Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01623/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01623-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bilal Ahdom
Plaintiff
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Defendant
F. Cote
Defendant
C. Etchebehere
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILAL AHDOM,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C. ETCHEBEHERE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01623-RRB

DISMISSAL ORDER

Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

a verified civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Ahdom’s complaint arises out of

his incarceration at the California Substance Abuse TreatmentFacility, Corcoran, California

(“CSATF”).

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

This Courtis required to screencomplaints brought byprisoners seeking reliefagainst

a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

2 This Court must

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

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that

1

Inadditionto Associate WardenC.Etchebehere,Ahdom names as Defendants: F.

Cote, Community Partnership Manager; the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation; and Does 1 through 20.

2 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

DISMISSAL ORDER

Ahdom v. Etchebehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 1

Case 1:13-cv-01623-DAD-GSA Document 17 Filed 04/21/15 Page 1 of 11
“seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

3 Likewise, a

prisoner must exhaust all administrative remedies as may be available,4irrespective of

whether those administrative remedies provide for monetary relief.

5

In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading

standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must

contain“a short and plainstatement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

6

“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does notrequire ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but

it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

7

Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied inFederal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), including the rule that complaints filed by pro se prisoners

are to be liberally construed, affording the prisoner the benefit of any doubt, and dismissal

should be granted only where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can plead no facts in

support of his claim that would entitle him or her to relief.

8

3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1126 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

4 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93–95 (2006) (“proper

exhaustion” under § 1997e(a)is mandatoryand requires proper adherence to administrative

proceduralrules);Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001) (exhaustionof administrative

remedies must be completed before filing suit).

5 See Booth, 532 U.S. at 734.

6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)).

8 Wilhelm v. Rotham, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012).

DISMISSAL ORDER

Ahdom v. Etchebehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 2

Case 1:13-cv-01623-DAD-GSA Document 17 Filed 04/21/15 Page 2 of 11
This requires the presentationoffactualallegations sufficient to state a plausible claim

for relief.

9

“[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s

liability. . . ‘stops short of the line betweenpossibilityand plausibilityofentitlementto relief.’”

10

Further, althougha court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint,

a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true.11“Threadbare recitals of the

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

12

II. GRAVAMEN OF COMPLAINT

Ahdom alleges three causes of action arising out of two separate incidents.

With respect to his first two causes of action Ahdom alleges that unidentified CDCR

officials at CSATF, Does 1 through 20, interfered withhis right to receive mail sent to him by

the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs (“VA”). According to Ahdom, he had applied to the

VA for disability benefits. Correspondence dated July 26, 2011, sent by the VA addressed

to Ahdom scheduling an examination at the VA’s Central California Healthcare System was

returned to the VA without notificationto Ahdom inviolationof CDCR regulations. According

to Ahdom he did not receive notice that his mail had been returned until May 2012. Ahdom

contends that, as a result of this failure, he was unable to attend the required VA examination,

which resulted in the denial of benefits.

9

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–69; see Moss v. U.S.SecretService,572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th

Cir. 2009) (quoting and applying Iqbal and Twombly).

10

Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

11

Id.

12

Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

DISMISSAL ORDER

Ahdom v. Etchebehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 3

Case 1:13-cv-01623-DAD-GSA Document 17 Filed 04/21/15 Page 3 of 11
In his First Cause of Action, entitled “Administrative Remedy,” Ahdom alleges a

violation of his First Amendment rights. In his Second Cause of Action Ahdom alleges that

in returning his mail Defendants acted with extreme indifference to his serious physical and

mental health, subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth

Amendment.

Ahdom’s administrative grievance was denied at the Director’s level.

This matter was reviewed onbehalfofthe Director of the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) by Appeals Examiner R. Manuel,

Captain. Allsubmitted documentationand supporting arguments of the parties

have been considered.

I APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT: It is the appellant's position that his

original appeal, Log #SATF-E-12~02995, was inappropriately cancelled by

institutional staff. The appellant relates that he submitted the aforementioned

appeal onJune 21, 2012; however, institutionalappeals staffrejected itonJune

25, 2012. The appeals staff issued him a CDC Form 695, Inmate/Parolee

Appeals Screening Form, informing him that he,"failed to provide proof that he

was not informed ofVA Letters until May 30, 2012." The appellant claims that

he resubmitted the appeal withthe required proof(VA letter post dated May25,

2012). However, appeals staff cancelled the appeal, documenting on a CDC

695, that he had exceeded time frames to file an appeal on returned letters

from 2011. The appeals staff further claimed that the date of the submitted VA

letter had been marked out, therefore, there was no wayto verifythe date of the

letter. The appellant disagrees with this conclusion and maintains that he

resubmitted the aforementioned appeal within the required time constraints.

The appellant requests on appeal that he be allowed to resubmit Appeal, Log

#SATF-E-12-02995, with a darker copy of the VA letter in question.

lI SECOND LEVEL’S DECISION: It is staff's position that the institution

is incompliance with state law and departmentalregulations inthe processing

of inmate appeals. The appeal was submitted outside of the time frames

prescribed by the regulations and was therefore rejected. The reviewer

affirmed that the appellant submitted the appeal inquestiononor about July27,

2012. However, he was unable to provide proof that he was not notified by the

VA until May 25, 2012. The date on the envelope he submitted had been

marked out; therefore, staff were unable to verify the post mark. In that the

appellant had ample time to submit an appeal regarding this issue, the appeal

was denied at the Second Level of Review (SLR).

DISMISSAL ORDER

Ahdom v. Etchebehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 4

Case 1:13-cv-01623-DAD-GSA Document 17 Filed 04/21/15 Page 4 of 11
III THIRD LEVEL DECISION: Appeal is denied.

A. FINDINGS: The documentation and arguments are persuasive that

the appellant failed to supporthis appeal issues withsufficient evidence

or facts to warrant modification of the SLR. The examiner notes the

appellant was advised that all inmates have a right to file a complaint

through the inmate appeals process. However, the appeal may be

cancelled if it is submitted beyond the prescribed time constraints if the

appellant had the opportunity to file within the appropriate time frames.

Anappellant must submit the CDCR Form 602, Inmate/Parolee Appeal

Form within 30 working days of the event or decision being appealed,

or of receiving an unacceptable lower level appeal decision. The

appellant submitted the CDCR Form, 602, more than 30 days after he

was aware of the circumstances which he felt adversely affected him.

As he did not submit the CDCR Form 602, within the required time

frames,itwas appropriatelycancelled. Furtherreview at the Third Level

of Review is not warranted.

B. BASIS FOR THE DECISION:

California Code of Regulations,Title 15,Section: 3001, 3084.3, 3084.6

C. ORDER: No changes or modifications are required by the

Institution.

13

Ahdom’s Third Cause ofAction, brought againstDefendants C.Etchebehere,F.Cote,

and Does 1 through 10, arises out of an alleged refusal to provide him with appropriate

religious meals.14In his Complaint Ahdom raises an amalgam of contentions regarding his

entitlement to appropriate religious meals covering a period spanning the period betweenon

or about June 1, 2013, and anunspecified date inSeptember 2013. AlthoughAhdom alleges

that he sought appropriate administrative relief, the documents attached to the Complaint as

Exhibit B address solely the denial of his Halalreligious meals between July 19 and July 25,

2012. With respect to that claim Ahdom was denied administrative relief at the Director’s

level.

13 Docket 1, p. 27.

14 Ahdom is a practicing adherent to the Muslim faith.

DISMISSAL ORDER

Ahdom v. Etchebehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 5

Case 1:13-cv-01623-DAD-GSA Document 17 Filed 04/21/15 Page 5 of 11
This matter was reviewed onbehalfofthe Director of the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation(CDCR) byAppeals ExaminerK. l. Allen. All

submitted documentation and supporting arguments of the parties have been

considered.

I APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT: It is the appellant's position that he was

unfairly denied his right to receive the Ramadan Meals at the California

Substance Abuse Treatment: Facility (SATF). The appellant claims that the

institutionrestricted him from participating in the Ramadan event based solely

upon the fact that he was not a participant in the religious Meat Alternative

Program (halal diet). The appellant contends that the institution's decision to

require that he be receiving the halaldietbefore he canparticipate inRamadan

was a violation of departmental rules and regulations.

The appellant requests that the illegalrequirement be reversed and that he be

provided withhis Ramadan meal and regular evening meal during the month of

Ramadan. The appellant also requested that he not be subjected to reprisals

for submitting this appeal.

II SECOND LEVEL’S DECISION: The reviewer found that following a

thorough review of the matter, staff at the SATF concluded that the institution

temporarily used the list of inmates receiving the halal diet as the list of

participants for Ramadan. Following the hiring of a new Muslim Chaplain, the

institutionchanged this policyand allowed those inmates wishing to participate

in Ramadan a chance to do so regardless of their diet.

The appeal was partially granted at the Second Level of Review in that the

appellant was allowed to participate in the end of Ramadan services.

Additionally, the appellant was advised that no reprisals will be, takenagainst

him for submitting this appeal. However, the appellant's request to receive

compensation for the Ramadan meals he missed could not be granted, as

those days had passed.

III THIRD LEVEL DECISION: Appeal is denied,

A. FINDINGS: Following analysis of the submitted documentation, the

Appeals Examiner has determined that the appellant's allegations have

been reviewed and properly evaluated by administrative staff at the

SATF. An appeal inquirywas conducted byChaplainHarbounand the

appeal was reviewed by the institution's Warden. Despite the

appellant's dissatisfaction, this review finds no evidence of a violation

of existing policy or regulation by the institution based upon the

arguments and evidence presented.

The appellant's appeal request that he not be required to participate in

the halal diet to be considered for participation in Ramadan services

was granted. Without a Muslim Chaplain, the institution attempted to

develop a list of participants for Ramadan services as expeditiously, as

possible. Following a review of this practice bythe newlyhired Muslim

DISMISSAL ORDER

Ahdom v. Etchebehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 6

Case 1:13-cv-01623-DAD-GSA Document 17 Filed 04/21/15 Page 6 of 11
Chaplain, institutional staff agreed that the requirement that inmates

must be receiving the halal diet was inappropriate, therefore, the

appellant was afforded the opportunity to participate in Ramadan

services. The appellant was informed that the Muslim Chaplain will

review inmate eligibility to participate in future Ramadan meals

accordingly. Further relief in this matter at the Third Level of Review is

unwarranted. The appellant added a request for monetary

compensation following the First Level of Review. While. the appellant

has the right to submit an appeal, his request for monetary

compensation is beyond the scope of the departmental appeals

process.

B. BASIS FOR THE DECISION:

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section: 3001, 3054, 3054 3,

3054.4, 3054.5, 3084.1, 3270, 3380

CDCR Operations Manual, Section: 54080.13, 54080.14

C. ORDER: No changes or modifications are required by the

Institution.

15

III. DISCUSSION

A. First Cause of Action

Analysis of Ahdom’s First Cause of Action starts with the proposition that prisoner’s

have a constitutionally protected First Amendment right to receive mail.

16 Likewise, any

interference with this right by prison officials must be “reasonably related to legitimate

penological interests.”

17 Furthermore, prison officials must provide notice to prisoners of a

decisionnot to deliver mail.

18 Ahdom’s firstCause ofActionclearlyfalls withinthe parameters

of these standards. That does not, however, end the Court’s inquiry.

15 Docket 1, pp. 47–48.

16 Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing

Thornburg v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 408 (1989)).

17 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

18 Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417–19 (1974).

DISMISSAL ORDER

Ahdom v. Etchebehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 7

Case 1:13-cv-01623-DAD-GSA Document 17 Filed 04/21/15 Page 7 of 11
As noted above, withrespect to his First Cause ofAction,Ahdom names solelyCDCR

and ten Does. Unfortunately for Ahdom, his suit against CDCR is barred by the Eleventh

Amendment.

19 Accordingly, as against CDCR, Ahdom’s claim must be dismissed without

leave to amend.20 Although in some circumstances a prisoner may be allowed to proceed

against Doe defendants,21this case does not fall within the ambit of those circumstances. In

this case,Ahdom does not name any CDCR official uponwhomthe complaint maybe served

who is or maybe liable underthis cause of action.

22 While the First Cause of Action must be

dismissed, to allow Ahdom to identify and name a CDCR official who is or may be liable

under the First Cause of Action, dismissal will be with leave to amend.

In amending his complaint Ahdom is reminded that, in addition to naming the

responsible CDCR officials, Ahdom must allege the existence of a compensable injury. That

is,Ahdommustallege and prove that but forthe actions of the defendants he would have been

permitted to attend the examination at the VA Center under otherwise applicable CDCR

regulations and received a favorable determinationas a result of that examination. Likewise,

19 Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009).

20 See Hartman v. California Dept. of Corr. and Rehab., 707 F.3d 1141, 1130 (9th

Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”).

21 See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that,

while the use of“JohnDoe”to identifya defendantis not favored, dismissal of Doe defendants

is improper if the identity of the Doe defendant may be ascertained through discovery).

22 The two individual defendants identified in his Third Cause of Action involve an

entirely separate claim based upon different facts, involving different rights, and arising at

different time. Nothing inthe discovery rules would permit this Court to compel either named

defendant to provide Ahdom with the names of the responsible officials.

DISMISSAL ORDER

Ahdom v. Etchebehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 8

Case 1:13-cv-01623-DAD-GSA Document 17 Filed 04/21/15 Page 8 of 11
Ahdom cannot prevail unless he can truthfully allege and prove that as a result of the

Defendants’ actions he is precluded from receiving VA benefits retroactively.

Finally, the Court notes that as part of Exhibit A to the Complaint Ahdom attached a

copy of a document bearing a VA letterhead entitled “Evidence.” It is noted that the exhibit

shows two matters: (1) a VA letter dated December 7, 2011, “requesting an examination

throughour private medical facility,” and (2) noting intwo places that Ahdom “did not show for

your Compensation and Pension Examination scheduled at QTC on May 4, 2010.”

23 While

the second notationconcerning the date Ahdom failed to appear for his examinationmaybe

the result of a typographical error,

24

the fact that the VA subsequently scheduled an

examination eviscerates Ahdom’s claim underlying his First Cause of Action.

25

B. Second Cause of Action

Ahdom’s Second Cause of Action suffers from the same infirmity as does his First

Cause of Action. In addition, the Second Cause of Action, whichappears to be based upon

anEighthAmendment theory, fails to state a cause of action. Reading the Complaint liberally

as the Court must, at most it alleges that the injuryAhdom suffered was the right to receive an

23 Docket 1, p. 38. The Court notes that the date of this document is not only blacked

out, but is indicative thatthe reasons that the VA denied Ahdom benefits were more likelythan

not unrelated to the failure to deliver Ahdom’s mail.

24 This is noted because the document lists matters in chronological order and the

notation regarding the May 4, 2010, examination appears both in its proper chronological

order and at the end, following the reference to the December 27, 2011, VA letter.

25 The Court further notes that the date on that Exhibit is not only blacked out, but

appears to be part of a subsequent decision of the VA to deny benefits. In amending his

Complaint Ahdom must include as an exhibit not only an unredacted copy of that exhibit, but

also the entire document of which that VA generated document is a part.

DISMISSAL ORDER

Ahdom v. Etchebehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 9

Case 1:13-cv-01623-DAD-GSA Document 17 Filed 04/21/15 Page 9 of 11
unspecified amount of compensation for a service connected disability. How this constitutes

cruel and unusual punishment withinthe scope of the Eighth Amendment is bothunexplained

and inexplicable. Consequently, the Second Cause ofActionwill be dismissed without leave

to amend.

C. Third Cause of Action

As noted above, the allegations underlying Ahdom’s Third Cause of Action and the

Exhibits attached to the Complaint are inconsistent. The Complaint alleges that he was

improperlydenied a change inhis religious meals, i.e., the imposition of a six-month waiting

period between the cancellation of a request for one religious meal and the right to substitute

replacement religious meal. The administrative appeal record attached to the Complaint

addresses anentirelyseparate issue, notpleaded inthe Complaint: the denial of Halal meals

during Ramadan. In short, the documents attached to the Complaint at best establish

exhaustionofremedies withrespect to one potential claim,but not the claim actuallypleaded.

While this Court must liberallyconstrue the pleadings ofpro seprisoners,as presentlydrafted,

the Third Cause of Action fails to state a cause of action on its face and, as such, must be

dismissed.

Because it is not evident thatAhdom cannot truthfullyplead a plausible cause ofaction,

dismissal in this instance must be with leave to amend. In amending his Complaint, Ahdom

may plead with respect to this claim: (1) solely his exhausted claim; (2) solely on his Third

Cause ofActionas presentlypleaded showing proper exhaustion; or(3) a combinationof the

two.

DISMISSAL ORDER

Ahdom v. Etchebehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 10

Case 1:13-cv-01623-DAD-GSA Document 17 Filed 04/21/15 Page 10 of 11
IV. ORDER

The Complaint onfile herein as against the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety without leave to amend.

The Second Cause of Actioninthe Complaint onfile hereinis herebyDISMISSED as

against all Defendants without leave to amend.

The First and Third Causes of Action in the Complaint on file herein are hereby

DISMISSED with leave to amend.

Plaintiff has through and including June 8, 2015, within which to file an amended

complaint consistent with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of April, 2015.

S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DISMISSAL ORDER

Ahdom v. Etchebehere, 1:13-cv-01623-RRB – 11

Case 1:13-cv-01623-DAD-GSA Document 17 Filed 04/21/15 Page 11 of 11