Elghembri v. Muhammad

Background

Ahmed Mohamed Elghembri, a state prisoner housed at San Quentin State Prison during the relevant events, sued Muhammad and others. The opinion addresses claims against Fasih, identified as the Imam or Kateep at San Quentin. Elghembri alleged that Fasih acted discriminatorily and interfered with his Jumu’ah, a weekly Muslim congregational service. He asserted claims under the Free Exercise Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

Fasih moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief. The court’s review was limited to the allegations in the complaint, so it did not consider new allegations Elghembri made in his opposition.

Free Exercise Claim

The court held that Elghembri’s generalized allegations did not show that Fasih substantially burdened his religious practice. Elghembri alleged that Fasih used a sermon to spread jealousy and hatred and disrupted the quietness required during the service, but he did not explain specifically what Fasih said or how the conduct substantially burdened his religious exercise. The court directed him, if he amends, to state what words were used, when they were spoken, and how they substantially burdened his religious exercise.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Free Exercise claim under Rules 8 and 12 and dismissed that claim with leave to amend.

Equal Protection Claim

The court held that Elghembri’s allegation that Fasih discriminated against him by refusing an accommodation compared with prisoners of other faiths was conclusory. He did not identify the specific similarly situated groups or explain how they received different treatment. Allegations made only in his opposition could not be considered, although he may include them in an amended complaint.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Equal Protection claim under Rules 8 and 12 and dismissed that claim with leave to amend.

RLUIPA Claim

RLUIPA prohibits the government from substantially burdening an institutionalized person’s religious exercise unless the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so. The court held that Elghembri’s complaint did not allege specific facts showing that his religious exercise was substantially burdened. The court also did not consider additional allegations in his opposition.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the RLUIPA claim under Rules 8 and 12 and dismissed that claim with leave to amend.

Other Motions and Order

Elghembri filed four motions or notices concerning alleged failures to respond, failure to receive mail, and failure to receive Fasih’s reply. The court denied those motions because Elghembri acknowledged receiving Fasih’s reply, and the record showed that he received the dismissal motion because he opposed it.

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by November 3, 2025. The amended complaint must use the required caption and case number, include all claims and defendants Elghembri wishes to pursue, and not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference. The court warned that failure to file a proper amended complaint by the deadline may result in dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions.