Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05511/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05511-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILES BONTY, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5511 REC DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE DEFENDANTS MOTION 

TO DISMISS

 

vs.

R. INDERMILL, et al.,

[Doc.#48]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on March 31, 2004. Service was ordered and on December

14, 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. On December 23, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion to postpone consideration of defendants’

motion to dismiss and a motion to conduct discovery. On January 18, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for

leave to file an amended complaint, which defendants initially opposed. See Document No. 41 filed

February 3, 2005. Plaintiff lodged a proposed amended complaint on February 18, 2005. On April 12,

2005, defendants filed a notice of withdrawal of their motion to dismiss filed December 14, 2004 and

a request that the Court screen the amended complaint. Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss the

amended complaint which the Court now recommends be denied in part and granted in part.

Case 1:04-cv-05511-DLB Document 55 Filed 10/28/05 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

MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court must accept as true the

allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve

all doubts in the pleader's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh'g denied, 396 U.S. 869

(1969). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be granted

unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would

entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)(citing Conley v. Gibson,

355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294

(9th Cir. 1981). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff names the following defendants in the amended complaint: Chaplain R. Indermill;

Correctional Supervising Cook W. Jones; Acting Correctional Service Manager Dean Thompson;

Associate Warden D.D. Shappard-Brooks; Chief Deputy Warden V. Yamamoto; Warden A.K. Scribner;

Chief of Inmate Appeals N. Grannis; Facility Captain J.Arceo; and Jeanne Woodford, Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Does 1 though 4. Plaintiff is confined at California State

Prison, Corcoran. Plaintiff states that he is not a member of any established religious organization, but

rather, “derives the tenents of his religious faith and convictions, as well as his dietary requirements,

from his desire to adhere to Biblical Scriptures accordingly to his personal interpretation and

understanding.” Amended Complaint at p.3. Plaintiff asserts that based on his personal religious

convictions, in 1998, he decided to abstain from eating meat or meat products. He states that he has

struggled with the Department of Corrections over their refusal to accommodate his religious dietary

requirements. 

Plaintiff alleges that on July 2, 2003, he submitted an Inmate Request for Interview form to

defendant Indermill, requesting an opportunity to explain his request for a “no meat” diet. Defendant

Jones responded to plaintiff’s grievance by citing to California Code of Regulation, Title 15, Section

3054 and recommending that plaintiff seek approval of his diet from the Muslim chaplain. Plaintiff

Case 1:04-cv-05511-DLB Document 55 Filed 10/28/05 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

states that defendant Indermill conducted an interview on August 20, 2003 and advised plaintiff that

although he did not question plaintiff’s sincerity, he could not recommend a vegetarian diet because the

regulations required religious dietary requirements to be verified by an outside religious organization.

Plaintiff alleges that on October 1, 2003, defendants Thompson and Shappard denied his appeal

for reasonable accommodation of his religious dietary requirements, relying on Section 3054. On

October 23, 2003, defendant Yamamoto denied plaintiff’s second level appeal, also relying on Section

3054. Plaintiff claims that defendants Grannis and Arceo denied his appeal at the third level. Plaintiff

claims that defendants’ application of California Code of Regulation, Title 15, Section 3054 et.seq. to

deny his request for a special diet based on his religious beliefs, violates the First Amendment’s Free

Exercise and Establishment Clauses, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection

Clauses and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§

2000cc. It appears that plaintiff is challenging the constitutionality of section 3054 as well as

defendants’ application of section 3054 to deny his dietary requests. 

Defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Jones, Sheppard, Scribner,

Yamamoto, Grannis, Arceo, Thompson and Indermill because their actions were not the proximate cause

of any claimed violation of plaintiff’s federal rights. These defendants argue that in challenging the

Department of Corrections’ regulation which requires verification of the need for a special religious diet

by reference to an outside religious organization, the only proper defendant is the Director of the

Department of Corrections. Defendants argue that they are not responsible for the enactment of the

regulation and have no authority to deviate from the regulations. 

In response, plaintiff points out that he is not only challenging the regulation itself but also

defendants’ application of the regulation to his situation. 

DISCUSSION

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed 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. 

Case 1:04-cv-05511-DLB Document 55 Filed 10/28/05 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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of

the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department

of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has

held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning

of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to

perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is

made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under

section 1983, plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that

demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s federal rights.

Defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against them because he is challenging

a regulation over which they have no authority. Defendants argument is rejected because plaintiff’s

complaint does not simply challenge the regulation. Plaintiff also challenges defendants’ actions in

refusing to grant his dietary request. The complaint can fairly be read to include a claim that defendants’

had the ability to grant his request despite the regulation, but failed to do so in violation of his

constitutional rights. Viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, these allegations

describe specific conduct on the part of the named defendants sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

It may be that defendants have a defense to their conduct, namely reliance on the regulation, however,

this argument is misplaced in the context of a motion to dismiss. Defendants bear the burden on these

issues and cannot meet their burden bymere unsupported argument, as an analysis of the issues requires

the consideration of evidence. 

However, plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts which would give rise to liability against

defendant Scribner. Plaintiff has named him as a defendant based on his position as Warden of Corcoran

State Prison but plaintiff has alleged no specific conduct on his part relating to the violation of his

constitutional rights. Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under section 1983 for the actions

of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds

a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be

specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589

F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim for relief under

Case 1:04-cv-05511-DLB Document 55 Filed 10/28/05 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

section 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, plaintiff must allege some facts that would

support a claim that supervisory defendants either: personally participated in the alleged deprivation of

constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or promulgated or

“implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is

‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)

(internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Although federal

pleading standards are broad, some facts must be alleged to support claims under section 1983. See

Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993). 

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that defendant Scribner personally participated in

the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them;

or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of

constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” Hansen v. Black at 646.

Plainitff has therefore failed to state a claim against defendant Scribner and the motion to dismiss as to

this defendant should be granted.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that defendants’ motion to

dismiss be GRANTED as to defendant Scribner and DENIED as to the remaining defendants. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections with

the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 27, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05511-DLB Document 55 Filed 10/28/05 Page 5 of 5