Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01780/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01780-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

MICHAEL SANDS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MARLENE SMITH, NATALIE CLARK, 

AND ANTONEYA GRAVES,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-01780-LJO-EPG-PC

ORDER FINDING COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS SMITH, CLARK, 

AND GRAVES

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE AN 

ANSWER WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Michael Sands, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 and related state law claims. This action was initiated by civil 

complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Kings County Superior Court on July 30, 2014 (Case #14-

C0226). On November 12, 2014, defendants Clark, Graves, and Robicheaux-Smith

(“Removing Defendants”) removed the case to federal court and requested the Court to screen 

the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF No. 2.) On November 21, 2014, the Court 

granted the Removing Defendants‟ request. (ECF No. 16.) The Complaint is now before the 

Court for screening.

Plaintiff claims that three employees of the California Department of Corrections & 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) failed to provide required accommodations for him as a Jewish 

prisoner. These failures allegedly include failing to provide kosher meals and services. 

Case 1:14-cv-01780-LJO-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 8
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

Because this Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged facts stating claims against Defendants Clark, 

Graves, and Smith under section 1983, Defendants shall be required to file an Answer to the 

Complaint within thirty days. 

II. 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 Afrivolous 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). ANotwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or 

appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint is required to contain Aa 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 A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by 

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff=s 

allegations are taken as true, Courts Aare not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.@ Doe 

I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff must set forth 

Asufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions 

are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. 

Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

III. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran (“COR”). 

Plaintiff names as defendants Marlene Smith1(Community Resource Manager), Natalie Clark

 

1 Defendants refer to this defendant with last name Robicheaux-Smith. (ECF. No. 2 at 1.)

Case 1:14-cv-01780-LJO-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 8
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

(Community Resource Manager), and Antoneya Graves (Correctional Food Manager)

(collectively, “Defendants”). All of the Defendants were employees or contract employees of 

the CDCR at the time of the events at issue. Plaintiff‟s factual allegations follow.

Plaintiff practices the Jewish religion and participates in the CDCR‟s Jewish Kosher 

Diet Program (JKDP). He alleges that Defendants are in charge of operating that program at 

COR. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide kosher meals and Jewish services on 

many occasions during his incarceration. Those failures include failing to use kosher 

microwaves that were dedicated to meat-only or dairy-only; failing to create a roster of 

attendance for weekly in-chapel communal religious services when no Jewish chaplain was on

staff; failing to provide proof of kosher meal entitlement to Plaintiff for eighteen months; 

obstructing Plaintiff from participating in in-chapel communal services; failing to maintain 

frozen food items needed to preserve kosher meals and prevent rotting and spoiling; failing to 

provide uncooked meals and unchopped vegetables on the Sabbath; prohibiting religious head 

covering; failing to hold Saturday Sabbath services; and failing to order sufficient Passover 

meals for Jewish prisoners transferring to the prison. Plaintiff claims that Rabbi Y. Carron 

previously complained about “Grevious Kosher Concerns” to the prison but the problems went 

unremedied. 

Plaintiff alleges that he suffered from physical and emotional distress from his inability 

to properly practice his faith. He claims that he experiences episodes of anger, fear, anxiety, 

anguish, moral trepidation, depression, and self-loathing as well as physical symptoms 

including sleeplessness stemming from nightmares. 

Plaintiff also alleges various attempts by Defendants to cover-up these deficiencies, 

thwart appeals, and backdate procedures to feign compliance. 

Plaintiff asserts four causes of action. First, he asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

for deprivation of right of religious exercise in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. Second, he asserts a state law claim for interference with civil rights under civil 

code section 52. Third, he asserts a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional

distress. Fourth, he asserts a claim for declaratory relief under C.C.P. § 1060. 

Case 1:14-cv-01780-LJO-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/08/16 Page 3 of 8
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

IV. PLAINTIFF’S SECTION 1983 CLAIMS

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, 

or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or 

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person 

within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, 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. ASection 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal 

Constitution and laws.@ Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(internal quotations omitted). ATo the extent that the violation of a state law amounts to the 

deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal 

Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.@ Id.

V. FIRST AMENDMENT FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION

A. Legal Standards

The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide: “Congress shall make no law 

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U.S. Const. 

amend. I. 

The Ninth Circuit has recently explained:

A person asserting a free exercise claim must show that the 

government action in question substantially burdens the person's 

practice of her religion. A substantial burden . . . places more 

than an inconvenience on religious exercise; it must have a 

tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their 

religious beliefs or exert substantial pressure on an adherent to 

modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs . . . To ensure that 

courts afford appropriate deference to prison officials, the 

Supreme Court has directed that alleged infringements of 

prisoners' free exercise rights be judged under a reasonableness

test less restrictive than that ordinarily applied to alleged 

infringements of fundamental constitutional rights. The 

challenged conduct is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate 

penological interests.

Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted). “It was well established in 2007, and remains so today, that government action places 

Case 1:14-cv-01780-LJO-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/08/16 Page 4 of 8
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

a substantial burden on an individual's right to free exercise of religion when it tends to coerce 

the individual to forego her sincerely held religious beliefs or to engage in conduct that violates 

those beliefs.” Id. at 1033.

The Ninth Circuit has also held that prisons must provide a kosher diet. Ashelman v. 

Wawrzaszek, 111 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 1997), as amended (Apr. 25, 1997) (The existence of 

reasonable alternatives decisively tips the balance in favor of Ashelman's free exercise right. 

Accordingly, the prison must provide a diet sufficient to sustain Ashelman in good health 

without violating the laws of kashruth.”). 

B. Application to Plaintiff’s Complaint

In light of the above law, the Court holds that Plaintiff‟s Complaint states a nonfrivolous claim for violation of the First Amendment‟s right to free exercise of religion. The 

Court need not weigh in at this time, without hearing from Defendants, on the precise contours 

of the First Amendment as applied to the allegations in Plaintiff‟s Complaint. It is enough that 

Plaintiff has said he was not provided with kosher meals and could not participate in religious 

observation. Plaintiff has raised a non-frivolous claim for violation of his constitutional rights 

and has explained why these individual defendants directly contributed to that violation. The 

Court holds that the Complaint should be answered and the case go forward in the normal 

course.

2

 

VI. RETALIATION

A. Legal Standards

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner‟s First Amendment rights to speech or to 

petition the government may support a § 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 5527, 532 

(9th Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. 

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First 

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some 

adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner‟s protected conduct, and that 

 

2 Having found a cognizable federal constitutional claim, the Court does not examine the related 

state claims for relief, which can be challenged in the normal course.

Case 1:14-cv-01780-LJO-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/08/16 Page 5 of 8
6

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

such action (4) chilled the inmate‟s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action 

did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 

567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); 

Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009).

An allegation of retaliation against a prisoner‟s First Amendment right to file a prison 

grievance is sufficient to support a claim under section 1983. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 

1288 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court must “„afford appropriate deference and flexibility‟ to prison 

officials in the evaluation of proffered legitimate penological reasons for conduct alleged to be 

retaliatory.” Pratt, 65 F.3d at 807 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 

(1995)). The burden is on Plaintiff to demonstrate “that there were no legitimate correctional 

purposes motivating the actions he complains of.” Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808.

B. Application to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that each of the named defendants set forth an 

ultimatum in an attempt to coerce Plaintiff and other inmates into withdrawing their group

appeal concerning violation of their religious rights, in exchange for Defendants‟ promises to 

address the violations identified in the appeal. According to Plaintiff‟s allegations, each of the 

Defendants stated that if the group appeal was not withdrawn, they would use their authority 

and purposely refuse to address the violations. Plaintiff also alleges that when the inmates 

collectively decided not to withdraw the appeal, Defendants failed to provide for Sabbath 

services or otherwise allow the inmates to exercise their religious rights. 

The Court finds these allegations sufficient to state a cognizable claim for retaliation 

against defendants Smith, Clark, and Graves.

VII. STATE LAW CLAIMS

Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress 

and violation of the California Constitution and other state law. Plaintiff is informed that 

violation of state tort law or other state law is not sufficient to state a claim for relief under '

1983. To state a claim under ' 1983, there must be a deprivation of federal constitutional or 

statutory rights. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976). Although the Court may exercise 

Case 1:14-cv-01780-LJO-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/08/16 Page 6 of 8
7

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

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for 

relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1367.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has 

original jurisdiction, the district court Ashall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other 

claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or 

controversy under Article III [of the Constitution],@ with specific exceptions. "Pendent 

jurisdiction over state claims exists when the federal claim is sufficiently substantial to confer 

federal jurisdiction, and there is a 'common nucleus of operative fact between the state and 

federal claims.' " Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Gilder v. PGA 

Tour, Inc., 936 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir.1991)). A[O]nce judicial power exists under ' 1367(a), 

retention of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 1367(c) is discretionary.@ 

Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). The Supreme Court has 

cautioned that Aif the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims should be 

dismissed as well.@ United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

In this instance, the Court has found cognizable ' 1983 claims in Plaintiff‟s Complaint 

against defendants Smith, Clark, and Graves. Therefore, at this juncture, the Court shall 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff=s state law claims that form part of the same 

case or controversy as Plaintiff=s cognizable federal claims.3

VIII. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Complaint states cognizable claims against defendants 

Marlene Smith, Natalie Clark, Antoneya Graves. The Court will allow Plaintiff‟s claims for 

violation of his First Amendment rights to exercise his religion, for retaliation, and for related 

state law claims to go forward. Therefore, Defendants shall be required to file an Answer to 

the Complaint within thirty days of the date of service of this order. 

///

 

3At this stage of the proceedings, the Court makes no determination about the viability of Plaintiff=s state 

law claims.

Case 1:14-cv-01780-LJO-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/08/16 Page 7 of 8
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff‟s Complaint filed on July 30, 2014, 

against defendants Marlene Smith aka Marlene Robicheaux-Smith, Natalie 

Clark, and Antoneya Graves for violation of Plaintiff‟s First Amendment rights 

to exercise his religion, for retaliation, and for related state law claims; and

2. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Defendants Smith, Clark, 

and Graves shall file an Answer to the Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01780-LJO-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/08/16 Page 8 of 8