Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06048/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06048-2/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

JEFFREY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, CV F 03 6048 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER FINDING COMPLAINT 

 STATES A COLORABLE CLAIM 

 AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF 

 TO COMPLETE USM 285 FORMS 

A. SANTA-CRUZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks

relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this

court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the Decembe 20, 2006, third amended

complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections at CSP Lancaster, brings this civil rights

action against defendant correctional officials employed by the

Department of Corrections at the California Substance Abuse Treatment

Facility at Corcoran. 

Plaintiff’s sole claim in this complaint is that defendants

Case 1:03-cv-06048-OWW -WMW Document 19 Filed 08/27/07 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

punished him on the basis of his exercise of his religious beliefs. 

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was order to shave his beard, which

he refused to do on religious grounds. As a result, defendant Santa Cruz

“ordered that I be deprived of yard for 30 days on 2-6-03 for refusing to

shave.”

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of

2000 (“RLUIPA”) provides:

No government shall impose a substantial burden on the

religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an

institution. . . , even if the burden results from a rule of general

applicability, unless the government demonstrates that

imposition of the burden on that person–

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling government interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling

government interest.

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. Plaintiff bears the initial burden of demonstrating

that defendants substantially burdened the exercise of his religious

beliefs. Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994-95 (9th Cir. 2005). If

plaintiff meets his burden, defendants must demonstrate that “any

substantial burden of [plaintiff’s] exercise of his religious beliefs is both in

furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the least

restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 

Id. (emphasis in original). “RLUIPA is to be construed broadly in favor of

protecting an inmate’s right to exercise his religious beliefs.” Id. 

Assuming the facts of the amended complaint as true, Plaintiff

has alleged that he was not allowed to go to yard for 30 days. “‘[S]ome

form of regular outdoor exercise is extremely important to the

psychological and physical well being of the inmates.’” Allen v. Sakai, 48

F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189,

Case 1:03-cv-06048-OWW -WMW Document 19 Filed 08/27/07 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

199 (9th Cir. 1979)). Thus, “[the] deprivation of outdoor exercise [can]

constitute cruel and unusual punishment.” Allen, 48 F.3d at 1087. While

the temporary denial of outdoor exercise with no medical effects is not a

substantial deprivation, May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir. 1997),

in this Circuit, the deprivation of regular outdoor exercise for a period of

almost ten months is unquestionably sufficient to meet the objective

requirement of the Eighth Amendment analysis. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2000) (denial of all outdoor exercise for six weeks

meets objective Eighth Amendment requirement); Allen, 48 F.3d at 1086-88

(forty-five minutes of outdoor exercise per week for six weeks meets

objective Eighth Amendment requirement). 

Here, Plaintiff has alleged, at most, a denial of access to the

yard for 30 days. There are no allegations that Plaintiff was denied

exercise such that it constitutes a substantial deprivation as described

above. Plaintiff has, however, alleged that he has been denied parole

based on the disciplinary actions taken against him for not shaving his

beard.

As to Defendant Santa-Cruz, Plaintiff has stated a colorable claim for

relief. As to Defendants Warden Adams and CDC Director Alameida,

Plaintiff may not hold these individuals liable solely in their capacity as

supervisory officials. Liability may be imposed on supervisorial

defendants under § 1983 only if (1) the supervisor personally participated

in the deprivation of constitutional rights or (2) the supervisor knew of

the violations and failed to act to prevent them. Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d

642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Case 1:03-cv-06048-OWW -WMW Document 19 Filed 08/27/07 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

Plaintiff does not allege that defendant Magarian participated in, or knew

of and failed to prevent, the alleged wrongs. Their sole conduct in this

action relates to their participation in the inmate grievance process. 

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendant:

A. SANTA-CRUZ

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form,

one summonses, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an

instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed

December 20, 2006.

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, plaintiff

shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of

Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court with

the following documents:

a. Completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed

above; and 

c. Two copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed

December 20, 2006. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not

request waiver of service. Upon receipt of the above-described

documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to

serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 

5. The failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Case 1:03-cv-06048-OWW -WMW Document 19 Filed 08/27/07 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06048-OWW -WMW Document 19 Filed 08/27/07 Page 5 of 5