Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01935/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01935-3/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

Plaintiff Lonnie Lee Poslof, Sr. is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

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

LONNIE LEE POSLOF, Sr.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01935-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

[ECF No. 1]

Case 1:13-cv-01935-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 5
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

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now 

higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive 

screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow 

the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer 

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely 

consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff contends that he has been denied a proper Kosher diet to meet his religious practices. 

Plaintiff contends that he has been served a hot meal on the Sabbath contrary to his religious practice 

that no hot food is to be consumed on the “Holly Day of Rest.” Plaintiff also contends that he has not 

been provided foods in sealed unopened packages as required by his Kosher diet. Plaintiff further 

contends that that the use of the “Earth-Kosher” labels on the Kosher diet meals are fraudulent because 

it is not Kosher certified food. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Linkage

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the 

violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948-49 (2009); Simmons 

v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 

F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Liability may 

Case 1:13-cv-01935-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 04/30/14 Page 2 of 5
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

not be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior, and there must exist some causal connection 

between the conduct of each named defendant and the violation at issue. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; 

Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-1075 (9th Cir. 2013); Moss v. 

U.S. Secret Service, 711 F.3d 941, 967-968 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 

915-916 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 

132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). 

In this case, Plaintiff names the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 

Does One through Ten, Ralph Diaz, Mr. Perkins, and Ms. Santos as defendants in this action. 

However, Plaintiff has failed to allege a causal link between these defendants and the purported failure 

to provide Plaintiff with a Kosher diet. 

B. Free Exercise of Religion

The protections of the Free Exercise Clause are triggered when prison officials substantially 

burden the practice of an inmate’s religion by preventing him from engaging in conduct which he 

sincerely believes is consistent with his faith, Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008), 

and RLUIPA prohibits prison officials from substantially burdening a prisoner’s “‘religious exercise 

unless the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and does so by the least restrictive 

means,’” Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 

F.3d 989, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2005)). 

Although Plaintiff may be able to state a cognizable claim based on the alleged denial of a 

proper Kosher diet, Plaintiff fails to link any particular defendant to his alleged constitutional injury. 

Although Plaintiff mentions Mr. Lozano (Chief of the Office of Appeals) and Mr. Hammand (Appeals 

Examiner at the Office of Appeals), the mere denial and/or review of an inmate appeal, without more, 

is not sufficient to link these individuals to Plaintiff’s constitutional violation. Mr. Hammand and Mr. 

Lozano found, in pertinent part at the third level of review, that “[t]he documentation and arguments 

presented are persuasive that the appellant failed to substantiate his issue with sufficient evidence or 

facts to warrant modification of the decision rendered at the previous level of review. The appellant’s 

issue on appeal was appropriately addressed by the institution.” Generally, denying a prisoner’s 

administrative appeal does not cause or contribute to the underlying violation. George v. Smith, 507 

Case 1:13-cv-01935-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 04/30/14 Page 3 of 5
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

F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). However, because prison administrators 

cannot willfully turn a blind eye to constitutional violations being committed by subordinates, Jett v. 

Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006), there may be limited circumstances in which those 

involved in reviewing an inmate appeal can be held liable under section 1983. That circumstance has 

not been presented here. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief, and the 

Court will grant him leave to amend. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by 

adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 

2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each 

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties 

and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a 

constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). Although accepted as 

true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level .

. .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 

114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be 

“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. “All 

causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are 

waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 

1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

Case 1:13-cv-01935-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 04/30/14 Page 4 of 5
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. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed November 20, 2013, is dismissed for failure to state a claim;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action 

will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01935-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 04/30/14 Page 5 of 5