(PC) Jackson v. Sacramento County Jail

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIJAH LEE JACKSON, No. 2:21-CV-1814-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIN JAIL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s third amended complaint. See ECF No. 19 23. 20 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 21 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 §1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 23 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 24 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 25 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 26 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 27 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 28 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 1 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 2 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege 3 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 4 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 5 impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 6 and conclusory. 7 In the third amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Chaplain at the 8 Sacramento County Mail Jail violated his constitutional rights by denying him religious materials, 9 specifically the Satanic Bible. See ECF No. 23. According to Plaintiff, if Christians and 10 Muslims are permitted their religious texts, he should also be permitted to possess the Satanic 11 Bible. 12 “The right to exercise religious practices and beliefs does not terminate at the 13 prison door[,]” McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 197 (9th Cir.1987) (citing O’Lone v. Estate of 14 Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987)), but a prisoner’s right to free exercise of religion “is 15 necessarily limited by the fact of incarceration,” Ward v. Walsh, 1 F.3d 873, 876 (9th Cir. 1993) 16 (citing O’Lone, 482 U.S. at 348). A person asserting a free exercise claim must show that the 17 government action in question substantially burdens the person’s practice of his religion. Graham 18 v. C.I.R., 822 F.2d 844, 851 (9th Cir.1987), aff’d sub nom. Hernandez v. C.I.R., 490 U.S. 680, 19 699 (1989). “A substantial burden . . . place[s] more than an inconvenience on religious exercise; 20 it must have a tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs or exert 21 substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” Ohno v. 22 Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984, 1011 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Guru Nanak Sikh Soc’y of Yuba City v. 23 Cnty. of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and alterations 24 omitted)). 25 Plaintiff does not specify in what way denial of a Satanic Bible burdens his ability 26 to practice his religion, nor has he done so through any of the prior pleadings filed in this case. 27 Plaintiff merely states that because other religions are allowed to have books in the jail, he should 28 be allowed to have access to a Satanic Bible. Because Plaintiff has not shown “more than an 1 | inconvenience” to the exercise of his religion, he fails to state a cognizable First Amendment 2 || claim. See Ohno, 723 F.3d at 1011; see also Barra v. Wilson, et al., Eastern Dist. Cal. case no. 3 || 2:24-cv-0069-KES-HBK (dismissing case on same allegations). 4 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 5 || cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 6 || the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 7 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed 8 | for failure to state a claim. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 10 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 13 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 14 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 | Dated: August 26, 2024 SS GC M7 DENNIS M. COTA 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28