Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00725/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00725-15/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS LEE SWYGERT,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:06-cv-00725 ALA P

vs.

MARTIN VEAL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff Curtis Lee Swygert (“Swygert”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that names Defendants A.

Ramirez-Palmer, T. Reagle, Martin Veal, S. O’Ran, N. Grannis, and S. Surges (collectively the

“Defendants”) in their individual and official capacities seeking injunctive relief and damages.

On June 20, 2008, Defendants moved for summary judgment (No. 39). On October 3,

2008, this Court asked Defendants for their position regarding the whether Rule 25(d) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies in this action, whether the caption of this matter should

be amended to replace “Martin Veal” with “Mike Knowles”, CMF's current warden, and what

effect, if any, Rule 25(d) has on Swygert's claims for injunctive relief (No. 58). Defendants filed

a supplemental brief on October 8, 2008 (No. 59) stating that Rule 25(d) requires replacing the

named Warden-Martin Veal-with the current warden-Mike Knowles. Supp. Brief. at 2. The

Case 2:06-cv-00725-ALA Document 60 Filed 10/10/08 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendants argued, however, that replacing the warden would not save Swygert’s claims for

injunctive relief because the warden cannot provide the injunctive relief Swygert seeks. Id. The

Defendants make the same argument in their original Motion for Summary Judgment (No. 39)

(“Mot. Summ. J.”) and their Reply (No. 54) (“Reply”).

Each of the former wardens submitted declarations stating that they “did not have

authority to commit CDCR to purchase Halal meats or provide Kosher foods for Muslim inmates

as part of their regular diet.” See, e.g., Mot. Summ. J., Ex. D, Declaration of Martin Veal ¶ 3. 

Further, they state that “[s]uch a decision would need to be made by higher ranking officials at

CDCR headquarters and would be a department-wide decision.” Id. Defendants have also

submitted the declaration of Susan B. Summersett, the Departmental Food Administrator for the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Reply, Ex. K ¶ 1. Ms. Summersett

declares that “[a]ny Muslim inmates who were allowed to have Kosher meals at CSP-Solano did

so without authorization from CDCR headquarters.” Id. ¶ 2. She also declares that “[w]ardens

do not have the authority to provide Kosher foods or Halal meats to Muslim inmates as a regular

part of their diet.” Id. ¶ 3.

Defendants do not submit any legal authority for their position that wardens do not have

the authority to provide Kosher or Halal foods to Muslim inmates as part of their diet.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants file a supplemental brief on or

before October 24, 2008 setting forth the legal authority supporting Defendants’ position that

wardens do not have authority to provide Kosher or Halal foods to Muslim inmates as part of

their regular diet.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Swygert will have until November 7, 2008 to file a

response to Defendants’ supplemental brief.

DATED: October 10, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:06-cv-00725-ALA Document 60 Filed 10/10/08 Page 2 of 2