Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07222/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07222-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DeQuan Lamont Thomas
Plaintiff
J. Young
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEQUAN LAMONT THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHAPLAIN J. YOUNG,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-07222-DMR (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner who was previously incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison 

(“SVSP”), has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that 

Defendant SVSP Chaplain J. Young refused to provide him with religious meals that 

accommodates his religious beliefs in violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff seeks 

monetary and punitive damages. 

This matter has been assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 3. Plaintiff has 

consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. 4. 

His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted in a separate written 

Order. 

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred at 

SVSP in Monterey County, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard Of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 

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 

Case 4:18-cv-07222-DMR Document 7 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

that 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. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1988). 

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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. First Amendment Claim

Plaintiff claims that he was denied his religious meals at SVSP beginning on the date of his 

arrival at the prison on January 10, 2018 and for fifty-six days thereafter. Dkt. 1 at 3. Inmates 

“have the right to be provided with food sufficient to sustain them in good health that satisfies the 

dietary laws of their religion.” McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 198 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Allegations that prison officials refuse to provide a healthy diet conforming to sincere religious 

beliefs states a cognizable claim under section 1983 of denial of the right to exercise religious 

practices and beliefs. See Ward v. Walsh, 1 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 1993) (Jewish inmate claiming 

denial of kosher diet), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1192 (1994); McElyea, 833 F.2d at 198 (same); 

Moorish Science Temple, Inc. v. Smith, 693 F.2d 987, 990 (2d Cir. 1982) (Muslim inmate claiming 

denial of proper religious diet). Plaintiff states that Defendant Young is responsible for denying 

him his religious meals at SVSP. This claim is sufficient to proceed against Defendant Young.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable First Amendment claim against Defendant

Young.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of 

Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint 

and all attachments thereto (Dkt. 1), a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, and a copy of 

this Order to SVSP Chaplain J. Young. The Clerk shall also mail a copy of the complaint and a 

Case 4:18-cv-07222-DMR Document 7 Filed 04/08/19 Page 2 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

copy of this Order to the State Attorney General’s Office in San Francisco. Additionally, the 

Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

3. Defendant is cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 

them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. Pursuant 

to Rule 4, if Defendant, after being notified of this action and asked by the court, on behalf of 

Plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so, they will be required to bear the cost of 

such service unless good cause be shown for their failure to sign and return the waiver form. If 

service is waived, this action will proceed as if Defendant had been served on the date that the 

waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendant will not be required to serve 

and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent. 

(This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of summons is 

necessary.) Defendant is asked to read the statement set forth at the foot of the waiver form that 

more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to waiver of service of the 

summons. If service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before Defendant has been 

personally served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for 

waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 

Defendant shall also respond to the Notice of Assignment of Prisoner Case to a United States 

Magistrate Judge for Trial by filing a consent/declination form on the date the Answer is 

due. 

4. Defendant shall answer the complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. The following briefing schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action:

a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date their answer is due, Defendant 

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion must be 

supported by adequate factual documentation, must conform in all respects to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56, and must include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from 

the events at issue. A motion for summary judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand1notice 

 

1 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).

Case 4:18-cv-07222-DMR Document 7 Filed 04/08/19 Page 3 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

so that Plaintiff will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of him in order to 

oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out 

in Rand must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment). A motion to dismiss 

for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies must be accompanied by a similar notice. 

However, the court notes that under the new law of the circuit, in the rare event that a failure to 

exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint, Defendant may move for dismissal under Rule 

12(b)(6) as opposed to the previous practice of moving under an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. 

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 

F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), which held that failure to exhaust available administrative 

remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), should be raised by a 

defendant as an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion). Otherwise if a failure to exhaust is not clear on 

the face of the complaint, Defendant must produce evidence proving failure to exhaust in a motion 

for summary judgment under Rule 56. Id. If undisputed evidence viewed in the light most 

favorable to Plaintiff shows a failure to exhaust, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment under 

Rule 56. Id. But if material facts are disputed, summary judgment should be denied and the 

district judge rather than a jury should determine the facts in a preliminary proceeding. Id. at 

1168.

If Defendant is 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 Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the court 

and served on Defendant no later than twenty-eight (28) days after the date on which Defendant’s 

motion is filed. 

c. Plaintiff is advised that 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 

Case 4:18-cv-07222-DMR Document 7 Filed 04/08/19 Page 4 of 7
5

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

Northern District of California

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 contradicts 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. Rand, 154 

F.3d at 962-63.

Plaintiff also is advised that—in the rare event that Defendant argues that the failure to 

exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint—a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit without 

prejudice. To avoid dismissal, you have the right to present any evidence to show that you did 

exhaust your available administrative remedies before coming to federal court. Such evidence 

may include: (1) declarations, which are statements signed under penalty of perjury by you or 

others who have personal knowledge of relevant matters; (2) authenticated documents—

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; (3) statements 

in your complaint insofar as they were made under penalty of perjury and they show that you have 

personal knowledge of the matters state therein. As mentioned above, in considering a motion to 

dismiss for failure to exhaust under Rule 12(b)(6) or failure to exhaust in a summary judgment 

motion under Rule 56, the district judge may hold a preliminary proceeding and decide disputed 

issues of fact with regard to this portion of the case. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1168.

(The notices above do not excuse Defendant’s obligation to serve similar notices again 

concurrently with motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies and 

motions for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 935.)

d. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after the 

date Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.

Case 4:18-cv-07222-DMR Document 7 Filed 04/08/19 Page 5 of 7
6

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

Northern District of California

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.

5. Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Leave of the court pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendant to depose 

Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

6. All communications by Plaintiff with the court must be served on Defendant or 

their counsel, once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to them.

7. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. 

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se whose address changes 

while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new 

address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when: (1) mail 

directed to the pro se party by the court has been returned to the court as not deliverable, and 

(2) the court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro 

se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b). 

8. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be 

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2019 

______________________________________

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-07222-DMR Document 7 Filed 04/08/19 Page 6 of 7
7

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEQUAN LAMONT THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. YOUNG,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:18-cv-07222-DMR 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 8, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

DeQuan Lamont Thomas ID: AI5898

3000 W. Cecil Avenue

Delano, CA 93216-6000 

Dated: April 8, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable DONNA M. RYU

Case 4:18-cv-07222-DMR Document 7 Filed 04/08/19 Page 7 of 7