Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00755/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00755-1/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

TERMPSREF

KM

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald J. Harris, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-755-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Ronald J. Harris, confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence, has

filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court will order

Defendants Schriro, Bartos, Johnson, Linderman, Suwinski, and Morrison to answer Count

I of the Complaint and will dismiss the remaining claims and Defendants without prejudice.

 Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #12). The Court will

order Defendants to respond to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with the Complaint. The

Court denied the Application with leave to re-file because Plaintiff did not file a certified sixmonth account statement with the Application. 

On May 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed a new Application that the Court also denied because

the six-month account statement was not certified. Plaintiff then filed a motion for extension

Case 2:06-cv-00755-GMS Document 16 Filed 10/04/06 Page 1 of 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

of time to file a third Application, which the Court granted. Plaintiff has now filed another

Motion for Extension of Time and for Sanctions (Doc. #12) against the Arizona Department

of Corrections (“ADOC”) for failure to provide the account statement. Plaintiff states that

he has made repeated requests for an account statement, but to no avail. In the interest of the

moving this case forward, the Court will grant Plaintiff in forma pauperis status based on his

earlier, uncertified application and will deny the Motion for Extension of Time and for

Sanctions as moot.

Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00. The Court will assess an initial

partial filing fee of $6.28. 28 U.S.C.§ 1915 (b)(1)(A). The remainder of the fee will be

collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income each time the amount

in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate

Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect the fees according to the

statutory formula. 

Plaintiff should take notice that if he is released before the filing fee is paid in full, he

must pay the remaining unpaid amount of the filing fee within 120 days of the date of his

release. If Plaintiff fails to pay the remainder of the filing fee within 120 days of the date of

his release, the action will be dismissed unless Plaintiff shows good cause, in writing, why

he is unable to pay the remainder of the filing fee.

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

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 a plaintiff 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). 

III. Complaint

The following are named as Defendants in the Complaint: (1) Dora B. Schriro,

Director, ADOC; (2) Ivan Bartos, Warden, Arizona State Prison Complex (“ASPC”) –

Case 2:06-cv-00755-GMS Document 16 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

Lewis; (3) Terry Johnson, Deputy Warden, ASPC-Lewis; (4) Chaplain Kingsland, ASPCLewis; (5) Marve L. Morrison, Dietician, ASPC-Lewis; (6) C.O. II David Mitchell, ASPCLewis; (7) C.O. III Hernandez, ASPC-Lewis; (8) Mike Linderman, Director Pastoral

Services, ADOC; (9) Canteen Correctional Services, Inc.; and (10) Valerie Suwinski, CMS

II, ASPC-Lewis.

Plaintiff alleges two grounds for relief in the Complaint: (1) Plaintiff, who is Jewish,

has been denied regular, Kosher meals, in violation of the First Amendment; and (2) Plaintiff

is denied religious services in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff seeks injunctive

relief and money damages.

Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim in Count I, and the Court will require

Defendants Schriro, Bartos, Johnson, Linderman, Suwinski, and Morrison to answer this

claim.

IV. Failure to State a Claim

A. Defendants

1. Canteen Correctional Services

Where a state has a constitutional obligation to provide a service to those in its

custody and does so by contracting that obligation to a private party, that party acts under

color of state law for purposes of § 1983 when undertaking its duties to provide that service.

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54 (1988) (private physician who contracted with state to

provide health care service to state prison inmate acted under color of state law when

providing medical treatment). Providing food service, like medical care, is part of the state’s

constitutional obligation to those inmates in its custody. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 832 (1994) (holding that Eighth Amendment imposes duties on prison officials to

provide humane conditions of confinement, including duty to “ensure that inmates receive

adequate food”). 

To state a § 1983 claim, however, a plaintiff must allege an affirmative link between

the alleged injury and the conduct of the individually named defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423

U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). Moreover, there is no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based

Case 2:06-cv-00755-GMS Document 16 Filed 10/04/06 Page 3 of 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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

on a theory of respondeat superior, meaning that a defendant’s position as the supervisor

of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights does not impose liability

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54 n.12 (1988); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723

F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984). Where a defendant is a corporation, a plaintiff must allege

that the constitutional deprivations at issue resulted from a policy, custom, or practice of the

private corporation. See Robinson v. City of San Bernadino Police Department, 992 F.Supp.

1198, 1204 (C.D.Cal. 1998). 

In this case, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Canteen Correctional Services

had a policy of failing to provide Kosher meals for inmates who requested them, but rather

that individual employees of Canteen Correctional Services failed to provide such items or

find reasonable Kosher substitutes for Plaintiff. Because Canteen Correctional Services

cannot be liable on a theory of respondeat superior, it must be dismissed from this action.

B. Count II

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that he is not provided with religious services in violation

of the First Amendment. Plaintiff cites Cutter v. Wilkison, 544 U.S. 709 (2005), a case

applying the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) for support

of his claims. 

In order to state a First Amendment free exercise claim, a prisoner “must show the

defendants burdened the practice of his religion. . . by preventing [the prisoner] from

engaging in conduct mandated by his faith.” Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 736 (9th Cir.

1997). Not “every religious sect or group within a prison – however few in number – must

have identical facilities or personnel . . . nor must a chaplain, priest, or minister be provided

without regard to the extent of the demand.” Allen v. Toombs, 827 F.2d 563, 568 (9th Cir.

1987); see also Ward v. Walsh, 1 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 1993) (prison was under no

obligation to provide Orthodox Rabbi where the inmate was the only Orthodox Jewish

prisoner in the institution and the inmate was not restricted from personally contacting a

Rabbi to arrange visitation). Because Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that his

Case 2:06-cv-00755-GMS Document 16 Filed 10/04/06 Page 4 of 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

TERMPSREF - 5 -

religious practices have been burdened and that providing of services would be a reasonable

requirement given conditions in the institution, he has failed to state a First Amendment

claim. 

Even if the Court construes Plaintiff’s claims as brought pursuant RLUIPA, as

suggested by Plaintiff’s cite to Cutter, Plaintiff’s allegations in Count II fail to state a claim.

Under RLUIPA, “[n]o [state or local] government shall impose a substantial burden on the

religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution” unless the government

shows that the burden furthers “a compelling governmental interest” and does so by the

“least restrictive means.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2).

Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that the practice of his religion has been

substantially burdened. Plaintiff has claimed only that Defendants have failed to arrange for

a Rabbi to provide religious services to Plaintiff. Plaintiff attaches to his Complaint the

replies to multiple grievances in which ADOC chaplains have advised Plaintiff they have not

been able to find a Rabbi to volunteer to conduct Jewish services at Plaintiff’s unit. Plaintiff

has not alleged that he is denied access to a Rabbi or that the ADOC has prohibited a Rabbi

from visiting Plaintiff; he has only demonstrated that a volunteer Rabbi is not available. As

discussed above, ADOC is not obligated to provide a minister or spiritual leader for every

faith without regard to demand. Count II therefore fails to state a claim and will be

dismissed.

V. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #11) on July 20, 2006 in

which he requests that the Court order Defendants to provide him with a Kosher diet. The

Court will require Defendants to file a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion within 30 days of

service of the Complaint.

VI. Motion for Meaningful Access

On September 6, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Meaningful Access (Doc. #14) in

which he alleges that he has not been provided timely legal copies or access to legal mail.

Access to legal materials and mail is not at issue in this case and the Court will not address

Case 2:06-cv-00755-GMS Document 16 Filed 10/04/06 Page 5 of 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

TERMPSREF - 6 -

these allegations in the context of a motion. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for

Meaningful Access.

VI. Warnings

A. Release

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his release.

Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he intends to pay

the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to comply may result

in dismissal.

B. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address 10 days before the move

is effective, if practicable. See LRCiv 83.3(d). Plaintiff must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal.

C. Copies

Plaintiff must serve Defendants, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a copy

of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must be accompanied by

a certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Plaintiff

must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. The Court

may strike any filing that fails to comply with these requirements.

D. Possible Dismissal

Plaintiff is warned that failure to timely comply with every provision of this Order,

including these warnings, may result in dismissal of this action without further notice. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an

action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis status.

(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,

Plaintiff must pay the $250.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $6.28.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-GMS Document 16 Filed 10/04/06 Page 6 of 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

TERMPSREF - 7 -

(3) Count II and Defendants Kingsland, Mitchell, Canteen Correctional Services, Inc.,

and Hernanez are dismissed without prejudice.

(4) Defendants Schriro, Bartos, Johnson, Linderman, Suwinski, and Morrison must

answer Count I. 

(5) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the Complaint

(Doc.#1), this Order, and both summons and request for waiver forms for Defendants

Schriro, Bartos, Johnson, Linderman, Suwinski, and Morrison.

(6) Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court within

20 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not provide

service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order.

(7) If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete

service of the Summons and Complaint on a Defendant within 120 days of the filing of the

Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the action may be

dismissed as to each Defendant not served pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).

(8) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the Complaint,

and a copy of this Order for future use.

(9) The United States Marshal must notify Defendants Schriro, Bartos, Johnson,

Linderman, Suwinski, and Morrison of the commencement of this action and request waiver

of service of the summons pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The

notice to Defendants must include a copy of this Order. The Marshal must immediately file

requests for waivers that were returned as undeliverable and waivers of service of the

summons. If a waiver of service of summons is not returned by a Defendant within 30 days

from the date the request for waiver was sent by the Marshal, the Marshal must:

(a) Personally serve copies of the Summons, Complaint, and this Order upon

Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

(b) Within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of service

for Defendant, along with evidence of the attempt to secure a waiver of service of the

Case 2:06-cv-00755-GMS Document 16 Filed 10/04/06 Page 7 of 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

TERMPSREF - 8 -

summons and of the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service upon Defendant.

The costs of service must be enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and

must include the costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying additional copies of

the Summons, Complaint, or this Order and for preparing new process receipt and

return forms (USM-285), if required. Costs of service will be taxed against the

personally served Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) and (5) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(10) A Defendant who agrees to waive service of the Summons and Complaint

must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not the Plaintiff.

(11) Defendants Schriro, Bartos, Johnson, Linderman, Suwinski, and Morrison must

answer Count I of the Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion within the time

provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(12) Any answer or responsive pleading must state the specific Defendant by name

on whose behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, responsive pleading, or other

motion or paper that does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is

filed.

(13) Within 30 days from the date of service, Defendants must file a response to

Plaintiff’s July 20, 2006 (Doc. #11) Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

(14) Plaintiff’s August 21, 2006 Motion for Extension of Time and For Sanctions

(Doc. #12) is denied as moot.

(15) Plaintiff’s September 6, 2006 Motion for Meaningful Access (Doc. #14) is

denied.

(16) This matter is referred to Magistrate Edward C. Voss pursuant to Rules 72.1 and

72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings.

DATED this 4th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00755-GMS Document 16 Filed 10/04/06 Page 8 of 8