Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03408/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03408-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRELL CURRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS & 

REHABILITATION; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-3408 MHP (pr)

ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW 

INTRODUCTION

Terrell Curry, formerly an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison and now an inmate at

Centinela State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

complaint is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. §1915A. His motion for

injunctive relief also is before the court for consideration.

BACKGROUND

Curry alleges in his complaint that prison officials refuse to accommodate him in the

practice of his religion. He alleges that he is a practitioner of the “Shetaut Neter faith, which

is an Ancient African Religion,” which he describes in the declaration he has attached as an

exhibit to the complaint. Complaint exhibit (Curry Decl., p. 1.) Curry alleges that various

prison officials have denied his request for a "vegetarian/vegan" diet since April 2007, and

that the vegetarian diet they have offered has been unacceptable to satisfy his religious

beliefs. He also alleges that various prison officials have denied him incense oils that he has

requested for his religious rituals.

Case 3:09-cv-03408-EMC Document 4 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Curry also alleges that the CDCR and CDCR director Cate have put him, a slight

inmate, in housing with bigger inmates. This allegedly makes him vulnerable to attack.

On the day he filed his complaint, Curry also filed a motion for a preliminary

injunction to compel defendants to provide him with his religious items. He did not serve his

motion on any defendant. 

DISCUSSION

A. Service of Process

When he filed this action, Curry paid the full filing fee. He has not been granted leave

to proceed as a pauper. Therefore, Curry is responsible for causing a summons and

complaint to be served on each defendant; the court will not have the Marshal do it. To date,

there is no indication that Curry has served any defendant, even though his complaint has

been pending for many months. 

Curry recently sent a letter to the court saying that he had not received summonses to

serve. That is not surprising, because he never requested them. The clerk will send to Curry

seven summonses issued in blank so that he may serve each of the seven defendants. 

No later than May 28, 2010, Curry must (1) file proofs of service showing that he has

served the summons and complaint on each defendant in this action or (2) show cause why

this action (or any unserved defendants) should not be dismissed for failure to serve process

within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)-(m).

B. Review of Complaint

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1),(2). Section 1915A applies because the plaintiff is a prisoner; his

payment of the full filing fee does not exempt his case from the statute's reach. 

Curry alleges in his complaint that defendants' denial of the "vegetarian/vegan" diet

Case 3:09-cv-03408-EMC Document 4 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

and the denial of the incense oils has violated his rights under RLUIPA, under the First

Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, and under the Fourteenth

Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The RLUIPA and Free Exercise Clause claims are

self-evident, but the other two need further explanation. As to the Establishment Clause

claim, Curry alleges that defendants "endorse, support, or affiliate with the Orthodox Jewish

and Muslim Religions by singling out these particular sects for special treatment by

accommodating them with religious diets consistent with their faith, denying plaintiff a

vegetarian/vegan diet which is central to his faith, suggesting and encouraging plaintiff to

participate in one of the religions that is endorsed or supported." Complaint, p. 3A. As to

the Equal Protection Clause claims, Curry alleges that, by providing religiously-mandated

diets and oils to adherents of other religions but not to his, defendants have discriminated

against him. Liberally construed, the first seven claims of the complaint state cognizable

claims upon which relief may be granted. See Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1; County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S.

573 (1989); O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319

(1972); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2008); Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732

(9th Cir. 1997).

In his Claim 8, Curry alleges that defendant California Department of Corrections &

Rehabilitation and director Cate acted with deliberate indifference to his safety over the last

three years. Their alleged deliberate indifference consists of housing him, an inmate "with a

slight physical build," with cellmates who are "much larger, stronger and/or more violent

prisoners. . . and have a history of assaulting cellmates." Complaint, p. 3C. He alleges that

the classification policy is inadequate and the cells are inadequately monitored. Deliberate

indifference to a serious risk of harm to a prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment's

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102-

04 (1976); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 1998). A prison official is

deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm

and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. See Farmer v.

Case 3:09-cv-03408-EMC Document 4 Filed 02/10/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 844 (1994). Curry's allegations are simply too generalized and

conclusory to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court "must accept as true

all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

(2007), but need not accept as true allegations that are legal conclusions, unwarranted

deductions of fact or unreasonable inferences. See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266

F.3d 979, 988, amended, 275 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001). Although an inmate need not wait

to be attacked to obtain relief, the fact that Curry doesn't indicate that he has been attacked in

the three years this situation has existed is quite suggestive that there is not a pervasive risk

of harm at a level that would demonstrate an objectively serious condition. He also falls

short on the deliberate indifference prong, as he does not identify any time he has

complained of a specific cellmate and received no response from defendants. His allegations

– which amount to little more than positing that prisons are dangerous places, especially for

persons of smaller stature – are insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. The claim

is dismissed without prejudice.

C. Preliminary Injunction Request

Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to compel defendants to provide

him with his requested vegetarian/vegan diet and the incense oils he wants for his religious

activities. The motion is DENIED because he did not give notice of his motion to

defendants, show what steps he took to try to give them notice, or satisfactorily explain why

defendants should not be given notice of his request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Further,

the parties have not been served with process by plaintiff. See Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719,

727 (9th Cir. 1983). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims under RLUIPA, the First Amendment's

Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal

Protection Clause against defendants for denying him a religious diet and incense oils for

religious rituals. The Eighth Amendment claim is dismissed without prejudice.

Case 3:09-cv-03408-EMC Document 4 Filed 02/10/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2. The clerk will issue seven summonses in blank and send them to plaintiff,

making note on the docket when these have been sent to plaintiff.

3. No later than May 28, 2010, Curry must (1) file proofs of service showing that

he has served the summons and complaint on each defendant in this action or (2) show cause

why this action (or any unserved defendants) should not be dismissed for failure to serve

process within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)-(m).

4. Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. (Docket # 2.)

5. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep

the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to

prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

must include the case name and case number for this case on any document he submits to this

court for consideration in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2010 _____________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03408-EMC Document 4 Filed 02/10/10 Page 5 of 5