Evans v. Cisneros

1

CLEVELAND EVANS, Plaintiff, v. CISNEROS, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-01238-AWI-BAM (PC)

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 29, 2023

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF NO. 13)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Cleveland Evans (“Plaintiff”') is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C § 1983. The Court screened Plaintiffs complaint, and Plaintiff was granted leave to amend. Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed on March 6, 2023, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 13.)

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[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) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, 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).

To survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff's Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California. The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility (“SATF”). Plaintiff names as defendants: (1) John Doe, correctional food manager; (2) A. Rodriguez, supervisor correctional cook; (3) Moua, correctional officer; (4) L. Ruiz, correctional officer; (5) F. Barraza, correctional officer; (6) Gomez, correctional officer; and (7) Jane Doe, correctional officer. Defendants are being sued in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiff alleges that each of the Defendants “had knowledge of Plaintiff's dietary requirements.”

Plaintiff is a practicing member (Muslim) of the Islamic faith. An essential element of the Islamic faith relates to the “diet of practicing Muslims.” As dictated in the “Holy Quran,” primary religious source, dietary requirements are identified in the context of lawful “Halal” food versus unlawful foods for consumption. At issue here is Halal food not being provided. Plaintiff contends he has a First Amendment right to be afforded a religious diet.

Plaintiff holds a sincere belief in the Islamic Faith and adheres to the dietary requirements cited in the Holy Quran (Chapter(s) 2 verse 168, 172, 173; Chapter 5, verse 3, 4, 5.) Plaintiff has received prior approval per procedural regulation to receive Halal food. The Defendants have failed to afford Plaintiff such rights. The failure of the Defendants amount to Plaintiff being denied his First Amendment right in religious freedom.

“Plaintiff contends that over a (9) nine month period while housed in administrative segregation unit (Ad-Seg) Plaintiff was forced to contest with prison officials over being provided (Halal Food) religious diet. After several informal and formal ‘requests for interview(s) and inmate appeals' addressed to the prison food manager, supervisor(s), including some of the Defendants cited herein the Plaintiff has been left with no other remedy to address the failure of providing Plaintiff with a religious diet. The failure of the Defendants constitute a violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment right (Free Exercise Clause).” (ECF No. 13 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that on average three days out of each week throughout the nine months, a religious diet was not provided. At the time of the events in the first amended complaint, Plaintiff was housed in Administrative Segregation, Section H, cell #199.

Plaintiff alleges that as early as October of 2021, prison officials including Defendant John Doe (food manager) were informed of Plaintiff not being allowed Halal food in several Inmate Requests for Interviews. In addition, Plaintiff had in-person confrontations with Defendants Moua, L. Ruiz, F. Barraza, Gomez, and Jane Doe about not being afforded Halal food. Plaintiff had written notices which included inmate complaints to Defendant John Doe in his role as Food Manger and who was informed or had knowledge of claim of deprivation of Halal food and was informed as often a reasonably possible given Plaintiff confinement in Ad-Seg. Defendant Moua informally claimed in one incident to have presented Plaintiff's concerns to Defendant John Doe.

Defendant A. Rodriguez was aware of Plaintiff's claims of not being given Halal food. In communications with Moua and Ruiz, Defendant Rodriguez knew Plaintiff was not being provided Halal food. Defendant Rodriguez had communication with several corrections officers, two of which were Defendants Moua and Ruiz. Defendant Rodriguez was tasked with reviewing Plaintiff's claims of deprivation. Defendant Rodriguez took no reasonable steps to address the merits of the claims and remediation, which was within his authority to remedy the situation.

Defendant Moua was tasked with distributing food to prisoners including Plaintiff housed in Ad-Seg, Section H. Throughout a five-day work week, Defendant Moua “noticed Plaintiff's ongoing complaints” of not receiving Halal food. One day, Halal food would be on the food cart, and the next day or two, there would be no religious diet food. Defendant Moua had expressed his efforts at informing other officials such as Defendant Rodriguez and John Doe. Defendant Moua took to documenting/responding to at least one inmate request for interview addressed to Moua, which shows that the many encounters with one formal response established Plaintiff did not receive a Halal food and Plaintiff was compelled to accept non-religious diet food. (ECF No. 13, ¶ 18.)

Defendant L. Ruiz had knowledge of Plaintiff's religious dietary requirements and made little to no tangible efforts to resolve the deprivation on several occasions. In communications with L. Ruiz, Ruiz always had baseless excuses as to why or who was to blame for no Halal food. In one confrontation, Ruiz said “I am not the food manager, 602 (appeal) the food manager.” Defendant Ruiz was wearing a body camera recording the conversation and the non-Halal food that Plaintiff was being compelled to accept. Defendant Ruiz, like all the rest of the Defendants, cultivated a culture of indifference in administrative segregation.

Defendant Barraza was tasked with distributing food to Section G and H. Plaintiff was housed in the last cell in the unit (#199). Before the food was passed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff asked Defendant Barraza to open the tray lid, which is a normal request for Plaintiff. Once Plaintiff removed the tray lid, Plaintiff saw that the breakfast tray of food was not Halal food. Defendant Barraza said that he would take the tray back and would locate a Halal food tray. When he returned he said, “There is no other food trays (no Halal food) and that officials (custody supervisors and the correctional food manager) is aware of the issues.” There was no meaningful effort to locate or obtain Halal food tray by Defendant, and Plaintiff was compelled to accept nonHalal food.

Defendant Gomez at one point was tasked with distributing food to prisoners housed in Ad-Seg Section G and H. Plaintiff was housed in the last cell #199. Defendants Gomez and Jane Doe on the day in question collectively caused the deprivation as they were both working in concert. As the Defendants approached Plaintiff's cell, Plaintiff was not able to complete the normal request of asking for the removal of the food tray lid. Defendants Gomez and Jane Doe had already taken the food tray lid off. As Defendant Gomez opened the food port, Defendant Jane Doe's “fingers” were inside of the portion of the container as she handed the food tray to Defendant Gomez, who put his fingers in the inside portion slot of the food tray. Plaintiff objected to the conditions under which both officers were serving food in violation of the Sanitation Standards of the Department Operations Manual 54080.18 and .20 were not being followed. Defendant Gomez took notice as did Jane Doe. However, no efforts were made by either defendant to remedy Plaintiff's sanitation concerns and afford Plaintiff a Halal meal. There was “an engage of words of disrespect” by both Defendants. Plaintiff was entitled to Halal food and Plaintiff was not provided Halal food.

Plaintiff objected to the manager about the manner in which food trays were being handled. Defendant Gomez and Jane Doe walked away from Plaintiff's cell...