Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05493/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05493-1/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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYANT A. REAGOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT LOSACCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-05493-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison — Substance Abuse Treatment and Facility 

in Corcoran Prison, filed this pro se action alleging that he was denied kosher meals while housed 

at Pelican Bay State Prison in violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion 

and in violation of his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 

(“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis

in a separate order. His complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is now before the Court for review under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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

seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental 

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, 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). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Case 4:19-cv-05493-HSG Document 12 Filed 11/26/19 Page 1 of 6
2

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

Northern District of California

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the 

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988).

B. Complaint

Plaintiff has named as defendants Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) Community 

Resource Manager Robert Losacco, PBSP Warden Jim Robertson, California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Litigation Coordinator Voong, and PBSP Appeals 

Coordinator W. Coleman. 

On August 27, 2018, while housed at PBSP, plaintiff submitted a CDCR Form 30301

Religious Diet Program Request requesting a kosher diet. On October 10, 2018, Defendant 

Losacco denied the request. 

On October 1, 2018, while plaintiff’s Form 3030 request was pending, plaintiff filed a 

grievance challenging the failure to provide him with kosher meals. Defendant Robertson did not 

interview plaintiff regarding this grievance and, on November 29, 2018, Defendant Robertson 

denied the grievance at the second level based on false and misleading statements regarding 

 

1 The Court presumes that plaintiff’s reference to CDCR Form 303 is a typographical error.

Case 4:19-cv-05493-HSG Document 12 Filed 11/26/19 Page 2 of 6
3

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

Northern District of California

plaintiff’s understanding of the Jewish faith. On February 5, 2019, Defendant Voong denied the

grievance at the third level, which violated plaintiff’s First Amendment right to correct Defendant 

Robertson’s violation of plaintiff’s right to freely practice his religion. On May 17, 2019, after

plaintiff had transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), he submitted another Form 3030 

again requesting a kosher diet. On June 12, 2019, SVSP staff granted his Form 3030 request 

stating, “Inmate appeared to be well versed of Kosher (sic).” Dkt. No. 1 at 4-5. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants denied his kosher diet request because plaintiff is black 

and the defendants are white. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. He alleges that the denial of a kosher diet caused 

him to suffer different levels of spiritual shock, emotional distress, and embarrassment; as well as 

spiritual and physical harm.

Plaintiff alleges that his rights under the First Amendment and RLUIPA have been 

violated, and seeks declaratory relief; monetary, compensatory and punitive damages; costs of suit 

and attorney’s fees; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Dkt. No. 1 at 4, 7. 

The complaint suffers from the following deficiencies.

First, plaintiff lacks standing to seek declaratory relief because he is no longer housed at

PBSP. A declaratory judgment is proper only where “there is a substantial controversy, between 

parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance 

of a declaratory judgment.” Lake Carriers’ Ass’n v. MacMullan, 406 U.S. 498 (1972). Generally, 

when a prisoner is transferred from a prison, his claim for injunctive or declaratory relief becomes 

moot as to conditions at that particular facility. Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 

2012) (prisoner’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief relating to prison conditions are 

rendered moot by his transfer to another facility). Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief is 

DISMISSED with prejudice.

Second, plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable RLUIPA claim because the relief sought –

declaratory relief and monetary damages – is unavailable. As discussed supra, because plaintiff is 

no longer housed at PBSP, he lacks standing to seek declaratory judgment for RLUIPA violations 

at PBSP. RLUIPA does not authorize money damages against state officials, whether sued in their 

official or individual capacities. See Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Case 4:19-cv-05493-HSG Document 12 Filed 11/26/19 Page 3 of 6
4

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims are therefore DISMISSED with prejudice. 

Third, plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable First Amendment free exercise claim. 

Prisoners retain the protections afforded by the First Amendment, “including its directive that no 

law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.” O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 

(1987) (citation omitted). For a prisoner to establish a free exercise violation, he therefore must 

show that a prison regulation or official burdened the practice of his religion without any 

justification reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 

878, 883-84 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff has made no factual allegations from which it can be 

reasonably inferred that defendants’ denial of a kosher diet was based solely on racial animus. 

The allegation that SVSP officials granted his kosher diet request nine months later does not lead 

to a reasonable inference of racial animus where SVSP officials appear to have based their grant 

on plaintiff’s understanding of the kosher diet and PBSP officials appear to have based their denial 

on plaintiff’s lack of familiarity with the Jewish religion, and where there are no factual 

allegations regarding racial animus or discrimination. Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. The Court 

DISMISSES plaintiff’s First Amendment claim with leave to amend, if plaintiff can truthfully do 

so. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Leave to amend should be granted 

unless the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts, and should be 

granted more liberally to pro se plaintiffs.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The 

Court notes that to the extent that plaintiff seeks damages for the alleged First Amendment 

violation, the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that prisoners may recover for 

mental or emotional injuries suffered while incarcerated only if they first show that they suffered a 

physical injury. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). 

Fourth, plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant Coleman. Plaintiff has not 

made any factual allegations that Defendant Coleman was directly involved in the alleged 

constitutional violation. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Coleman is liable because he is the PBSP 

Appeals Coordinator and therefore responsible for complying with both state and federal laws 

governing prisoners’ civil rights. In other words, plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant Coleman liable 

Case 4:19-cv-05493-HSG Document 12 Filed 11/26/19 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

on the basis of his supervisory position, a theory known as supervisory liability. Under no 

circumstances is there liability under section 1983 solely because one is responsible for the actions 

or omissions of another, i.e. under the theory of supervisory liability. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisor may be liable under section 1983 only upon a showing 

of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection 

between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 

678 F.3d 991, 1003–04 (9th Cir. 2012). Even if a supervisory official is not directly involved in 

the allegedly unconstitutional conduct, “[a] supervisor can be liable in his individual capacity for 

his own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates; for 

his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation; or for conduct that showed a reckless or callous 

indifference to the rights of others.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011). The 

Court DISMISSES Defendant Coleman from this action but grants plaintiff leave to amend his 

claim against Defendant Coleman if plaintiff can truthfully do so. See Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 861.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice the RLUIPA claim and 

the request for declaratory relief; DISMISSES the First Amendment claim with leave to amend; 

and DISMISSES Defendant Coleman from this action but grants plaintiff leave to amend his claim 

against Defendant Coleman. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff 

shall file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case 

number used in this order, Case No. C 19-05493 HSG (PR) and the words “AMENDED 

COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the 

questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. Because an amended complaint 

completely replaces the previous complaints, Plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all 

the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior 

complaint by reference. 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order in the time 

provided will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff.

Case 4:19-cv-05493-HSG Document 12 Filed 11/26/19 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of this order to 

Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/26/2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-05493-HSG Document 12 Filed 11/26/19 Page 6 of 6