Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00157/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00157-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

DAMIEN MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

S.R. ALBRITTON, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-0157 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.)

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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 which 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). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

Case 5:16-cv-00157-LHK Document 4 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

679 (2009). 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

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

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff is a practicing Muslim incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison ("SQSP"). 

As part of his religious beliefs, plaintiff must pray five times daily at specified times:

specifically at Zhur (noon) and Asr (afternoon) prayer during "opening dayroom" when all

prisoners are allowed to participate in recreational activities. 

Initially, Muslim prisoners on the West Block at SQSP were not permitted to engage

in congregational prayer groups with more than four Muslim prisoners during "open

dayroom" even though a group of about 25 Christian prisoners was simultaneously offering

a congregational prayer and was not interrupted by correctional staff. Plaintiff and other

Muslim prisoners filed a group administrative grievance, complaining that they were being

discriminated against based on their religion. At the third level of review, plaintiff's appeal

was granted, and the complaint was referred to the Religious Review Committee. The

Case 5:16-cv-00157-LHK Document 4 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Religious Review Committee decided to allow Muslim prisoners at SQSP to participate in

congregational prayer of no more than 15 prisoners during "open dayroom."

However, defendants Albritton and Kluger ordered plaintiff to discontinue offering

congregational Zhur and Asr prayer during open dayroom. Plaintiff was told that he could

offer one congregational prayer per day during "open dayroom" between 7:30 p.m. and

9:00 p.m. Plaintiff filed an administrative group appeal the next day against defendants. At

the third level of review, plaintiff's appeal was granted, and the warden was ordered to have

another Religious Review Committee to modify the prior order in order to offer

congregational prayer five times a day, especially during "open dayroom."

In the underlying federal complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants have refused to

comply with this third level of review directive, and prison officials have not conducted a

Religious Review Committee meeting. Plaintiff also alleges that Muslim prisoners are

currently not allowed to meet in groups of five or more for congregational prayer groups

while Christians and Jewish prisoners are permitted to meet for congregational prayer as

often as they want during "open dayroom."

Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated cognizable claims that defendants violated

the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, First Amendment Establishment Clause, First

Amendment right against retaliation, Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection, and

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

CONCLUSION

1. The clerk shall issue a summons and Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form

and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, the summons,

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, copies of the complaint with attachments and

copies of this order on defendants: Associate Warden S.R. Albritton and Correctional Lt. R.

Kluger at San Quentin State Prison.

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows:

a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, defendants shall file a

Case 5:16-cv-00157-LHK Document 4 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion 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, they shall so inform the court prior to the date the summary

judgment motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be promptly served on the

plaintiff.

b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendants shall also serve,

on a separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154

F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.

4 (9th Cir. 2003). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand and

Wyatt notices must be given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss

for nonexhaustion is filed, not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement). 

c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the

court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion was

served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed "NOTICE -- WARNING,"

which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir.

1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff failed to exhaust his

available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff should take

note of the attached page headed "NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)," which is

provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).

d. If defendants wishes to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than

fifteen days after the opposition is served upon them. 

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. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendants, or

Case 5:16-cv-00157-LHK Document 4 Filed 03/25/16 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

document to defendants or defendants' counsel.

4. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the

parties may conduct discovery.

5. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

of Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2016. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-00157-LHK Document 4 Filed 03/25/16 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case

dismissed. 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 declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or

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

the defendant's 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. 

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION) 

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, they are

seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.

You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that you

did exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of

declarations (statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents,

that is, documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and

why they are authentic, or other sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or

depositions. If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust and it

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

Case 5:16-cv-00157-LHK Document 4 Filed 03/25/16 Page 6 of 6