Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02368/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02368-8/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

DONALD TRAHAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2368 MCE GGH P

vs.

THOMAS L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ April 25, 2007, motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). After carefully considering the

record, the court orders that defendants’ motion is granted with leave to amend.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),

a complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;”

it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative

level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, __ U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). “The

pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion

[of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice

Case 2:05-cv-02368-MCE -GGH Document 34 Filed 11/27/07 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

2

and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed. 2004). 

In considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true the allegations of

the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740, 96 S.

Ct. 1848, 1850 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the

motion and resolve all doubts in the pleader’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421,

89 S. Ct. 1843, 1849, reh’g denied, 396 U.S. 869, 90 S. Ct. 35 (1969). The court will “‘presume

that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.’”

NOW, 510 U.S. at 256, 114 S. Ct. at 803, quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,

561, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2137 (1992). Moreover, pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent

standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596

(1972).

The court may consider facts established by exhibits attached to the complaint. 

Durning v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987). The court may also

consider facts which may be judicially noticed, Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Ct., 828 F.2d

1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987); and matters of public record, including pleadings, orders, and other

papers filed with the court, Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir.

1986). The court need not accept legal conclusions “cast in the form of factual allegations.” 

Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 

A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an

opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).

DISCUSSION

This action is proceeding on the second amended complaint filed December 1,

2006. The defendants are Long, Robinson, Blackwell, Irving and Hightower. Plaintiff alleges

that he consented to placement in the Substance Abuse Program at California State PrisonSolano. As part of the program, plaintiff was required to recite the Center Point Creed. Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-02368-MCE -GGH Document 34 Filed 11/27/07 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

3

refused to recite the creed on grounds that it was a religious daily devotion. Plaintiff was

removed from the program and disciplined based on his failure to recite the creed. Plaintiff

alleges that punishing him for failing to recite the creed violated his First Amendment right to

religious freedom and also constituted retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights. 

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s claims on grounds that the creed is secular.

The creed states:

It is our concept that every person

has the potential for greatness.

We make the commitment to strive for this greatness.

Trusting in each other we develop a bond.

By accepting responsibility for our actions

We can regain our freedom.

You support me, and I support you

And together we will achieve our greatness.

Utilizing an open channel of communication

Displaying empathy to others

With consistent effort and initiative

We finally reach completion

Displaying pride and integrity

We emerge as new selves

With a new concept of life. 

Second Amended Complaint, Exhibit B. 

“For the government to coerce someone to participate in religious activities strikes

at the core of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, whatever else the Clause may

bar.” Inouye v. Kemna, No. 0615474, 2007 WL 2850445 * 4 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2007) (finding an

Establishment Clause violation for required attendance at AA/NA meeting). “As Justice Black

wrote in the first modern Establishment clause case, Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing

Township, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16, 67 S. Ct. 504 (1947), the clause ‘means at least’ that ‘[n]either a

state nor the Federal Government...can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away

from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No

person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church

attendance or non-attendance.’” Id. 

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-02368-MCE -GGH Document 34 Filed 11/27/07 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

4

The Second and Seventh Circuits have also found compelling prisoners and

probationers to participate in AA/NA programs where reverence to a “higher power” was a

substantial component of the program was unconstitutionally coercive. In Warner v. Orange

County Dept. of Probation, 115 F.3d 1068 (2d Cir. 1997), participants in the AA program were

told to pray to God for help in overcoming their affliction. 115 F. 3d at 1074. “Meetings opened

and closed with group prayer.” Id. 

In Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996), 

[t]he district court thought that the NA program escaped the “religious” label

because the twelve steps used phrases like “God, as we understood Him,” and

because the warden indicated that the concept of God could include the nonreligious idea of willpower within the individual. We are unable to agree with

this interpretation. A straightforward reading of the twelve steps shows clearly

that the steps are based on the monotheistic idea of a single God or Supreme

Being. True, that God might be known as Allah to some, or YHWH to others, or

the Hold Trinity to still others, but the twelve steps consistently refer to “God as

we Understood Him.” Even if we expanded the steps to include polytheistic

ideals, or animistic philosophies, they are still fundamentally based on a religious

concept of a Higher Power. Kerr alleged, furthermore, that the meetings were

permeated with explicit religious content. This was therefore not a case (again, on

the present record) where the only religious note was struck by the insertion of the

words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, or other incidental references that

the courts have upheld.

95 F.3d at 479-480.

In the instant case, the Center Point Creed contains no reference to God or any

higher power concept. Rather, the creed is secular in nature. Accordingly, defendants did not

violate plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by punishing him for refusing to recite the creed. 

In order to state a colorable retaliation claim, plaintiff must allege 1) a state actor

took some adverse action against him, 2) because of, 3) his protected conduct, and that such

action 4) chilled his exercise of his First Amendment rights, and 5) the action did not reasonably

advance legitimate correctional goals. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005).

In the instant case, plaintiff’s conduct was not protected because his failure to

recite the creed did not violate his First Amendment rights. Accordingly, plaintiff’s retaliation

claim is dismissed as well.

Case 2:05-cv-02368-MCE -GGH Document 34 Filed 11/27/07 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

5

In his opposition, plaintiff argues that he attached exhibits to his second amended

complaint demonstrating that there were religious components to the substance abuse program. 

Attached as an exhibit is what appears to be part of an inmate appeal filed by plaintiff in which

he complains that religious materials were part of the substance abuse program curriculum. 

Plaintiff cites books from the Twelve Steps Program including Just for Today, Daily Reflections

and As Bill Sees It. Plaintiff also attaches affidavits from inmates who state that they read from

these books as part of the treatment program and that these books were read during the treatment

program meetings. 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint contains no allegations regarding religious

books. Plaintiff will be granted an opportunity to file a third amended complaint containing his

claims that religious books were used in the substance abuse program. If plaintiff files a third

amended complaint, he must describe how these books were religious and how they were used,

including whether he was required to read from them and whether he was required to listen to

these books being read. The court will most likely not find a colorable First Amendment claim if

plaintiff merely alleges that he was required to be in the same room with these books or given the

option of reading them.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ April 25, 2007, motion

to dismiss is granted with leave to amend; plaintiff is granted twenty days from the date of this

order to file a third amended complaint; defendants’ response is due twenty days thereafter; if

plaintiff does not file a third amended complaint, the court will recommend that this action be

dismissed.

DATED: 11/26/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

tra2368.mtd

Case 2:05-cv-02368-MCE -GGH Document 34 Filed 11/27/07 Page 5 of 5