Harris v. Broomfield

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MAURICE LYDELL HARRIS, Case No. 21-cv-00283-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING DEADLINES, STAYING AND ADMINISTRATIVELY 9 v. CLOSING CASE

10 CLERIC MUHAMMAD (K. FASISH), et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at Corcoran State Prison (“CSP-Corcoran”), filed this pro se civil 14 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, the Court STAYS this 15 case pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal, VACATES the 16 pending deadlines, and directs the Clerk to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this action. 17 DISCUSSION 18 The operative complaint alleges that the requirement set forth by defendants San Quentin 19 State Prison chaplains K. Fasish (also referred to as Cleric Muhammad) and Jackson (Christian 20 chaplain), and Chaplain Charles Richey, the Community Resources Manager of the CDCR’s 21 Division of Adult Institution’s Religious Programs Oversight Unit – that Plaintiff refrain from 22 consuming ramen soups in order for Plaintiff to receive the Religious Meat Alternate Program 23 (“RMAP”) diet – violates the Free Exercise Clause, the Eighth Amendment, the Equal Protection 24 Clause, and the RLUIPA because ramen soups are consistent with Plaintiff’s religious beliefs, 25 ramen soups are necessary for Plaintiff to maintain his health, the requirement requires Plaintiff to 26 adhere to Islamic dietary laws, and the RMAP diet is the only prison diet consistent with 27 Plaintiff’s religious beliefs. See generally Dkt. Nos. 25, 29. 1 On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order that would 2 prohibit Defendants from denying him the ability to supplement the RMAP diet with non-Halal or 3 non-Kosher food items from the prison canteen or vendors, including the aforementioned ramen 4 soups. Dkt. No. 17. On August 1, 2022, the Court denied the request for a TRO/PI in a reasoned 5 order. Dkt. No. 22. Plaintiff filed a renewed request for a TRO/PI, requesting inter alia that the 6 Court order that Plaintiff be re-enrolled in the RMAP diet. Dkt. No. 39. On April 23, 2024, the 7 Court denied this request. Dkt. No. 47. On May 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal 8 with the Ninth Circuit, appealing the Court’s April 23, 2024 denial of his request for a preliminary 9 injunction/temporary restraining order. Dkt. No. 48. 10 Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal concerns the merits of this case and therefore divests this 11 court of jurisdiction over the case while the appeal is pending. Griggs v. Provident Consumer 12 Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (district court and court of appeals should not assert 13 simultaneous jurisdiction over same matter) (“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of 14 jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district 15 court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”). In light of the pending 16 interlocutory appeal, the Court exercises its discretion to stay the instant case pending resolution 17 of the appeal of the denial of preliminary injunction. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 18 (2009) (whether to stay action pending appeal is matter of court’s discretion); see also City of 19 Oakland v. Holder, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (staying action pending appeal 20 because important legal questions were pending before Ninth Circuit, and public interest lay in 21 “ensuring” that action was “litigated consistently and in the most efficient manner possible”). 22 CONCLUSION 23 For the forgoing reasons, the Court, in its discretion, STAYS the case pending the Ninth 24 Circuit’s decision in Plaintiff’s appeal. Defendants shall inform the Court within two business 25 days of the Ninth Circuit’s issuance of a mandate in Plaintiff’s appeal. The Court VACATES the 26 briefing schedule, and directs the Clerk to terminate all pending motions as moot and to 27 administratively close the file. The administrative closure of this case is purely an administrative 1 to this Court, the Court will set a new briefing schedule. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: 8/19/2024 4 . ° aed S. GILLIAM, JR. / 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 ll a 12

13 14 © 15

4 16

Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28