(PC) Gaston v. Marean, No. 1:2018cv00569 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations In Part, Dismissing Action for Failure to State a Claim, and Allowing for Amended Complaint, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/28/18. Amended Complaint Due Within Twenty One Days. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 RANARD GASTON Plaintiff 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:18-CV-569 AWI-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART, DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND ALLOWING FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT v. BRETT MAREAN Defendant (Doc. Nos. 1, 13) 14 15 16 Plaintiff Kareem J. Howell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 On April 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant discriminated against 18 him by cutting off several “dreads” and disrespecting his “Rasta” religious practices in violation of 19 the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Doc. No. 1. On June 29, 2018, the Magistrate Judge 20 issued findings and recommendations that this action be dismissed with prejudice for the failure to 21 state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Doc. No. 13. The findings and recommendations 22 were served on Plaintiff, and notified Plaintiff any objections must be filed within fourteen days of 23 service of the order. Id. at 5-6. On July 17, 2018, Plaintiff timely filed objections. Doc. No. 14. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a 25 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 26 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis as applied to 27 Plaintiff’s original Complaint. See Doc. Nos. 1, 13. This includes the Magistrate Judge’s findings 28 that Plaintiff failed to express a Free Exercise claim under the First Amendment due to the 1 Complaint’s lack of facts indicating he was “substantially burdened” by Defendant’s alleged 2 conduct. See Doc. No. 13, at p. 4. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that Defendant’s 3 cutting off of four dreadlocks did not significantly oppress Plaintiff to any great extent. Id. (citing 4 Int’l Church of Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro, 673 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011) 5 (ruling that Government action substantially burdens the exercise of religion when the action is 6 “oppressive to a significantly great extent[,]” and must either “impose a significantly great 7 restriction or onus upon such exercise” or put “substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his 8 behavior and to violate his beliefs.”). 9 However, the Court recognizes Plaintiff has proffered additional assertions in his 10 objections that speak to this “substantial burden” requirement. See Doc. No. 14. Therein, 11 Plaintiff restates his commitment to the “Rasta Religion,” his belief that dreadlocks are an 12 important component, and his allegations that Defendant cut the dreads in an act of deception. Id. 13 at p. 2. Plaintiff then states that the four dreadlocks cut “were the main Four locks that showed the 14 longest length, stripping Plaintiff of his position to teach in the higher religious meetings, and 15 along with that his respect in the community as a sacred leader and advisor.” Id. Plaintiff 16 concludes his objections by stating Defendant’s actions “interferred [sic] with Plaintiff’s ability to 17 practice his method of Rasta-Religion,” and because of this, Plaintiff “lost his position as 18 ‘Teacher/Menter’ [sic],” was deprived of his ability “to attend the Meetings held by Leaders only,” 19 and has otherwise lost privileges restricting his ability to practice his religion. Id. Since the Court 20 will not question the sincerity of Plaintiff’s beliefs at this early stage of the litigation, see Shakur 21 v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (2008), it is evident that these additional allegations, if properly 22 expressed in a complaint, would make Plaintiff’s claim sufficient to state a claim for relief under 23 the First Amendment. See Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853, 862 (2015) (holding that a prison's 24 policy forbidding a prisoner to grow a beard of a certain length, which the prisoner sincerely 25 believed was required by his religion, substantially burdened the prisoner even though the prison 26 permitted him to engage in other religious practices, such as following a specified diet and keeping 27 a prayer rug in his cell); Nance v. Miser, 700 F. App'x 629, 632 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding that 28 defendant’s refusal to allow plaintiff certain religious artifacts substantially burdened him for 2 1 purposes of his free exercise claim); see also Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450 (2012) (Posner, J.) 2 (finding plaintiff’s religious belief that he must wear dreadlocks to be religiously motivated, and 3 implicitly recognizing the prison’s refusal to allow him dreadlocks was a substantial burden on his 4 religious expression). 5 Thus, Plaintiff will be allowed to amend his complaint in order to properly express his 6 First Amendment Free Exercise claim. Plaintiff is reminded that any forthcoming “First Amended 7 Complaint” must be complete in itself, should not refer to any earlier pleadings, and should 8 express the entirety of his Free Exercise claim as guided by the Findings and Recommendations 9 and this Order. 10 ORDER 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 2, 2018 (Doc No. 13) are adopted in 13 full as to the dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim, and adopted 14 in part as to dismissal of Plaintiff’s Free Exercise claim; 15 2. 16 17 Plaintiff is granted leave to file a “First Amended Complaint” on his First Amendment Free Exercise claim, due 21 days from the date of service of this Order; 3. Should Plaintiff fail to file a First Amended Complaint within time-period, Plaintiff’s 18 Free Exercise claim will be dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court will be 19 ordered to close this case. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 28, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
