Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00006-3/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

KIFA MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-0006 LKK CMK P

vs.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel proceeding in forma pauperis in an

action against San Joaquin County Jail and jail personnel for civil rights violations. This matter

was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-

302(b)(21). Currently before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 47.)

I. Background

Plaintiff was incarcerated at the San Joaquin County Jail at all times relevant to his

complaint. Plaintiff is a practicing Muslim, and in keeping with his Islamic faith, observes

Ramadan. Plaintiff’s religious dietary laws mandate that, during Ramadan, he fast during the day. 

In keeping with his religious faith, plaintiff requested a bagged meal during Ramadan–this

allowed him to avoid eating during the day and to eat after sundown. Plaintiff states that Jail

officials ignored his requests for special meals, and, when the Jail did provide bagged meals, only

Case 2:02-cv-00006-LKK-CMK Document 67 Filed 01/20/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Plaintiff’s complaint also alleges that guard Desoto interrupted plaintiff while he was

1

praying. However, plaintiff’s claims against defendant Desoto were dismissed on September 29,

2004. (Doc. 26.) 

2

did so for a few Muslim inmates for a “couple of days.” Plaintiff also states that Jail officials

refused to provide Friday services for Muslims. He alleges that these actions violated his First

1

Amendment Rights, his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Rights and constituted cruel and

unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendants move for summary

judgment.

II. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists “no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party

. . . always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of

the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together

with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes demonstrate the absence of a

genuine issue of material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “[W]here the

nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment

motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the ‘pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file.’” Id. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, after

adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing

sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that

party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 322. “[A] complete failure of proof concerning

an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”

Id. In such a circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, “so long as whatever is before

the district court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in

Rule 56(c), is satisfied.” Id. at 323.

Case 2:02-cv-00006-LKK-CMK Document 67 Filed 01/20/06 Page 2 of 7
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

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the

opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. See

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to

establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the

allegations or denials of its pleadings but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the

form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the

dispute exists. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party

must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome

of the suit under the governing law, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); 

T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987), and

that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict

for the nonmoving party, Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987).

In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party

need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the

claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing

versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the “purpose of summary

judgment is to ‘pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a

genuine need for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) advisory

committee’s note on 1963 amendments).

In resolving the summary judgment motion, the court examines the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed. See Anderson,

477 U.S. at 255. All reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the

court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. 

Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party’s obligation to

produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. See Richards v. Nielsen

Case 2:02-cv-00006-LKK-CMK Document 67 Filed 01/20/06 Page 3 of 7
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

Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff’d, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir.

1987). Finally, to demonstrate a genuine issue, the opposing party “must do more than simply

show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the record taken

as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no

‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted).

On August 1, 2003, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a

motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rand v. Rowland, 154

F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988).

III. Discussion

Inmates have the right to be provided with food sufficient to sustain them in good

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

(9th Cir. 1987). Inmates also must be given a “reasonable opportunity” to pursue their faith

comparable to that afforded fellow prisoners who adhere to conventional religious precepts. See

Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972). 

In order to establish that the right to a special religious diet has been violated, a

plaintiff must prove that prison officials refused to provide a diet which satisfies his religious

dietary laws, or alternatively, that the available prison menu prevented him from adhering to the

religious dietary laws mandated by his faith. See Bryant v. Gomez, 46 F.3d 948, 949 (9th Cir.

1995). An inmate must also show that the prison's interference with his religious dietary laws

rose above mere inconvenience--the burden posed by the available prison diet on the inmate's

religion must be substantial and in direct conflict with a tenet that is central to religious doctrine.

See id. If an inmate makes this initial showing, the burden shifts to the defendants to prove that

denial of the religious diet (1) "is in furtherance of a compelling government interest" and (2) is

the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 200bb-1(b)).

In order to show that the opportunity to pursue a religious faith has been violated,

a plaintiff must prove that a governmental action “burdens the adherents practice of his...religion

Case 2:02-cv-00006-LKK-CMK Document 67 Filed 01/20/06 Page 4 of 7
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

These documents were not properly served on defendants, which the court noted in an

2

order filed on September 22, 2005. In its order, the court failed to order that plaintiff’s

documents be disregarded. On October 27, 2005, defendants filed an objection to the assorted

documents that plaintiff filed in response to their motion, which urges the court to disregard

plaintiff’s statement of undisputed facts because plaintiff failed to comply with the local rules.

The defendants are correct that plaintiff’s submissions fail to comply with the Local Rules;

however, this court will nonetheless overrule defendants evidentiary objections and consider the

documents plaintiff filed in response to defendants’ motion. 

 

5

by ...preventing him...from engaging in conduct or having a religious experience which the faith

mandates. Id. This burden must be substantial and an interference with a tenant or belief that is

central to religious doctrine. See id.; Graham v. C.I.R., 822 F.2d 844, 850-51 (9th Cir. 1987). 

In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants present evidence

affidavits and accompanying evidence which establish that plaintiff’s religious rights were not

burdened. Specifically, defendants submit evidence which shows that, after plaintiff submitted a

written request for special dietary needs during Ramadan, he was offered a nighttime meal after

7:00 p.m. of either a sack meal or a hot tray. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Decl. of Kristen Hamilton.) 

The evidence submitted by defendants shows that breakfast was served to inmates at the County

jail at 5:00 a.m. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. Decl. of Christopher Serpa.) Defendants also submit

evidence that plaintiff never requested that a Muslim spiritual leader visit the County jail while

plaintiff was housed there and that a copy of the Koran is available at all times to inmates. (Def.’s

Mot. Summ. J., Decl. of Kristen Hamilton.) 

Plaintiff has responded to defendants’ motion by filing an assortment of

documents. None of plaintiff’s responsive documents set forth any evidence which creates a 2

material, disputed fact as to his claims against the defendants. In order to withstand defendants’

motion for summary judgment, plaintiff must, “go beyond the pleadings, and by [his] own

affidavits or by ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file’ designate specific

facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324 (quoting

Fed. R. Civ. P 56(e)). Plaintiff’s responsive pleadings fail to mention defendants’ alleged failure

Case 2:02-cv-00006-LKK-CMK Document 67 Filed 01/20/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

to provide him with a Muslim spiritual leader. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations in his

responsive pleadings that breakfast was served during daylight and that he was denied bagged

meals after a couple of days will not do. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir.1988)

(conclusory allegations not sufficient to defeat motion for summary judgment). Plaintiff must

produce some "significant probative evidence tending to support the [claims]," Barnett v.

Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted), but he

does not. The undersigned finds that plaintiff has failed to establish specific facts which show

that there is a genuine issue for trial and recommends that defendants’ motion for summary

judgment be granted. 

Because the undersigned finds that plaintiff has failed to establish this his religious

rights were burdened by the available County jail diet, it is not necessary to consider defendants’

arguments regarding qualified immunity and municipal liability. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-00006-LKK-CMK Document 67 Filed 01/20/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted; and

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant County, defendant Dunn and defendant

Hamilton be dismissed with prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 19, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00006-LKK-CMK Document 67 Filed 01/20/06 Page 7 of 7