Murillo v. Smith

Background

Joaquin Daniel Murillo, who is housed at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the federal statute requiring early screening of prisoner cases. The court had separately allowed Murillo to proceed without paying the filing fee at that point.

Murillo alleged that he is Muslim and that Pelican Bay officials restricted his religious practice. The alleged restrictions included failing to hire an imam, failing to provide regular Muslim services, not providing a halal diet or traditional Ramadan foods, denying Muslim religious events and meals, refusing donations from outside organizations, and not allowing outside visitors to give presentations. Murillo alleged that the prison treated Christian prisoners more favorably by providing a Protestant chaplain, accepting donations from Christian organizations, allowing Christian religious events, and permitting outside Christian visitors to conduct activities.

Screening Rulings

The court concluded that the complaint stated a cognizable First Amendment free-exercise claim and a cognizable equal-protection claim against Warden Stephen Smith, Community Resource Manager Robert Lassaco, former warden Jim Robertson, and former associate warden Barneburg. “Cognizable” here means that the allegations were sufficient to allow those claims to proceed past the initial screening stage; the court did not decide whether Murillo will ultimately win those claims.

The court found that the complaint failed to state a claim against J. Moeckly because it contained no specific allegations describing Moeckly’s conduct. The court DISMISSED J. Moeckly from the action with leave to amend. Murillo was given 28 days to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiency. If he does not do so, the original complaint remains operative and the case proceeds only against the defendants ordered served and on the claims found cognizable.

The court also stated that the complaint failed to state a claim against K. Love. The opinion explains that Love’s involvement arose from reviewing Murillo’s grievance and that denying a grievance generally does not make a prison official personally liable for the underlying constitutional violation. The provided opinion text is truncated at the sentence describing the court’s disposition of K. Love.

Service and Case Schedule

The court ordered service on Smith, Lassaco, Robertson, and Barneburg through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program, with service by the United States Marshals Service for any defendant who does not waive service.

The order directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 91 days of the order, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. It set 28 days for Murillo’s opposition and 14 days for a reply. The order also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and explained the requirements for responding to a possible summary-judgment motion.

Disposition

This was a prisoner-complaint screening and partial-service order, not a final decision on the truth of the allegations or the ultimate merits of the surviving claims. Judge Jon S. Tigar allowed the claims against four officials to proceed, dismissed J. Moeckly with leave to amend, and issued the related service and scheduling directions.