Sims v. Delbarieo
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:25-cv-03510
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Sims v. Delbarieo, Judge Corley allowed Sims’s religious-meal claims to proceed and ordered service on the defendants.
Donald Sims’s claims against J. Delbarieo and J. Holsher will proceed past initial screening, and the defendants must be served and respond. The order does not determine whether Sims will win.
What happened
In Sims v. Delbarieo, Donald Sims, a California prisoner without a lawyer, alleged that he did not receive religious meals during Ramadan at the Contra Costa County Jail in March 2024, even though he was on the list to receive them.
Sims said he complained to J. Delbarieo and J. Holsher, but they did not correct the problem. The court concluded that these allegations could support claims under the First Amendment’s protection for religious exercise and a federal law protecting religious exercise in institutions.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered that the defendants be formally served and required them to answer. The case will proceed, with deadlines set for a potential motion for summary judgment or another motion that could resolve the case.
The detailed version
- Sims v. Delbarieo · No. 3:25-cv-03510
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 31, 2025
Background
Donald Sims, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against J. Delbarieo and J. Holsher. The court construed the complaint as naming them as deputy sheriffs working for the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department. Sims alleged that he is a practicing Muslim who observes fasting and Ramadan meal practices. He alleged that, while housed at the Contra Costa County Jail in March 2024, he was listed to receive religious meals during Ramadan but did not receive them. He further alleged that he complained to Delbarieo and Holsher, who failed to correct the problem or ensure that he received the meals.
Screening and Claims
Because Sims is a prisoner suing government employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court concluded that, when liberally construed, Sims’s allegations state claims capable of judicial review under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal statute that restricts substantial burdens on religious exercise in institutions unless the government meets specified requirements.
The order did not decide whether Sims will ultimately prevail. It determined only that the complaint states claims sufficient to move beyond initial screening.
Ruling and Case Schedule
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and directed the United States Marshal to serve Delbarieo and Holsher without requiring advance payment of fees. The court also directed that a courtesy copy of the complaint and order be sent to the Contra Costa County Counsel’s Office.
The defendants must answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order set October 23, 2025, as the deadline for a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion. Sims’s opposition, if any, is due December 4, 2025, and the defendants’ reply is due December 18, 2025. The order also permits discovery and requires Sims to serve his court filings on the defendants or their counsel. The court warned that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.