(PC) Sariaslan v. Rackley et al., No. 2:2015cv02492 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/15/18 ORDERING Service is appropriate for defendants Polasik and Rackley. The clerk of the court shall send plaintiff 1 summons, instruction sheet, 2 USM-285 forms and a copy of the 12/06/17 amended complaint to be completed and returned within 30 days. The clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's RLUIPA claim for damages against both defendants and his RLUIPA claim for injunctive relief against defendant Polasik be DISMISSED without leave to amend. Assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF

(PC) Sariaslan v. Rackley et al. Doc. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAMIN SARIASLAN, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-2492-EFB P Plaintiff, v. RONALD RACKLEY, et al., ORDER SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action 18 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After dismissal of the original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915A, plaintiff has filed an amended complaint which must be screened. 20 Congress mandates that district courts engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which 21 prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental 22 entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the 23 complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 24 state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who 25 is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 26 The amended complaint alleges that the administration at Folsom State Prison had 27 approved Ramadan participants to purchase specialty religious packages for religious food items, 28 including raisins, honey, and dates, all of which hold special meaning during Ramadan. On May 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 24, 2014, plaintiff ordered raisins, honey, and dates, but never received them. The Community 2 Services Manager, defendant Polasik, informed plaintiff by memorandum that because of changes 3 in the regulations governing approved personal property, the items ordered by plaintiff were not 4 allowed. He explained further that the raisins had spoiled during a week-long lockdown, and that 5 plaintiff could donate, dispose of, or send the honey and dates to another location at his expense. 6 Plaintiff claims that to this day, prisoners at Folsom State Prison are prohibited from ordering a 7 religious package with food in it for the month of Ramadan. 8 Based on the above allegations, plaintiff claims that defendants Polasik and Warden 9 Rackley violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 10 (“RLUIPA”) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by intentionally denying him 11 religious food for a religious purpose. ECF No. 25 at 8, 9. Plaintiff may proceed in this case with 12 his First Amendment claims against defendants Polasik and Rackley. See McElyea v. Babbitt, 13 833 F.2d 196, 198 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoners have the right to food which satisfies the dietary 14 laws of their religion). RLUIPA, however, does not allow for monetary damages against 15 individual defendants. Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 902-04 (9th Cir. 2014). Therefore, 16 plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims for damages must be dismissed without leave to amend. As for 17 injunctive relief, RLUIPA allows injunctive relief from an official who could appropriately 18 respond to a court order on injunctive relief should one ever be issued. See Jones v. Williams, 19 791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. June 26, 2015); Ryles v. Felker, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107591, 20 2008 WL 1901231, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2008). Plaintiff alleges that defendant Polasik is no 21 longer employed at Folsom State Prison. ECF No. 25 at 2. Thus, defendant Polasik could not 22 appropriately respond to a court order for injunctive relief and this claim too, must be dismissed 23 without leave to amend. Plaintiff may therefore proceed in this case with his RLUIPA claim for 24 injunctive relief against defendant Rackley only. 25 26 Accordingly, the court ORDERS that 1. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient to state potentially cognizable 27 First Amendment free exercise claims against defendants Polasik and Rackley, and 28 a RLUIPA claim for injunctive relief against defendant Rackley. 2 1 2. With this order the Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, 2 a copy of the December 6, 2017 amended complaint, two USM-285 forms and 3 instructions for service of process on defendants Polasik and Rackley. Within 30 4 days of service of this order plaintiff may return the attached Notice of Submission 5 of Documents with the completed summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and 6 three copies of the endorsed complaint. The court will transmit them to the United 7 States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of 8 Civil Procedure. Defendants will be required to respond to plaintiff’s allegations 9 within the deadlines stated in Rule 12(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 10 Procedure. 11 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action. 12 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District 13 14 Judge to this action. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim for damages against both 15 defendants and his RLUIPA claim for injunctive relief against defendant Polasik be DISMISSED 16 without leave to amend. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 19 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 20 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 21 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 22 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 23 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 DATED: May 15, 2018. 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RAMIN SARIASLAN, 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 No. 2:15-cv-2492-EFB P v. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS RONALD RACKLEY, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s Screening Order: 16 1 19 completed forms USM-285 3 18 completed summons form 2 17 copies of the endorsed December 6, 2017 amended complaint 20 ____________________________ 21 22 Plaintiff Dated: 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.