Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01373/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01373-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Komin
Defendant
Mitchell
Defendant
Maurice Muhammad
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

MAURICE MUHAMMAD,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

KOMIN, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-01373-EPG (PC)

 

ORDER RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFF’S 

NOTIFICATION AND GIVING LEAVE TO 

FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 13)

Maurice Muhammad (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 

Complaint commencing this action on September 8, 2015 (ECF No. 1).

1

 

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (1AC) on October 3, 2016, (ECF No. 11) and 

this Court issued a screening order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A on December 19, 2016. 

(ECF No. 12.) This Court found that the 1AC states a cognizable claim against Defendants 

Komin and Mitchell in their individual capacities for violation of the First Amendment free 

exercise clause, as well as against Defendants Komin and Mitchell in their official capacities 

 

1

Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) 

(ECF No. 7), and no other parties have made an appearance. Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the 

Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case 

until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

Case 1:15-cv-01373-DAD-EPG Document 14 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 4
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

for violation of RLUIPA. (Id.) The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to state any other 

cognizable claims. (Id.) Specifically, the Court set out the standards applicable to First 

Amendment retaliation claims and found that Plaintiff has not alleged facts that, if true, would 

establish that Defendants Komin and Mitchell acted in retaliation for Plaintiff exercising his

constitutional rights, nor that Plaintiff’s conduct was chilled as a result. (Id. at 7.)

Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he is 

willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court, subject to an order that 

the non-cognizable claims be dismissed from the action. (Id. at 9.) The Court gave very 

detailed instructions concerning filing a Second Amended Complaint, if Plaintiff chose that 

option. (Id. at 9-10.)

On January 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that he is willing to 

proceed only on the cognizable First Amendment and RLUIPA claims against Defendants 

Komin and Mitchell. (ECF No. 13.) Additionally, Plaintiff included an addendum addressing 

the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. (See id. at 2.) In the context of that 

explanation, Plaintiff states that after he filed an 602 complaint against Komin and Mitchell for 

Ramadan/Eid violations, Komin and Mitchell banned the Nation of Islam’s Ramadan/Eid from 

Delano’s 2015 roster and was later subject to retaliation in the form of “physical assault and 

fraudulent write-ups for exercising his right to appeal.” (Id.)

The Court is not making a determination regarding exhaustion at this time. Exhaustion 

of administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, which Defendants may raise after the 

complaint has been served. That said, the allegations in the notification regarding exhaustion 

appear to give rise to a retaliation claim. The Court previously found that the First Amended 

Complaint did not adequately allege retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. However, 

if Plaintiff were to file an amended complaint that added the allegations that were in that 

notification, it is likely that the Court would permit a retaliation claim to go forward. 

The Court may not consider the additional allegations if they are not incorporated into 

an amended complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F 3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(en banc) (providing that an amended complaint supersedes the original and must be complete 

Case 1:15-cv-01373-DAD-EPG Document 14 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 4
3

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

in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading); see also CAED-LR 220

(providing that every pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter 

of right or has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in 

itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading). Therefore, if Plaintiff wishes to 

allege a retaliation claim based on the facts included in his notification (ECF No. 13), Plaintiff 

needs to file an amended complaint that includes the previous facts and claims that the Court 

found cognizable in its December 19, 2016 order (ECF No. 12) and add the facts that were 

included in Plaintiff’s January 19, 2017 notification (ECF No. 13).

The Court will thus permit an additional opportunity for Plaintiff to file an amended 

complaint within 30 days of this order. If the Plaintiff again elects to file a notice indicating 

that he is willing to go forward only on the cognizable claims, the Court will dismiss the 

retaliation claim. If the Plaintiff, instead, elects to file an amended complaint, the Court will 

screen the amended complaint pursuant to its authority in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If Plaintiff elects 

to file an amended complaint, he should closely follow the detailed instructions provided by the 

Court in its December 9, 2016, screening order. (ECF No. 12)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff:

a. a civil rights complaint form; and

b. a copy of the Court’s December 9, 2016 order (ECF No. 12)

2. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies 

identified by the Court in this order if he believes additional true factual 

allegations would state any additional claims or claims against any additional 

defendants, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order;

3. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 

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

1:15-cv-01373-EPG-PC; or

Case 1:15-cv-01373-DAD-EPG Document 14 Filed 02/10/17 Page 3 of 4
4

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. Plaintiff may instead notify the Court that he is willing to go forward with his 

complaint only on the claims allowed in this order, for the First Amendment 

Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims against Defendants Komin and Mitchell. 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or notify the Court to go forward 

with the cognizable claims within 30 days, the Court may dismiss Plaintiff’s 

case for failure to comply with a Court order.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2017 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 Again, the Court is not making any ruling at this time regarding the issue of exhaustion of 

administrative remedies.

Case 1:15-cv-01373-DAD-EPG Document 14 Filed 02/10/17 Page 4 of 4