined for storing food in his

cell when no other food was provided); Dep. at 33:16-34:18

(plaintiff verbally requested religious services but was not

provided such services). 

Accordingly, the court DECLINES to adopt the magistrate’s

findings and recommendations. The matter is REMANDED to the

magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this

order.2 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 30, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:02-cv-00006-LKK-CMK Document 70 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 3