(PC) El-Shaddai v. Clark, et al, No. 1:2009cv00103 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER DISMISSING 14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT For Failure to State a Claim, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; and ORDER DENYING 13 and 15 Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 4/12/2010. Second Amended Complaint due by 5/17/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form). (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) El-Shaddai v. Clark, et al Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADONAI EL-SHADDAI aka JAMES R. WILKERSON, 1:09-cv-00103-SMS-PC 12 ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, WITH LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 KEN CLARK, WARDEN, et al., 15 16 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Docs. 13, 15.) Defendants. 17 THIRTY DAY DEADLINE 18 / 19 20 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 21 Plaintiff Adonai El-Shaddai aka James R. Wilkerson1 (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner in the 22 custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and is proceeding pro se and 23 in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action 24 on January 5, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On January 26, 2009, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a 25 Magistrate Judge, and no other parties have appeared in this action. (Doc. 6.) Therefore, pursuant 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff adopted a religious name, Adonai El-Shaddai, upon his conversion to Islam. In light of the numerous documents attached to Plaintiff’s amended complaint which identify him by his committed name, James R. W ilkerson, and of the uncertainty regarding the present legal status of Plaintiff’s religious name, both Plaintiff’s religious name and committed name have been included in the caption. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall 2 conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is 3 required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3). 4 The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and issued an order on 5 October 6, 2009, requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the court that he 6 was willing to proceed on the claims found cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 12.) On October 16, 7 2009, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now before the Court for screening. 8 (Doc. 14.) 9 Plaintiff has also filed two motions for preliminary injunctive relief, in which he requests the 10 Court to order prison officials to process all of his CDC-602 Inmate Appeals, to refrain from 11 retaliating against him for filing this action or any CDC-602 Inmate Appeal, and to refrain from 12 transferring him to another institution during the pendency of this action. (Docs. 13, 15.) 13 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 14 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 15 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 16 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 17 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 18 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 19 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 20 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a 21 claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 22 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 23 is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 24 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 25 do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 26 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 27 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. While factual 28 allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949. 2 1 III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison in Imperial, California, 3 brings this action for violations of his rights under the First Amendment of the United States 4 Constitution. The events at issue occurred when Plaintiff was incarcerated at the California 5 Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran, California (“SATF”). Plaintiff 6 names as defendants Ken Clark (Warden of SATF), S. Zinani (Appeals Coordinator at SATF), and 7 N. Grannis (Chief of Inmate Appeals) (“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants refused to 8 issue him prayer oils, in violation of his rights to practice his religion, and failed to process his 9 inmate appeals, denying him access to the courts. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. 10 On September 25, 2008, Plaintiff sent three inmate appeals to defendant Clark because 11 defendant Zinani had refused to process the three appeals. Based upon a follow-up letter to 12 defendant Clark on October 15, 2008, the appeals were then forwarded to defendant Zinani who 13 deliberately misplaced or destroyed the appeals, as well as another appeal dated August 25, 2008. 14 On October 30, 2008, Plaintiff submitted a staff complaint against Zinani for destroying the 15 appeals. On November 3, 2008, Zinani rejected the appeal as a duplicate and because Plaintiff filed 16 it on the wrong form. 17 On November 5, 2008, Plaintiff resubmitted the appeal to Zinani with notice that it was a 18 staff complaint. Pursuant to CCR 3084.5(e), Zinani was prohibited from participating in the 19 reviewing process. On November 13, 2008, Zinani returned the appeal with a second response 20 stating the appeal had been cancelled. 21 On November 16, 2008, Plaintiff forwarded the appeal to defendant Grannis for a Third 22 Level response. On December 9, 2008, Grannis rejected the appeal and referred Plaintiff back to 23 Zinani. 24 On September 13, 2008, Plaintiff submitted a second CDC-602 appeal when Zinani failed 25 to answer the August 25, 2008 appeal concerning Plaintiff’s religious artifacts (prayer oils), and 26 /// 27 /// 28 3 1 Zinani refused to give Plaintiff the prayer oils, directing Plaintiff to attach supporting documents that 2 Plaintiff had submitted with the original appeal that was destroyed by Zinani.2 3 On October 8, 2008, Plaintiff submitted a complaint to the CDC Office of Internal Affairs 4 with a CDC-602 appeal Zinani had refused to process, requesting an investigation into Zinani’s 5 refusal to process the appeal. Plaintiff did not receive an answer before filing this lawsuit. 6 IV. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 7 A. 8 Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 9 in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis 10 added). The Supreme Court recently emphasized that the term “supervisory liability,” loosely and 11 commonly used by both courts and litigants alike, is a misnomer. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. 12 “Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates 13 under a theory of respondeat superior.” Id. at 1948. Rather, each government official, regardless 14 of his or her title, is only liable for his or her own misconduct, and therefore, Plaintiff must 15 demonstrate that each defendant, through his or her own individual actions, violated Plaintiff’s 16 constitutional rights. Id. at 1948-49. 17 Claim Against Defendant Clark In this action, Plaintiff seeks to impose liability on Warden Ken Clark based on his legal 18 responsibility for the operation of SATF and for the welfare of the prisoners incarcerated there. 19 (Doc. 14, Amend. Comp. at 4 ¶3.) Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not describe any personal act 20 by Defendant Clark during the appeals process or in the violation of Plaintiff’s religious rights. The 21 allegation that Plaintiff sent appeals and a follow-up letter to Defendant Clark does not show 22 personal participation by Defendant Clark in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Defendant Clark’s 23 position as warden, alone, does not render him liable for the conduct of his staff, and Plaintiff fails 24 to state a claim against him. 25 /// 26 27 28 2 Plaintiff submits as Exhibit B a copy of his CDC-602 appeal dated September 13, 2008, in which he requests receipt of the prayer oils he ordered from the Dawah Book Shop. 4 1 B. 2 To the extent that defendant Zinani violated state law, section 1983 provides no avenue for 3 redress as the violation of state law does not form the basis for a federal constitutional claim. Nurre 4 v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2009); Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 5 1391 (9th Cir. 1997). Further, Plaintiff may not proceed on a claim for violation of the Due Process 6 Clause because there is no federally protected interest at stake with respect to the prison grievance 7 system. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 8 (9th Cir. 1988); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001). 9 C. Violation of State Law and Due Process Clause Denial of Access to the Courts 10 Plaintiff’s claim for denial of access to the courts also fails. Because Plaintiff does not have 11 a constitutionally protected right to a grievance procedure or to the processing of his grievances, e.g., 12 Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 860, Defendants’ refusal to process Plaintiff’s appeals , without more, provides 13 no basis for the imposition of liability under section 1983. Under certain circumstances not 14 presented here, the wrongful rejection of an appeal that leads to the dismissal of qualifying litigation 15 might give rise to a claim for denial of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351- 16 55 (1996). 17 Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Id. at 346. However, 18 the right of access is merely the right to bring to court a grievance the inmate wishes to present, and 19 is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions. Id. at 354. The State 20 is not required to enable the inmate to discover grievances or to litigate effectively once in court, id., 21 and an inmate claiming interference with or denial of access to the courts must show that he suffered 22 an actual injury, id. at 351. 23 Until and unless Plaintiff suffers an “actual injury” to a case as a result of a wrongful 24 rejection of his appeal, no claim for denial of access to the courts accrues. Id. In this instance, 25 Plaintiff filed suit on January 5, 2009, at which time no actual injury had yet occurred as a result of 26 the rejection of Plaintiff’s appeals. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any of the 27 defendants for denial of access to the courts. 28 5 1 D. 2 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated his rights to practice his religion. “Inmates 3 . . . retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, including its directive that no law shall 4 prohibit the free exercise of religion.” O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987) 5 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The protections of the Free Exercise Clause are triggered 6 when prison officials substantially burden the practice of an inmate’s religion by preventing him 7 from engaging in conduct which he sincerely believes is consistent with his faith. Shakur v. Schriro, 8 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008); Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 1997), 9 overruled in part by Shakur, 514 F.3d at 884-85. Free Exercise Claim 10 Plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to practice his religion. Cruz v. Beto, 405 11 U.S. 319, 322 (1972). The Constitution does not require prison officials to immediately accede to 12 every request for accommodation that happens to be based in religion. 13 Plaintiff cannot base his religious claim on Defendants’ refusal to process his appeals 14 requesting receipt of the prayer oils he ordered. As stated above, Plaintiff does not have a 15 constitutionally protected right to a grievance procedure or to the processing of his grievances. 16 Plaintiff offers no other facts in the amended complaint demonstrating that any of the defendants 17 substantially burdened the practice of his religion by preventing him from engaging in conduct which 18 he sincerely believes is consistent with his faith, or that he has not been afforded a reasonable 19 opportunity to practice his religion. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for denial of his rights 20 to free exercise of religion. 21 E. 22 On October 16, 2009 and January 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed motions for preliminary injunctive 23 relief, requesting the court to order prison officials to process all of his CDC-602 Inmate Appeals, 24 to refrain from retaliating against him for filing this action or any CDC-602 Inmate Appeal, and to 25 refrain from transferring him to another institution during the pendency of this action. (Docs. 13, 26 15.) 27 /// Preliminary Injunctive Relief 28 6 1 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 2 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff 3 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is 4 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips 5 in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An 6 injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 7 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 8 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must 9 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 10 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and 11 State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 12 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has 13 no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] 14 if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may 15 not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States 16 Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 17 The case or controversy requirement cannot be met with regard to Plaintiff’s requests for 18 court orders requiring prison officials to refrain from retaliating against him for filing this action or 19 any CDC-602 Inmate Appeal, and to refrain from transferring him to another institution during the 20 pendency of this action. These issues Plaintiff seeks to remedy bear no relation, jurisdictionally, to 21 the past events at SATF giving rise to this suit. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); 22 also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1148-49 (2009); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better 23 Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998). 24 With regard to Plaintiff’s request for Defendants to process all of his CDC 602 Inmate 25 Appeals, the court lacks jurisdiction because none of the defendants have yet appeared in this action. 26 As stated above, a federal court “may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 27 court.” Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727 (emphasis added). Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, 28 7 1 Plaintiff has not stated any claims for relief which are cognizable under federal law.3 As a result, 2 the Court has no jurisdiction at this time to award any preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, 3 Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief shall be denied. 4 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 5 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief can be 6 granted under section 1983 against any of the Defendants. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules 7 of Civil Procedure, leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” The court will 8 provide Plaintiff with time to file a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified 9 above should he wish to do so. 10 Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Second Amended Complaint how the conditions 11 complained of resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 12 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is 13 plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Plaintiff must 14 also demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones, 15 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added). 16 Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for 17 the purposes of adding new defendants relating to issues arising after January 5, 2009. In addition, 18 Plaintiff should take care to include only those claims that have been exhausted prior to the initiation 19 of this suit on January 5, 2009. 20 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 21 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint 22 supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an 23 amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. 24 Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement 25 of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The Second Amended Complaint should be clearly 26 27 3 By this order, the court dismisses Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. 28 8 1 and boldly titled “Second Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an 2 original signed under penalty of perjury. 3 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; 5 2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, with 6 leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of 7 service of this order; 8 3. 9 Plaintiff shall caption the Second Amended Complaint “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 1:09-cv-00103-SMS-PC; 10 4. 11 Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on October 16, 2009 and January 15, 2010, are denied; and 12 5. 13 If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: icido3 April 12, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
