Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00095/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00095-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:2000cc Religious Land Use &amp; Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

---

1

19-cv-95-BTM-MSB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAH HEALING KEMETIC TEMPLE 

OF THE DIVINE CHURCH, INC., a 

non-profit religious corporation, 

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a 

municipal corporation; and, DOES 

1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-cv-95-BTM-MSB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS THE FIFTH CAUSE OF 

ACTION

[ECF No. 3]

Before the Court is Defendant County of San Diego’s (“the County”) Motion 

to Dismiss the fifth cause of action in the Complaint, which was scheduled for 

hearing on March 20, 2019. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff Jah Healing Kemetic Temple 

of the Divine Church, Inc. has failed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss as of the 

date of this Order, and the deadline passed months ago. See CivLR 7.1.e.2 

(providing that oppositions must be filed “not later than fourteen calendar days 

prior to the noticed hearing”). Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c provides, “[i]f an opposing 

party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, 

Case 3:19-cv-00095-BTM-MSB Document 4 Filed 06/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19-cv-95-BTM-MSB

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

that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request 

for ruling by the court.” 

A district court may grant an unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to a 

local rule permitting dismissal. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 

1995) (holding district court did not abuse discretion by summarily granting 

unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to local rule that permitted but did not 

require dismissal). However, the Court must consider the following factors 

before granting a motion on that ground: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 

53 (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)). 

All five factors weigh in favor of dismissal. “[T]he public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. California 

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court must manage its docket, 

and there is no risk of prejudice to Defendants, the moving party. As for the 

fourth factor, although public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits, 

Plaintiff’s failure to respond precludes the parties’ ability to move the case 

forward and actually litigate the merits. This factor thus also weighs in favor of 

dismissal. Finally, the Court considers the availability of less drastic sanctions. 

Plaintiffs initiated this action before a California Superior Court on December 11, 

2019. (ECF No. 1-2). Defendant removed the case on January 14, 2019, and 

moved to dismiss the Fifth Cause of Action for failure to state a claim on January 

22, 2019. (ECF Nos. 1, 3). Plaintiff was properly served with both, but five 

months later, has yet to file any responsive pleading or otherwise prosecute its 

case. (ECF Nos. 2, 3-3). Given Plaintiff’s unexcused, extensive delay, the Court 

concludes dismissal without prejudice is both warranted and a less drastic 

sanction than dismissal with prejudice.

Case 3:19-cv-00095-BTM-MSB Document 4 Filed 06/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19-cv-95-BTM-MSB

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

The Court further concludes that the Fifth Cause of Action fails to state a 

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must 

allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United 

States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person 

acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). To state 

a claim against a local government, Plaintiff must allege that a government 

“policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or 

acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflict[ed] the injury that the 

government as an entity is [allegedly] responsible [for] under § 1983. Monell v. 

Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a right secured by the 

Constitution. Plaintiff cannot state a First Amendment claim against the County 

for enforcing its “secular ban of marijuana dispensaries” pursuant to a local 

ordinance (Compl. ¶ D) because “[t]he right of free exercise [under the First 

Amendment] does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a 

‘valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law 

proscribes . . . conduct that his religion prescribes.” United States v. Christie, 825 

F.3d 1048, 1055 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Employment Division v. Smith, 494 

U.S. 872, 879 (1990)). The Complaint is also deficient because it fails to identify 

any policy or custom of San Diego County, pointing only to alleged injuries 

inflicted by the municipality’s employees and agents, which is insufficient to state 

a § 1983 claim. See id; ECF No. 1-2 “Compl.” ¶ 59. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:19-cv-00095-BTM-MSB Document 4 Filed 06/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19-cv-95-BTM-MSB

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

In conclusion, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Fifth 

Cause of Action with leave to amend the deficiencies identified above. Plaintiff 

must amend the Complaint within fifteen days of the entry of this order. 

Defendant must answer any amended complaint, or, if none is filed, the First 

through Fourth causes of action, twenty-five days from the entry of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00095-BTM-MSB Document 4 Filed 06/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4