Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01652/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01652-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUDREY KING, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

(1) FOR SERVICE OF COGNIZABLE 

FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIMS AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS BELL AND BIGOT AND 

(2) TO DISMISS ALL OTHER CLAIMS 

AND DEFENDANTS

(ECF NO. 15)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.) His complaint 

(ECF No. 1) and first amended complaint (ECF No. 11) were dismissed for failure to 

state a claim, but he was given leave to amend, (ECF No. 12). His first amended 

complaint (ECF No. 15) is before the Court for screening.

I. Screening Requirement 

The in forma pauperis statute provides, “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any 

portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if 

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 17
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

2

the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

II. Pleading Standard

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for 

vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 

(1989).

To state a claim under § 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 

1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations 

are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere 

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are 

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

III. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is detained at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”), where the acts giving rise 

to his complaint occurred. He names the following Defendants: (1) Audrey King, 

Executive Director, California Department of State Hospitals; (2) Remi Smith, Program 

Director; (3) Marisa Bigot, Unit Supervisor; (4) Samantha Perryman, Unit Supervisor; 

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 17
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

(5) Jeffrey Hanson, Psychologist; (6) Jeanette Riveria, Senior Psych Technician; 

(7) Angel Felix, Psych Technician; (8) Paul Alkelougie, Senior Psych Technician; 

(9) Jose Lopez, Senior Psych Technician; (10) Lt. Bernard, Office of Protective Services; 

(11) Lt. Kenneth Bell, former property room sergeant; (12) Brandon Price, Administrative 

Director, California Department of State Hospitals; and (13) Daniel Wagner, Sr. Patients’ 

Rights Advocate at the California Office of Patients’ Rights. 

He claims violations of his First Amendment free exercise rights, and his Fifth and 

Fourteenth Amendment rights to Due Process and Equal Protection. He seeks 

compensatory damages and unspecified injunctive relief. 

His allegations may be summarized essentially as follows.

A. First Amendment Allegations

1. Audrey King

Since May 2014, Defendants have interfered with and denied Plaintiff’s right to 

practice his religion as a Native American. During that time, Defendant King was aware 

that “several individuals” were “allegedly” violating Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, yet 

did nothing to intervene or take corrective action.

2. Remi Smith

Beginning in May 2014, Defendant Smith began prohibiting Native Americans 

from using the courtyard in their unit for Sunrise Ceremonies. She did this even though, 

in the three preceding years, there were no incidents. There were no security risks 

involved in this practice. This prohibition continues to this day. Other religions are 

allowed to hold services in the main courtyard which, according to Plaintiff, involves 

greater security risks.

On August 16, 2014 and August 30, 2014, Defendant Smith denied Plaintiff an 

escort to his Native American Ceremonies/Celebrations. This occurred even though the 

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 3 of 17
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

Native American Spiritual Advisor requested Plaintiff be escorted to the ceremonial 

grounds.1

3. Kenneth Bell

According to Plaintiff, Defendant Bell denied Plaintiff sacred/spiritual items on 

three occasions.

On July 30, 2014, Bell denied Plaintiff medicines and/or herbs that “are used in 

the daily practice of his religion.” The denied items are allowable under the California 

Department of State Hospitals’ Administrative Directives.

Between September 10 and 15, 2014, Bell denied Plaintiff needles and herbs that 

also are allowable under the Administrative Directives.

Between November 12 and 20, 2014, Bell denied Plaintiff needles and an herb 

used in daily ceremonies and also approved under the Administrative Directives.

4. Marisa Bigot

Bigot harassed Plaintiff and interfered with his ceremonies and religious 

expression, and encouraged her subordinates to do the same, as follows:

From May 2014 to December 15, 2014, she “harassed” Plaintiff while he was 

praying or meditating in his living area and encouraged her staff to do the same.

In May 2014 Bigot entered Plaintiff’s room and threatened to confiscate his dream 

catcher. Plaintiff showed her and the Fire Chief that the dream catcher was in 

compliance with the fire code. In retaliation, Bigot moved Plaintiff from a single room to a 

four person dorm.

During September and November (Plaintiff does not specify the year), Bigot 

denied Plaintiff approved items that he was allowed to have because she did not want 

him to have them. 

 

1

In Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, he stated that someone else intervened and directed that Plaintiff

be provided an escort. This fact is omitted from the second amended complaint. 

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 4 of 17
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

5. Jeanette Riveria

Rivera “constantly” entered Plaintiff’s living area, “harassed” him, and interfered 

with his prayer and meditation.

From May to December 2014, Rivera “constantly” entered Plaintiff’s room during 

prayer or meditation to conduct a search of complain that his prayer rug was on the floor.

In August 2014, Defendant Riveria entered Plaintiff’s room while he was praying. 

Plaintiff was wrapped in a blanket and partially undressed. Rivera screamed about 

Plaintiff’s prayer rug being on the floor and demanded his Hospital Assessment System 

(“HAS”) Level. Because Plaintiff was partially undressed, he threw it at her. Rivera later 

claimed that Plaintiff threw the Level at her striking her in the face. As a result, Plaintiff 

was assaulted by staff members, lost his Level, and was placed in seclusion.

6. Angel Felix

Felix desecrated Plaintiff’s medicine bag, which is a spiritual item. This occurred 

while Plaintiff was being restrained by other staff. Felix reached inside the back of 

Plaintiff’s shirt and grabbed the medicine bag to remove it. Plaintiff warned Felix that 

Felix could not handle the medicine bag because it was sacred. According to Plaintiff, 

this prohibition also is memorialized in hospital administrative directives regarding the 

search of sacred or spiritual items.

7. Paul Alkelougie

Alkelougie disrespected Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights and hospital policies as 

follows:

On August 29, 2014, he interrupted Plaintiff’s prayer and meditation and used 

unnecessary force against Plaintiff. Plaintiff was injured because Alkelougie did not 

follow hospital policies on restraining individuals who are morbidly obese and who have 

C.O.P.D.

In February 2015, Alkelougie conducted an illegal and retaliatory search of 

Plaintiff’s bed area. Plaintiff placed a sacred hawk wing in the middle of his bed in order 

to protect it. While Alkelougie was getting up from the floor, he placed his arms and, 

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 5 of 17
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

resultantly, all of his weight, on the wing and broke it. This occurred despite Plaintiff’s 

warnings regarding the wing.

B. Fourteenth Amendment Allegations

1. Audrey King

Defendant King did not adhere to deadlines for responding to Plaintiff’s Office of 

Patient Rights grievances. She also failed to ensure that staff adhered to Special Orders, 

Administrative Directives, and the California Code of Regulations.

2. Remi Smith

Smith denied Plaintiff his leather and refused to provide Plaintiff a denial of rights 

form.

Smith advised Plaintiff he could only work on his leather in a supervised art group. 

She stated that, once the leather was completed, it would remain in the possession of 

the spiritual advisor unless it was being used for ceremonies. Other Native Americans 

and other religions were allowed to keep religious items in their possession.

When Plaintiff began participating in the art class, it was only for Native 

Americans. However, it later was changed to allow other religions to participate and then 

problems arose. Plaintiff was no longer allowed to open the class with prayer. He filed a 

grievance on this issue and it was determined that Plaintiff could pray so long as he was 

respectful. Also, only Christian or “worldly” music was permitted during the class. When 

Plaintiff filed a grievance, unspecified facilitators wrote false notes regarding Plaintiff to 

have him removed from the class. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff was told that he 

could no longer participate in the class unless he signed a contract and first took other 

classes. Plaintiff claims that these requirements were illegal and violated his right to 

access to treatment.

3. Daniel Wagoner

Wagoner failed to protect Plaintiff’s right to file grievances with the Office of 

Patient’s Rights and to have such grievances responded to timely.

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 6 of 17
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

7

IV. Analysis

A. Improper Joinder of Unrelated Claims

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) allows a party to “join, as independent or 

alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.” However, Rule 

20(a)(2) permits a plaintiff to sue multiple defendants in the same action only if “any right 

to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or 

arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 

occurrences,” and there is a “question of law or fact common to all defendants.” “Thus 

multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should 

not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against 

different defendants belong in different suits . . .” See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 

607 (7th Cir.2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).

Plaintiff once again brings several unrelated claims in this action. His allegations 

involve seemingly unrelated incidents: room searches, art classes, property seizures, 

interference with grievances, inability to attend ceremonies, and at least one alleged use 

of force. The incidents also involve an array of defendants. The mere fact that the 

allegations relate to an alleged violation of the same constitutional right – i.e., the First 

Amendment -- is insufficient to support joinder. Plaintiff simply may not bring disparate 

claims against disparate defendants in a single action. 

Plaintiff previously was advised of this defect in the Court’s two prior screening 

orders. He nonetheless has failed to limit his second amended complaint to those claims 

arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. Nonetheless, because few of these 

disparate claims appear to be cognizable, the Court will proceed with screening all of the 

stated claims.

B. First Amendment Free Exercise

Civil detainees retain the protections afforded by the First Amendment, including 

the right to freely practice their religion. See O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 347, 

348 (1987) (citations omitted); see also Youngberg v. Romero, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982) 

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 7 of 17
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

8

(holding civilly detained persons must be afforded “more considerate treatment and 

conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed 

to punish”). In order to establish a cause of action under the Free Exercise Clause, 

Plaintiff must show that a restriction substantially burdened the practice of his religion by 

preventing him from engaging in conduct which he sincerely believes is consistent with 

his faith. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008).

Additionally, Plaintiff must show that the restriction is not required to maintain 

institutional security and preserve internal order and discipline. See Pierce v. Cnty. of 

Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1209 (9th Cir. 2008). Restrictions on access to “religious 

opportunities” must be found reasonable in light of four factors: (1) whether there is a 

“valid, rational connection” between the regulation and a legitimate government interest 

put forward to justify it; (2) “whether there are alternative means of exercising the right”

that remain open to Plaintiff; (3) whether accommodation of the asserted constitutional 

right would have a significant impact on staff and other detainees; and (4) whether ready 

alternatives are absent (bearing on the reasonableness of the regulation). Turner v. 

Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987); see also Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006); Mauro 

v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Furthermore, to satisfy 

substantive due process requirements with respect to detainees, the restriction or 

regulation cannot be intended to serve a punitive interest. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 

535 (1979).

1. Remi Smith

Plaintiff alleges that Smith disallowed him and other Native Americans from using 

their unit courtyard for Sunrise Ceremonies, even though other religions were permitted 

to use the main courtyard for such ceremonies. However, he does not state that he was 

precluded from engaging in such ceremonies altogether, only that he could not do so in 

a particular location. Accordingly, he fails to allege that the practice of his religion was 

substantially burdened by this conduct. See Guru Nanak Sikh Soc. of Yuba City v. Cty. 

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 8 of 17
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

9

of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A] substantial burden must place more 

than an inconvenience on religious exercise.”) (internal quotation omitted)). 

Plaintiff alleges that Smith denied Plaintiff an escort to his Native American 

Ceremonies/Celebrations on two occasions. However, in his prior complaint, Plaintiff 

acknowledged that he eventually was provided an escort. As stated in the Court’s prior 

screening order, it appears that Plaintiff was able to participate in the ceremony and his 

religious practice was not, in fact, burdened in this instance. Although instructed to do 

so, Plaintiff has alleged no further facts to indicate a substantial burden on the practice 

of his religion. 

Plaintiff alleges Smith limited him to accessing his “leather” during art class and 

ceremonies. Plaintiff characterizes this conduct as a due process violation. While Plaintiff 

clearly disagrees with the limitation, he does not explain whether or how this burdened 

his religious exercise.

Plaintiff alleges he was, for a time, not permitted to open his art class with prayer 

and that only Christian or “worldly” music was played during class. Plaintiff characterizes 

this conduct as a due process violation. He does not attribute these violations specifically 

to Smith. In any event, he does not explain whether or how this conduct substantially 

burdened his religious exercise. 

Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant Smith’s conduct substantially burdened his 

ability to engage in conduct consistent with his faith. Plaintiff twice has been advised of 

this requirement but nonetheless fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. Further 

leave to amend should be denied.

 2. Kenneth Bell

According to Plaintiff, Defendant Bell denied Plaintiff sacred/spiritual items on 

three occasions. The items are used in the daily practice of his religion and are allowable 

under hospital administrative directives.

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 9 of 17
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

10

This allegation is sufficient to state a claim against Defendant Bell. According to 

Plaintiff, he was denied spiritual or sacred items that are used in the daily practice of his 

religion and that do not implicate safety and security concerns.

The Court will recommend that Plaintiff be permitted to proceed on this claim.

3. Marisa Bigot

Plaintiff’s general claims that Bigot “harassed” him while he was praying or 

meditating is too conclusory to state claim. Plaintiff fails to provide any detail regarding 

these interactions and whether they may have been motivated by safety or security 

concerns.

Plaintiff states that Bigot threatened to confiscate his dream catcher because it 

was in violation of the fire code. According to Plaintiff, however, there was no fire code 

violation. In any event, Plaintiff does not allege that his dream catcher was confiscated. 

He therefore does not allege that the exercise of his religion was burdened. 

Plaintiff alleges that Bigot denied him spiritual items he was permitted to have 

simply because she did not want him to have them. This allegation, and only this 

allegation, is sufficient to state a claim against Defendant Bigot. As with Defendant Bell, 

Plaintiff alleges that he was denied spiritual or sacred items that are used in the practice 

of his religion and that do not implicate safety and security concerns. The Court will 

recommend that Plaintiff be permitted to proceed on this claim.

4. Jeanette Rivera

Plaintiff’s general allegations that Rivera “constantly” entered Plaintiff’s living area, 

“harassed” him, and interfered with his prayer and meditation are too conclusory to state 

a claim. This is particularly true in light of Plaintiff’s allegation that these intrusions were 

in the context of searches of Plaintiff’s room, which implies a legitimate security interest. 

Plaintiff specifically complains of an August 2014 incident in which Riviera 

demanded Plaintiff’s HAS Level, Plaintiff threw the level at her, and Rivera reported the 

incident, resulting in a loss of Plaintiff’s privileges. Again, the facts alleged by Plaintiff 

suggest a legitimate security interest underlying this encounter. 

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 10 of 17
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

11

The allegations fail to allege facts to suggest that Riviera’s conduct unreasonably 

burdened Plaintiff’s religious exercise.

5. Angel Felix

Plaintiff alleges that Felix desecrated Plaintiff’s medicine bag while trying to 

remove it when Plaintiff was restrained. Although not specifically stated in the second 

amended complaint, Plaintiff’s prior complaint alleged that this occurred in the aftermath 

of the incident with Defendant Riviera, when Plaintiff was taken to an exclusion room 

where his medicine bag was not permitted. 

Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the desecration of his medicine bag are sufficient 

to allege a burden on his religious exercise. However, he has not alleged facts to 

suggest that this action was unsupported by legitimate safety concerns. Plaintiff’s 

reference to policies governing the general search of such objects does not appear 

applicable to the specific circumstances presented here.

6. Paul Alkelougie

Plaintiff alleges that Alkelougie used “unnecessary” force against him. Plaintiff 

states no facts to indicate that this conduct burdened his religious exercise. Therefore, 

this allegation is addressed below as a potential Fourteenth Amendment violation.

Plaintiff also alleges that Alkelougie damaged a sacred hawk wing while getting 

up from the floor in Plaintiff’s room. This single, inadvertent action does not support a 

constitutional claim. Combs v. Washington, No. 14-35821, 2016 WL 4537902, at *1 (9th 

Cir. Aug. 31, 2016) (no constitutional violation where conduct was sporadic, 

unintentional, and inadvertent); Canell v. Lightner, 143 F.3d 1210, 1215 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(holding that “short-term and sporadic” interference with free exercise rights does not 

violate the First Amendment).

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Alkelougie.

C. Improper Handling of Grievances

Plaintiff alleges several Defendants improperly handled his administrative 

grievances. Specifically, Defendant King failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s grievances, 

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 11 of 17
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

12

address Plaintiff’s concerns, and ensure that policies, procedures, and regulations were 

followed. Defendant Smith failed to give Plaintiff a “denial of rights” form. Defendant 

Wagoner refused to enforce time constraints on the processing of Plaintiff’s grievances. 

As Plaintiff has been advised, these allegations do not state a claim under section 1983. 

1. No Due Process Right to Grievance Process

The Due Process Clause protects Plaintiff against the deprivation of liberty 

without the procedural protections to which he is entitled under the law. Wilkinson v. 

Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). However, Plaintiff has no stand-alone due process 

rights related to the administrative grievance process. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 

860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Failing to 

properly process a grievance or denying a grievance does not constitute a due process 

violation. See, e.g., Wright v. Shannon, No. 1:05-cv-01485-LJO-YNP PC, 2010 WL 

445203, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (plaintiff's allegations that prison officials denied 

or ignored his inmate appeals failed to state a cognizable claim under the First 

Amendment); Williams v. Cate, No. 1;09-cv-00468-OWW-YNP PC, 2009 WL 3789597, 

at *6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009) (“Plaintiff has no protected liberty interest in the 

vindication of his administrative claims.”). Plaintiff’s allegations that he was not provided 

specific forms and that his concerns were not timely addressed do not state a 

constitutional claim. These defects cannot be cured through amendment.

2. Insufficient Facts to Allege Contribution to Violations

Generally, denying an administrative appeal does not cause or contribute to the 

underlying violation. Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2014); George v. 

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). However, administrators cannot willfully turn a 

blind eye to constitutional violations being committed by subordinates, Jett v. Penner, 

439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006), and there may be limited circumstances in which 

those involved in reviewing an administrative appeal can be held liable under section 

1983. That circumstance has not been presented here. 

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 12 of 17
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

13

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that Defendant King failed to properly address or 

ensure her subordinate’s compliance with law or policy is insufficient to support a 

plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. Plaintiff 

provides no detail regarding the content of his grievance or the alleged violations King 

failed to address. He has not shown that a constitutional violation occurred with respect 

to any of the issues grieved. Plaintiff has not shown that King willfully turned a blind eye 

to any constitutional violations. 

Plaintiff previously was advised of these defects and has failed to remedy them. 

Further leave to amend appears futile and should be denied.

D. Equal Protection

Plaintiff alleges he was denied the right to perform Sunrise Prayer Ceremonies in 

the small courtyard even though other religions were allowed to do so in the main 

courtyard. He also alleges that he was temporarily precluded from praying at the start of 

art class, although Christians were not, and that only Christian or “worldly” music was 

allowed during class. It appears Plaintiff intends to allege an Equal Protection claim.

The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be 

treated alike. City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 

(1985). An equal protection claim may be established by showing that the defendant 

intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff based on the plaintiff's membership in a 

protected class, Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003), Lee v. City of 

Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001), or that similarly situated individuals were 

intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state 

purpose, Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); see also Lazy Y 

Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008); North Pacifica LLC v. City of 

Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008). To allege a religious discrimination claim, 

Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show that prison officials intentionally discriminated 

against him on the basis of his religion by failing to provide him a reasonable opportunity 

to pursue his faith compared to other similarly situated religious groups. Cruz v. Beto, 

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 13 of 17
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

14

405 U.S. 319, 321-22 (1972) (per curiam).

With regard to Sunrise Prayer Ceremonies, Plaintiff has not alleged that any of 

the Defendants intentionally discriminated against him on the basis of his religion or that 

he was not provided a reasonable opportunity to pursue his faith compared to other 

similarly situated religious groups. Although Plaintiff alleges that he was prevented from 

engaging in Sunrise Prayer Ceremonies in a similar manner to other groups, he has not 

stated whether he was provided other reasonable opportunities to conduct such 

ceremonies or otherwise pursue his faith. He previously was advised of this requirement 

but nonetheless fails to state a cognizable claim.

Plaintiff adds a new claim regarding Christian prayer and Christian music during 

his art class. With regard to prayer, Plaintiff alleges that, at some point, Christians were 

permitted to pray at the start of class but Plaintiff was not. Plaintiff later was told that he 

could pray, so long as he did so respectfully. Additionally, other Native Americans were 

permitted to pray during this period. These facts do not suggest intentional discrimination 

on the basis of Plaintiff’s religion, but instead other issues with Plaintiff’s conduct. And, 

Plaintiff does not allege he was denied other comparable opportunities to pursue his 

faith. Indeed, it appears from Plaintiff’s complaint that he had frequent and regular 

opportunities to engage in prayer. Finally, Plaintiff does not identify the person or 

persons responsible for this decision, and therefore fails to link any defendants to this 

alleged violation.

Plaintiff’s complaint regarding Christian music similarly is not linked to any 

defendant. Nor does Plaintiff allege facts to suggest intentional discrimination or that he 

was denied other comparable opportunities to pursue his faith. This allegation therefore 

fails to state a claim. 

Plaintiff previously was advised of the legal standard applicable to his claims but

has failed to allege additional facts that would suggest an Equal Protection violation. 

Further leave to amend appears futile and should be denied.

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 14 of 17
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

15

E. Excessive Force

Plaintiff does not specifically state his intent to bring an excessive force claim. At 

the same time, however, he states that Defendant Alkelhougie used “unnecessary” force 

against him, resulting in injury.

The Due Process Clause protects Plaintiff from the use of excessive force that 

amounts to punishment. Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1197 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at 395 n.10). In resolving claims of excessive force 

brought by detainees, the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard 

applies. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015); Andrews v. Neer, 253 

F.3d 1052, 1061-62 (9th Cir.2001). In applying this standard, “a court must also account 

for the legitimate interests that stem from the government's need to manage the facility 

in which the individual is detained, appropriately deferring to policies and practices that 

in the judgment of [staff] are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to 

maintain institutional security. Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2473 (internal quotation marks and 

brackets omitted) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 540 (1979)).

“Considerations such as the following may bear on the reasonableness or 

unreasonableness of the force used: the relationship between the need for the use of 

force and the amount of force used; the extent of the plaintiff's injury; any effort made by 

the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force; the severity of the security problem at 

issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the officer; and whether the plaintiff was 

actively resisting.” Id.

Plaintiff provides no details regarding the incident with Alkelhougie. Plaintiff’s 

conclusory statements are insufficient to state a claim. This is particularly true where, as 

here, it appears that the incident was precipitated by Plaintiff throwing something at staff. 

Plaintiff previously was advised of this defect but nonetheless has failed to allege 

additional facts regarding this incident that would support a constitutional claim. Further 

leave to amend appears futile and should be denied. 

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 15 of 17
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

16

F. Linkage

Under § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 (2009); Simmons 

v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 

588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 

2002). Liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of 

respondeat superior, as each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Ewing, 588 F.3d at 1235. Supervisors may only be held liable 

if they “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act 

to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Starr v. 

Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 

(9th Cir. 2009); Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th 

Cir. 2007); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff has not alleged any unconstitutional conduct on the part of Defendants 

Perryman, Hanson, Lopez, Bernard, or Price. His complaint states no facts regarding 

these Defendants. Plaintiff previously was advised of the requirement that he provide 

sufficient facts to link each of the Defendants to a constitutional violation. He has not 

done so. These Defendants should be dismissed and further leave to amend should be 

denied. 

V. Conclusion and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleges cognizable FIrst Amendment free 

exercise claims against Defendants Bell and Bigot. His remaining allegations do not 

state a cognizable claim. Further leave to amend appears futile and should be denied.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff proceed on his First Amendment free exercise claims against 

Defendants Bell and Bigot;

2. All other claims asserted in the second amended complaint and all other 

defendants be DISMISSED with prejudice, and

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 16 of 17
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

17

3. Service be initiated on Defendants Bell and Bigot.

The findings and recommendation will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, the 

parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” A party may respond 

to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being 

served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-JDP Document 16 Filed 11/15/16 Page 17 of 17