Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00415/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00415-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINCY SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. WEGMAN; C. BOWMAN; M. 

SEAMAN; and C. HAMMOND,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00415-EPG (PC)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO EITHER:

(1) FILE A SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT;

OR

(2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE IS 

WILLING TO PROCEED WITH THE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

ONLY ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT 

AND RLUIPA CLAIMS AGAINST 

DEFENDANT BOWMAN.

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

(Doc. 8).

I. Background

Plaintiff, Quincy Sims, is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this action on

March 24, 2014. (Doc. 1.)

1

 The Complaint was screened and dismissed with leave to amend. 

(Doc. 7.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint which is currently before the 

Court for screening. (Doc. 8.). Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 

 

1

All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 

CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.

Case 1:14-cv-00415-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 9
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

28 U.S.C. § 636 (c).2 

A review of Plaintiff‟s First Amended Complaint reveals that Plaintiff states a cognizable 

claim against Defendant C. Bowman for an alleged violation of the free exercise of religion under 

the First Amendment of the Constitution, and for a claim under the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. ' 2000cc-1. However, he does not 

state a claim against any of the other Defendants. Plaintiff shall be given a choice to either 

proceed the above referenced claims against Defendant Bowman, or file a Second Amended 

Complaint.

II. Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). If the Court determines that the Complaint fails to state a claim, it must 

be dismissed. Id. Leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies in the 

Complaint can be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 

1995). 

To state a claim, a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). "Such a statement must 

simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it 

rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S.5 06, 512 (2002). Detailed factual allegations are 

not required, but A[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), quoting Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim that is plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 

 

2

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on April 7, 2014. (Doc. 5).

Case 1:14-cv-00415-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 9
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

quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations are accepted as true, but legal conclusions 

are not. Iqbal. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557. 

While Aplaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of pleadings facts . . . ,@ Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 

580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se prisoners are still construed liberally 

and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 

2013); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). However, "the liberal pleading 

standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations," Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 

n.9 (1989), "a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled," Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982), and courts 

are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences, Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 

681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The “sheer possibility that a 

defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a 

defendant‟s liability” fall short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 

S. Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. Plaintiff must identify specific facts supporting the 

existence of substantively plausible claims for relief, Johnson v. City of Shelby, __ U.S. __, __, 

135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

A. Summary of the First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff, brings this civil rights action against CDCR officials employed at Kern Valley 

State Prison, where the events at issue occurred.3 Plaintiff names C. Wegman, Community 

Resource Manager; C. Bowman, Chaplain; M. Seaman, Correctional Counselor II; and C. 

Hammond, Staff Services Manager, as Defendants in this action. (collectively, “Defendants”). 

Plaintiff claims that he was denied the right to freely exercise his religious beliefs under the First 

Amendment of the Constitution because Defendants refused to provide him with a Kosher diet.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he is a member of the “Nation of Islam,” and a tenant of 

 

3

Plaintiff is currently an inmate at CDCR at the Centinela State Prison.

Case 1:14-cv-00415-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 9
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

that religion is that members do not eat foods prepared from chemically washed utensils or trays, 

or eat foods that are stored in cans or wax containers because it “destroys their inner bodies.” 

Doc. 8, pgs 4-7. Plaintiff asserts that preparing, storing, and cooking food according to these 

Islamic teachings improves his ability to think, and increases his mental ability so he is better able 

to focus on the tenants of Islam. (Doc. 8, pg. 5). 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants advised him that the prison does not have a diet program 

that is consistent with these Islamic traditions. Plaintiff subsequently requested a Kosher diet 

which he contends is sufficiently similar to the Nation of Islam‟s diet. However, Defendants 

denied his request because he is not Jewish.4Plaintiff alleges that denial of Kosher foods inhibits

his ability to practice his faith because this diet is taught by the “Honorable Elijah Muhammad.” 

(Doc. 8, pg. 6). For relief, Plaintiff requests that he be provided a Kosher diet, and he also seeks 

punitive damages. (Doc. 8, pg. 9).

B. Pleading Requirements under 1983

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to 

be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of 

any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . 

shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or 

other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Thus, 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).

Moreover, the statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between 

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See

 

4

The date these events occurred are not specified in Plaintiff‟s complaint, however, he has attached documents 

related to his appeal which reveal he requested a change in diet on June 25, 2013. (Doc. 8, pg. 10). He completed the 

grievance process on March 3, 2014. (Doc. 8, pg. 25). 

Case 1:14-cv-00415-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 04/27/16 Page 4 of 9
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

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that A[a] person >subjects= another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 

in another=s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.@ Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 

Cir. 1978). Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

C. Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief

1. First Amendment Claim for the Free Exercise of Religion

“[P]risoners retain the protections of the First Amendment” but their “right to freely 

exercise [their] religion is limited by institutional objectives and by the loss of freedom 

concomitant with incarceration.” Hartmann v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 

1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1997)). The 

protections of the Free Exercise Clause are triggered when prison officials substantially burden 

the practice of inmates‟ religions by preventing them from engaging in conduct that he or she

sincerely believes is consistent with their faith. However, an impingement on an inmate‟s 

constitutional rights will be upheld “„if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological 

interests.‟” Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Turner v. Safley, 

482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254 (1987)). Here, Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied a Kosher 

diet which is consistent with his religious beliefs and practices of the Islamic Nation, and that an 

inability to eat this diet has inhibited his right to practice his religion. Accordingly, he has stated 

a claim for the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.

2. RLUIPA

Although Plaintiff has not explicitly cited to RLUIPA in his pleading, the Court 

must afford him the benefit of the doubt in ascertaining what claims he has raised in his 

complaint. Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2008). RLUIPA prohibits prison officials 

from substantially burdening a prisoner‟s “„religious exercise unless the burden furthers a 

Case 1:14-cv-00415-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 04/27/16 Page 5 of 9
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

compelling governmental interest and does so by the least restrictive means,‟” Alvarez v. Hill, 518 

F.3d at 1156 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 997-98 (9th Cir. 

2005)). 

In this instance, Plaintiff‟s First Amended Complaint has stated a claim under RLUIPA 

since he alleges the prison‟s failure to provide him with a Kosher diet inhibits his religious 

practices. Plaintiff is advised, however, that monetary damages claims are not available under the 

RLUIPA against prison officials in their individual capacity, Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899 (9th 

Cir. 2014); nor are they available for actions in one's official capacity because of sovereign 

immunity, Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S.Ct. 1651 (2011); Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d at 1063. 

D. Defendants

The amended complaint alleges that the Defendants denied Plaintiff a religious diet 

consistent with the Nation of Islam‟s Tenants of eating. However, Plaintiff has failed to link the 

actions of each defendant with the alleged deprivation he suffered. It is clear from the attachments 

to the First Amended Complaint that Chaplain Bowman interviewed Plaintiff and determined 

Plaintiff was not eligible to receive a Kosher diet. (Doc. 8, pgs. 13 and 25). However, it appears 

that the only involvement of the other Defendants - C. Wegman, a Community Resource 

Manager; M. Seaman, a Correctional Counselor; and C. Hammond, a Staff Services Manager -

was to process Plaintiff‟s appeals on this issue. (Doc. 8, pgs. 11, 14, 18 and 26). 

Involvement in reviewing an inmate‟s administrative appeal does not necessarily 

demonstrate awareness of alleged violation. Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 

2014). Moreover, “the Fourteenth Amendment‟s Due Process Clause protects persons against 

deprivations of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection 

must establish that one of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 

S.Ct. 2384 (2005). Plaintiff does not a have protected liberty interest in the processing of his 

appeals. Additionally, Plaintiff may not create a protected liberty interest in the appeals process 

by alleging he was denied a particular result, or that the appeals process was deficient, Ramirez v. 

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 1:14-cv-00415-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 04/27/16 Page 6 of 9
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

Finally, generally, there is no respondeat superior liability in civil rights actions under 

section 1983; each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677; 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Id. Here, it appears Plaintiff cannot state a claim and 

against Defendants Wegman, Seaman, and Hammond because their only involvement in the 

alleged violations is that they processed Plaintiff‟s appeals.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint states a claim for an alleged violation of the free 

exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the Constitution and for a violation of RLUIPA

against Defendant Bowman. However, the only involvement that Defendants C. Wegman, M. 

Seaman, and C. Hammond had in this case appears to relate to the processing and denial of 

Plaintiff‟s appeals as part of the grievance process. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state cognizable 

claims against any of these Defendants. 

Plaintiff may either proceed with the First Amended Complaint on the claims found 

cognizable by the Court,

5

or file a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified 

by this order. If Plaintiff chooses to file a Second Amended Complaint, that complaint will 

supersede the First Amended Complaint and the Court will screen the Second Amended 

Complaint in full. 

Should Plaintiff choose to amend the complaint, the amended complaint should be brief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of 

Plaintiff=s constitutional or other federal rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. 

Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual matter . . . to „state a claim that is plausible on its face.‟” 

Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Plaintiff is reminded that generally, there is no

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

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in 

 

5

If Plaintiff chooses to proceed on the First Amended Complaint as filed, the Court will dismiss the other 

Defendants identified in this order.

Case 1:14-cv-00415-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 04/27/16 Page 7 of 9
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

the deprivation of his rights. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added). Plaintiff is advised that a 

short, concise statement of the allegations in chronological order will assist the Court in 

identifying his claims. Plaintiff should name each defendant and explain what happened, 

describing personal acts by the individual defendant that resulted in the violation of Plaintiff‟s 

rights. Plaintiff should also describe any harm he suffered as a result of the violation. Plaintiff 

should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of 

adding new defendants for unrelated issues. 

If Plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended complaint 

supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir.

2012) (en banc), and it must be complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer 

serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 

each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended 

complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “Second Amended Complaint,” refer to the 

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either:

(1) File a Second Amended Complaint attempting to cure the deficiencies 

identified in this order; or

(2) Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file a Second Amended 

complaint and is instead willing to proceed only on the free exercise of 

religion under the First Amendment and RLUIPA against Defendant 

Bowman.

3. Should Plaintiff choose to amend the complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 

amended complaint “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 

1:14-cv-00415-EPG-PC; and

Case 1:14-cv-00415-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 04/27/16 Page 8 of 9
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

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure 

to comply with a Court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00415-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 04/27/16 Page 9 of 9