1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CHRISTOPHER D. SCOTT, 10 Case No. 25-cv-03826-RS (PR) Plaintiff, 11 ORDER OF SERVICE; v. 12 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT A NUNEZ, et al., TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION 13 OR A NOTICE REGARDING SUCH Defendants. MOTION; 14 INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 15
16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff alleges that a deputy sheriff at the San Mateo County Jail interfered with 19 his right to the free exercise of his religion by asking him to remove his Muslim head 20 covering. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint containing these allegations is now before the 21 Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 22 Plaintiff has stated a free exercise of religion claim under the First Amendment. All 23 other claims and defendants are DISMISSED. On or before February 2, 2026, defendant 24 Nunez shall file a dispositive motion or a notice regarding such motion relative to the 25 cognizable claim raised in the complaint. Defendant also shall file an answer in 26 accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No hearing will be held on any 27 motion unless the Court specifically orders one. 1 DISCUSSION 2 A. Standard of Review 3 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 4 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 5 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, a court must identify any 6 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 7 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 8 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 9 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 11 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 12 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 13 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 14 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 15 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 16 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 17 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 18 (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 19 essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States 20 was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 21 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 22 B. Legal Claims 23 Plaintiff alleges that on February 25, 2025, “the start of Ramadan,” San Mateo 24 County Sheriff’s Deputy A. Nunez told him to remove his kufi (Muslim head covering) 25 because it reminded Nunez of his time in the military. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) When 26 plaintiff tried to explain why he was wearing the kufi, he was handcuffed in a holding cell, 27 transferred out of the housing unit, and was “written up” for having an argument. (Id.) 1 When liberally construed, these allegations state a free exercise of religion claim under the 2 First Amendment. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 5 1. The Court orders service of the complaint (Dkt. No. 1), and all attachments 6 thereto, on A. Nunez, a deputy sheriff at the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department. The 7 Court orders this defendant to respond to the cognizable claim raised in the complaint. 8 2. Service on this defendant shall proceed under the California Department of 9 Corrections and Rehabilitation’s e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners in 10 CDCR custody. In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on CDCR 11 via email the following documents: the complaint (Docket No. 1) and its attachments; this 12 order; a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form; and a summons. The Clerk also shall 13 serve a copy of this order on the plaintiff. 14 3. No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR 15 shall provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court 16 which defendant(s) listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need 17 for service by the United States Marshal Service (USMS) and which defendant(s) decline 18 to waive service or could not be reached. CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR 19 Report of E-Service Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 20 days, shall file with the court a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are 21 waiving service. 22 4. Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall 23 prepare for each defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of 24 E-Service Waiver a USM-285 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed 25 USM-285 forms and copies of this order, the summons and the operative complaint for 26 service upon each defendant who has not waived service. 27 1 5. Defendant shall file an answer in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 2 Procedure. 3 6. On or before February 2, 2026, defendant shall file a motion for summary 4 judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claim(s) in the operative 5 complaint found to be cognizable above. 6 a. If any defendant elects to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds 7 plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 8 § 1997e(a), defendant shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by 9 Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). 10 b. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate 11 factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 12 Civil Procedure. Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 13 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the 14 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the 15 Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 16 7. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court 17 and served on defendant no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendant’s 18 motion is filed. 19 8. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after 20 plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 21 9.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CHRISTOPHER D. SCOTT, 10 Case No. 25-cv-03826-RS (PR) Plaintiff, 11 ORDER OF SERVICE; v. 12 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT A NUNEZ, et al., TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION 13 OR A NOTICE REGARDING SUCH Defendants. MOTION; 14 INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 15
16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff alleges that a deputy sheriff at the San Mateo County Jail interfered with 19 his right to the free exercise of his religion by asking him to remove his Muslim head 20 covering. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint containing these allegations is now before the 21 Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 22 Plaintiff has stated a free exercise of religion claim under the First Amendment. All 23 other claims and defendants are DISMISSED. On or before February 2, 2026, defendant 24 Nunez shall file a dispositive motion or a notice regarding such motion relative to the 25 cognizable claim raised in the complaint. Defendant also shall file an answer in 26 accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No hearing will be held on any 27 motion unless the Court specifically orders one. 1 DISCUSSION 2 A. Standard of Review 3 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 4 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 5 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, a court must identify any 6 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 7 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 8 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 9 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 11 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 12 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 13 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 14 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 15 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 16 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 17 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 18 (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 19 essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States 20 was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 21 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 22 B. Legal Claims 23 Plaintiff alleges that on February 25, 2025, “the start of Ramadan,” San Mateo 24 County Sheriff’s Deputy A. Nunez told him to remove his kufi (Muslim head covering) 25 because it reminded Nunez of his time in the military. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) When 26 plaintiff tried to explain why he was wearing the kufi, he was handcuffed in a holding cell, 27 transferred out of the housing unit, and was “written up” for having an argument. (Id.) 1 When liberally construed, these allegations state a free exercise of religion claim under the 2 First Amendment. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 5 1. The Court orders service of the complaint (Dkt. No. 1), and all attachments 6 thereto, on A. Nunez, a deputy sheriff at the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department. The 7 Court orders this defendant to respond to the cognizable claim raised in the complaint. 8 2. Service on this defendant shall proceed under the California Department of 9 Corrections and Rehabilitation’s e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners in 10 CDCR custody. In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on CDCR 11 via email the following documents: the complaint (Docket No. 1) and its attachments; this 12 order; a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form; and a summons. The Clerk also shall 13 serve a copy of this order on the plaintiff. 14 3. No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR 15 shall provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court 16 which defendant(s) listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need 17 for service by the United States Marshal Service (USMS) and which defendant(s) decline 18 to waive service or could not be reached. CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR 19 Report of E-Service Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 20 days, shall file with the court a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are 21 waiving service. 22 4. Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall 23 prepare for each defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of 24 E-Service Waiver a USM-285 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed 25 USM-285 forms and copies of this order, the summons and the operative complaint for 26 service upon each defendant who has not waived service. 27 1 5. Defendant shall file an answer in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 2 Procedure. 3 6. On or before February 2, 2026, defendant shall file a motion for summary 4 judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claim(s) in the operative 5 complaint found to be cognizable above. 6 a. If any defendant elects to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds 7 plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 8 § 1997e(a), defendant shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by 9 Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). 10 b. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate 11 factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 12 Civil Procedure. Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 13 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the 14 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the 15 Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 16 7. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court 17 and served on defendant no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendant’s 18 motion is filed. 19 8. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after 20 plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 21 9. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 22 No hearing will be held on any motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 23 10. All communications by the plaintiff with the Court must be served on 24 defendant, or defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true 25 copy of the document to defendant or defendant’s counsel. 26 11. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local 1 Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 2 Plaintiff is reminded that state prisoners may review all non-confidential material in 3 their medical and central files, pursuant to In re Olson, 37 Cal. App. 3d 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 4 1974); 15 California Code of Regulations § 3370; and the CDCR’s Department Operations 5 Manual §§ 13030.4, 13030.16, 13030.16.1-13030.16.3, 13030.21, and 71010.11.1. 6 Requests to review these files or for copies of materials in them must be made directly to 7 prison officials, not to the court. 8 Plaintiff may also use any applicable jail procedures to request copies of (or the 9 opportunity to review) any reports, medical records, or other records maintained by jail 10 officials that are relevant to the claims found cognizable in this order. Such requests must 11 be made directly to jail officials, not to the court. 12 12. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 13 Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a 14 timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to 15 prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 16 13. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be 17 extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. 18 14. A decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs be 19 given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions 20 at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or 21 otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 22 2012). Defendant shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when he files and serves 23 any motion for summary judgment:
24 The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they 25 seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your 26 case.
27 Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary 1 judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no 2 genuine issue of material fact — that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for 3 summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary 4 judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn 5 testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to 6 interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that 7 contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not 8 submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will 9 be dismissed and there will be no trial. 10 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-963 (9th Cir. 1998). 11 15. The Clerk shall terminate all defendants with the exception of A. Nunez. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: September _2_4_, 2025 14 _________________________ RICHARD SEEBORG 15 Chief United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27