Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01555/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01555-0/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN D. BREWER a/k/a MICHAEL

GREEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

YOSSI GROSSBAUM, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-12-1349 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that prison officials at Mule Creek State

Prison has refused to provide him with a diet that accommodates his

religious beliefs in violation of his constitutional rights. 

Doc. #1 at 3. This action is now before the Court for initial

screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

I

Plaintiff identifies as a Messianic Jew. Doc. #1 at 3. 

On August 31, 2011, Plaintiff submitted a religious diet request

Case 2:12-cv-01555-WBS-DB Document 9 Filed 06/04/12 Page 1 of 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

1

Plaintiff appears to use the term “Ethiopia Jew” and Messianic

Jew interchangeably. Doc. #1 at 9.

2

wherein he identified himself as an “Ethiopia Jew”1

 and stated that

he had been practicing this religion since May 6, 1959. Id. at 9. 

He requested a kosher diet to accommodate his religious dietary

laws. Id. The prison chaplain denied his request stating that

“Kosher meals are provided for Jewish inmates only. Messianic

Judaism is not Jewish.” Id. 

II

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or

officer or 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 that 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),

(2). 

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

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

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

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010);

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1990). 

Case 2:12-cv-01555-WBS-DB Document 9 Filed 06/04/12 Page 2 of 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 3

Inmates “have the right to be provided with food

sufficient to sustain them in good health that satisfies the dietary

laws of their religion.” McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 198 (9th

Cir. 1987). Allegations that prison officials refuse to provide a

healthy diet conforming to sincere religious beliefs states a

cognizable claim under § 1983 of denial of the right to exercise

religious practices and beliefs. See Ward v. Walsh, 1 F.3d 873, 877

(9th Cir. 1993) (Jewish inmate claiming denial of kosher diet),

cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1192 (1994); McElyea, 833 F.2d at 198 (same).

Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegation that the

denial of a kosher diet infringed upon his right to exercise his

religious practices and beliefs appears to state a cognizable 42

U.S.C. § 1983 claim.

III

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown: 

1. The complaint, liberally construed, states a claim

for relief under the First Amendment and Section 1983 against

defendants. The Clerk shall issue summons and the United States

Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the

complaint in this matter and all attachments thereto and copies of

this order on Mule Creek State Prison chaplain Yossi Grossbaum,

Supervisor Kim Peterson, Appeals Coordinator M. Elorza, and Appeals

Coordinator S. West. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this

order on Plaintiff. 

2. To expedite the resolution of this case, the Court

orders as follows:

Case 2:12-cv-01555-WBS-DB Document 9 Filed 06/04/12 Page 3 of 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 4

a. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of

this order, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or

other dispositive motion. A motion for summary judgment shall be

supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all

respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as

exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events

at issue. If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be

resolved by summary judgment or other dispositive motion, they shall

so inform the Court prior to the date his motion is due. All papers

filed with the Court shall be served promptly on Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion

shall be filed with the court and served upon Defendants no later

than twenty-eight (28) days after Defendants serve Plaintiff with

the motion. 

c. Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary

judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will,

if granted, end your case. Rule 56 tells you what you must do in

order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary

judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material

fact - that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that

would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for

summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which

will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for

summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or

other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your

Complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

Case 2:12-cv-01555-WBS-DB Document 9 Filed 06/04/12 Page 4 of 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 5

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or

authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict 

the facts shown in Defendants’ declarations and documents and show

that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do

not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if

appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc)

(App. A). 

Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit without

prejudice. You must “develop a record” and present it in your

opposition in order to dispute any “factual record” presented by the

Defendant in his motion to dismiss. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003).

d. Defendants shall file a reply brief within

fourteen (14) days of the date on which Plaintiff serves them with

the opposition. 

 e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the

date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion

unless the court so orders at a later date. 

3. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. No further court order is required before

the parties may conduct discovery.

4. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must

Case 2:12-cv-01555-WBS-DB Document 9 Filed 06/04/12 Page 5 of 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 6

be served on Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has

been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to

Defendants or Defendants’ counsel.

5. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this

case. Plaintiff must keep the Court and all parties informed of any

change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of

this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 06/04/2012 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.12\Brewer-12-1349-osc.wpd

Case 2:12-cv-01555-WBS-DB Document 9 Filed 06/04/12 Page 6 of 6