Owens v. Orange County Jail

Background

DeSean J. Owens, representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Imam Kedar Abdul Malik and Orange County violated his First Amendment right to practice his religion and his Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment by preventing him from participating in Ramadan celebrations while he was incarcerated at the Orange County Jail.

Owens alleged that he had requested permission to participate in Ramadan and told Malik that he had celebrated it each year since 2015. According to Owens, Malik said he would interview Owens to determine whether he was truly Muslim and then refused to allow him to participate. Owens alleged that he unsuccessfully pursued the matter through the jail’s grievance process and suffered starvation, malnourishment, and emotional and spiritual distress.

Claims Against Malik

Malik moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. The court treated Malik as a private party who served as an independent contractor at the jail. To bring a Section 1983 claim against a private party, Owens had to allege that the person acted under color of state law—that is, through state authority or in a sufficiently close relationship with state officials.

The court found that Owens did not allege facts showing that Malik was controlled by the state, acted under the state’s coercive power, or performed a public function delegated by the state. The court also found no facts showing that Malik and Orange County jointly acted to prevent Owens from participating in Ramadan. Owens alleged that County personnel denied his grievance, but he did not allege that Malik acted after consulting with or following orders from County officials. The court therefore dismissed the Section 1983 claims against Malik.

Claims Against Orange County

Orange County argued that Owens had not identified a municipal policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional violations. Under the rule from Monell v. Department of Social Services, a municipality can be liable under Section 1983 only when an official policy or custom causes the injury and is directly connected to the alleged violation.

The court found that Owens did not allege that a County policy, official, or unofficial custom caused his injuries. He also did not allege similar incidents involving other people incarcerated at the Orange County Jail or facts showing a direct connection between a County policy and his injuries. The court therefore dismissed the Section 1983 claims against Orange County.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Although the court dismissed the claims, it granted Owens leave to amend. The court concluded that the claims appeared to be inadequately pleaded rather than necessarily impossible to state. An amended complaint would need to include particularized facts about whether Malik acted jointly with or at the direction of state actors, and facts identifying a specific Orange County policy or custom and similar violations involving others.

The court ordered that any amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and had to be filed by January 14, 2025. If Owens did not file one by that date, the court said it would enter judgment in the defendants’ favor and close the case. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted Malik’s motion to dismiss and granted Orange County’s motion to dismiss. The order did not state that either dismissal was with or without prejudice.