Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01384/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01384-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OTIS HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BERNIE ELLIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01384-OWW-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF FIRST

AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

CLAIMS, AND DEFENDANTS WRIGLEY,

COOPER, AND CORNELL

(Doc. 4)

I. Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Amended Complaint

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Otis Harris (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”). On February 24, 2006, plaintiff Harris and co-plaintiff John

McFarland filed case number 1:06-cv-00212-OWW-SMS PC. The courtsevered the two plaintiffs’

claims on October 5, 2006, ordered that a new action be opened for plaintiff Harris, and ordered that

plaintiff Harris file an amended complaint, which he did on October 26, 2006. 

On March 28, 2007, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint, and found that it states

a claim for relief against defendants Ellis and Uzzle for violation of RLUIPA, but does not state a

RLUIPA claim against defendants Cooper, Cornell and Wrigley, and does not state any other claims

for relief. The court ordered plaintiff to either file a second amended complaint or notify the court

of his willingness to proceed only against defendants Ellis and Uzzle for violation of RLUIPA. On

Case 1:06-cv-01384-FRZ Document 10 Filed 04/17/07 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

April 12, 2007, plaintiff notified the court that he is not going to file an amended complaint and is

willing to proceed only on his RLUIPA claim against defendants Ellis and Uzzle. Based on

plaintiff’s notice, this Findings and Recommendations now issues. 

B. 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 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).

“Notwithstanding 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). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to plaintiff’s claims in this action. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.

A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss

a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be

proved consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will

ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed

it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not

pthe test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings

need suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin,

262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a

plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal

interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not

Case 1:06-cv-01384-FRZ Document 10 Filed 04/17/07 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

initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

C. Plaintiff’s Claims

1. RLUIPA

Plaintiff is seeking injunctive and monetary relief against defendants Wardens B. Ellis and

Wrigley, Chaplains J. Cooper and J. Cornell, and Uzzle, the Food Service Administrator. Plaintiff

alleges that defendants violated his rights under RLUIPA by failing to provide an annual ceremonial

meal that met the requirements of his religion. 

Plaintiff is Muslim, and alleges that once a year, the Muslim community participates in a

ceremonial meal for the Islamic holiday of Eid-ul-Adha (feast of sacrifice). The ceremonial meal

requires, in relevant part, lamb. Plaintiff alleges that despite being aware of this requirement, and

despite their willingness to accommodate Jews and Christians with special food on their holidays,

defendants failed to arrange for the availability of proper food for the ceremonial meal. 

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 provides:

No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a

person residing in or confined to an institution. . . , even if the burden results from

a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition

of the burden on that person–

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling government interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. Plaintiff bears the initial burden of demonstrating that defendants

substantially burdened the exercise of his religious beliefs. Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989,

994-95 (9th Cir. 2005). If plaintiff meets his burden, defendants must demonstrate that “any

substantial burden of [plaintiff’s] exercise of his religious beliefs is both in furtherance of a

compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling

governmental interest.” Id. (emphasis in original). “RLUIPA is to be construed broadly in favor of

protecting an inmate’s right to exercise his religious beliefs.” Id. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to give rise to a claim for relief against defendants Ellis

and Uzzle for violation of RLUIPA. However, plaintiff has not alleged any facts linking acts or

omissions committed by defendants Cooper, Cornell, or Wrigley to the violation of his rights.

Case 1:06-cv-01384-FRZ Document 10 Filed 04/17/07 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

Because plaintiff’s complaint contains no facts supporting a RLUIPA claim against defendants

Cooper, Cornell, and Wrigley, plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

against them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

2. First and Fourteenth Amendment Claims

Although plaintiff alleges that the court has jurisdiction over First and Fourteenth

Amendment claims pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal

actors, plaintiff fails to allege any such claims against defendants. For this reason, the court finds

that the amended complaint does not state claims for violation of the First and Fourteenth

Amendments.

D. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s amended complaint sets forth allegations sufficient to give rise to a claim for relief

against defendants Ellis and Uzzle for violation of RLUIPA. However, plaintiff’s amended

complaint does not state a RLUIPA claim against defendants Cooper, Cornell and Wrigley, and does

not state any other claims for relief. The court provided plaintiff with the opportunity to file a second

amended complaint, but plaintiff opted to proceed on his RLUIPA claims against defendants Ellis

and Uzzle. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed on plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed October 26, 2006, against

defendants Ellis and Uzzle for violation of RLUIPA;

2. Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims be dismissed, without prejudice,

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and

3. Defendants Wrigley, Cooper, and Cornell be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure

to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against them.

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 thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

Case 1:06-cv-01384-FRZ Document 10 Filed 04/17/07 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

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: April 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01384-FRZ Document 10 Filed 04/17/07 Page 5 of 5