Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00685/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00685-13/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Abdelkader Morceli (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

complaint against Defendant Myers (erroneously sued as Meyers) for violation of the Free Exercise 

Clause of the First Amendment and Equal Protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

On October 1, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed on November 4, 2013, be granted. (ECF No. 66.) 

Plaintiff filed objections on November 3, 2014. (ECF No. 67.) Defendant Myers filed a response to 

the objections on November 5, 2014. (ECF No. 68.) 

In his objections, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge applied an erroneous standard of 

review by failing to believe any of his evidence and failing to draw all justifiable/reasonable 

inferences in his favor. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erroneously focused on 

a purported lack of evidence demonstrating the following: (1) Defendant Myers ever prevented 

ABDELKADER MORCELI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

W. MEYERS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00685-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 44, 66)

Case 1:11-cv-00685-AWI-BAM Document 69 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff from wearing his kufi in the dining hall; (2) Defendant Myers did not have any supervisory 

role over the staff in Plaintiff’s housing facility or dining hall and did not direct any staff to prohibit 

kufis from being worn in the dining hall on or before July 26, 2010; and (3) Defendant Myers was not 

responsible for policies regarding religious headwear. 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s objections, but finds that there is no evidence supporting a 

reasonable inference that Defendant Myers was delegated sole authority over all religious matters by 

the Warden, that she was responsible for creation of the policy at issue, that she supervised Plaintiff’s 

housing facility or that she either enforced or cause anyone to enforce the relevant policy against him. 

(ECF No. 66, pp. 4-5, 7-8 [DUF 2, 3, 4, 11, 112]). Further the evidence Plaintiff presented suggests 

that prisoners had to apply to their religious leaders for exceptions to the general policy; Defendant 

Myers does not appear to be involved in that process. (ECF No. 61, Ex. B). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, 

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 1, 2014, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed on November 4, 2013, is GRANTED; 

and

3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendant Myers and close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00685-AWI-BAM Document 69 Filed 01/16/15 Page 2 of 2