Scott v. Nunez

Background

Christopher D. Scott alleged that, on February 25, 2025, the start of Ramadan, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Deputy A. Nunez told him to remove his kufi, a Muslim head covering, because it reminded Nunez of his time in the military. Scott alleged that when he tried to explain why he was wearing the kufi, he was handcuffed in a holding cell, transferred out of his housing unit, and written up for having an argument.

Scott brought the complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state law for violating federal rights. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that were legally sufficient and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that, when read broadly, Scott’s allegations stated a claim that his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion was violated. The opinion did not decide whether the alleged events ultimately occurred or whether Scott would prevail on that claim.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court ordered service of the complaint and attachments on A. Nunez and directed the clerk to begin the required service process. All other claims and defendants were dismissed. The court directed Nunez to file an answer and, by February 2, 2026, a motion for summary judgment or another motion that could dispose of the surviving claim. The order also set deadlines for Scott’s opposition and Nunez’s reply, allowed discovery under the federal rules, and required Nunez to provide a specified notice if filing a summary-judgment motion. The court warned that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).