Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00019/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00019-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOEL RAY SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. STEIBER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00019-WHO (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING THE

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

Dkt. Nos. 20 and 29

INTRODUCTION

This federal civil rights suit is DISMISSED with leave to amend upon defendants’ 

Rule 12(b)(6) motion because plaintiff Noel Ray Smith has failed to state a claim for relief. 

Denial of two kosher meals, neither of which Smith ordered, did not violate his 

constitutional and statutory rights. Any amended complaint shall be filed on or before 

January 20, 2020. 

BACKGROUND

These factual allegations are based on Smith’s complaint and are assumed as true 

for purposes of this order. Smith alleges that on April 17 and 18, 2017, there were two 

Kosher for Passover meals remaining on the food cart that would be either be discarded or 

given to employees, he was the last inmate in line to be served, and yet Ramirez, a 

correctional officer at CTF-Soledad, refused to allow him kosher dinners. (Compl., Dkt. 

No. 1 at 3.)

Smith has not alleged that he ordered a Kosher meal or was entitled to one as a 

religious diet. As defendants point out, “This is not a case where a religious meal was 

ordered for an inmate, and then later denied.” (Mot. to Dismiss (MTD), Dkt. No. 20 at 

Case 3:19-cv-00019-WHO Document 31 Filed 12/12/19 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

10.) Instead, Smith asked whether he could have “one of the extra meals.” (Compl., Dkt. 

No. 1 at 3.) Ramirez declined the request, saying “No, I don’t care if there are extra, the 

rules are the rules.” (Id. at 3.) 

Smith’s grievance regarding the matter was denied by defendant A. Steiber. His 

“request to re-evaluate memo distribution has been denied due to the fact that no current 

policies are in violation.” (Id. at 5.) The memo in question was written, Smith alleges, by 

K. Allison, Director of the Division of Adult Services. (Id.) The memo’s contents are at 

this point unknown, but Smith alleges Allison’s memo was responsible for Ramirez’s 

denial of the kosher meals. (Id.) 

Smith alleges defendants violated his free exercise and due process rights, as well as 

his statutory rights under RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc). 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) should be 

granted if the complaint does not proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 

Dismissal is appropriate also when pleadings show a “lack of cognizable legal theory,” or 

“the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory,” Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted), or when an 

affirmative defense is premised on facts alleged in the complaint, Scott v. Kuhlmann, 746 

F.2d 1377, 1378 (9th Cir. 1994). 

B. Legal Claims 

The right to exercise religious practices and beliefs under the First Amendment 

includes “the right to be provided with food sufficient to sustain [prisoners] in good health 

that satisfies the dietary laws of their religion.” McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 198 

(9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). In order to establish a free exercise of religion violation, 

a prisoner must show that a prison official burdened the practice of his religion without 

Case 3:19-cv-00019-WHO Document 31 Filed 12/12/19 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

any justification reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Shakur v. 

Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883-84 (9th Cir. 2008). RLUIPA claims are judged under the same 

standard. International Church of Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro, 673 F.3d 

1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Smith has not alleged that he was entitled to a Kosher meal. But even if he was, 

missing two kosher meals does not constitute a burden sufficient to violate his First 

Amendment or RLUIPA rights. Other courts have come to the same conclusion on similar 

facts. Wilson v. Juaregui, No. 17-cv-04003-CRB (PR), 2019 WL 1559195, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. Apr. 10, 2019) (missing four kosher meals “was de minimis and not a substantial 

burden on plaintiff’s practice of his religion”); Ahdom v. Etchebehere, No. 1:13-cv-01623-

DAD-GSA, 2017 WL 8793335, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2017) (missing one day of 

Ramadan meals was not a substantial burden on plaintiff’s practice of his religion); 

McKenzie v. Ellis, No. 10-cv-1490-LAB (AJB), 2012 WL 4050297, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 

13, 2012) (a four-day denial of a religious diet because of alleged wrongdoing by jailors 

did not “substantially burden” plaintiff’s religious practice); and Rapier v. Harris, 172 

F.3d 999, 1006 n.4 (7th Cir. 1999) (the unavailability of pork-free meals on three 

occasions out of a total of 810 meals was not “an impermissible burden on [plaintiff’s] free 

exercise of religion”). Accordingly, Smith’s First Amendment and RLUIPA claims are 

DISMISSED without leave to amend. 

Smith’s due process claim also fails to state a claim for relief. To assert a due 

process interest, there must be a “legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Board of Regents 

of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972). Smith has not alleged that he had any 

legitimate claim of entitlement in receiving the kosher meals. The record shows that the 

contrary was true. The meals were extras, left over after the prisoners who had ordered 

kosher meals had been served. Smith’s due process claim is DISMISSED with leave to 

amend. In the amended complaint, Smith must allege facts showing he had a legitimate 

claim of entitlement to those meals. 

 

Case 3:19-cv-00019-WHO Document 31 Filed 12/12/19 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

MOTION FOR COUNSEL 

Smith’s second motion for the appointment of counsel will be denied. His first 

motion was denied because this case does not present legally or factually complex issues, 

not because of his pleadings were unintelligible. (Dkt. No. 29.) 

Smith renews his motion on grounds that he has been adjudged “mentally disabled,” 

“incompetent,” and “a danger to myself and others” by the state court and by the CDCR. 

(Second Motion for Counsel, Dkt. No. 29 at 2.) Since July 31, 2018, he has been subject 

to an order “authorizing involuntary administration of psychiatric medication” pursuant to 

California Penal Code § 2602. (Id.; Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion 

for Order to Appoint Counsel, Dkt. No. 30-1 at 4.) However, the record indicates that he is 

competent to litigate this suit. His filings, including the renewed motion for counsel, are 

clear and well-reasoned. His motion is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The complaint is DISMISSED with 

leave to file on or before January 21, 2020 an amended complaint regarding the due 

process claim. Smith’s free exercise and RLUIPA claims are DISMISSED without leave 

to amend. Smith’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

The amended complaint must appear on this Court’s form and include the caption 

and civil case number used in this order (19-00019 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely 

replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the

claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from 

the prior complaint by reference.

Case 3:19-cv-00019-WHO Document 31 Filed 12/12/19 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 12, 2019

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00019-WHO Document 31 Filed 12/12/19 Page 5 of 5