Scott v. Nunez
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:25-cv-03826
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Christopher D. Scott v. A. Nunez, Judge Seeborg screened the complaint, allowed one First Amendment claim to proceed, and dismissed all others.
Christopher D. Scott’s First Amendment religious-exercise claim against Deputy A. Nunez proceeds. All other claims and defendants were dismissed, and Nunez must answer and address the remaining claim.
What happened
In Christopher D. Scott v. A. Nunez, Scott alleged that San Mateo County Sheriff’s Deputy A. Nunez told him to remove his Muslim head covering during Ramadan. Scott said that after he tried to explain the covering, he was handcuffed, transferred, and written up for arguing.
The court found that these allegations could support a First Amendment claim about religious exercise under a federal civil-rights law. It dismissed all other claims and defendants, leaving Nunez as the remaining defendant. The court ordered service of the complaint and directed Nunez to answer and file a motion addressing the remaining claim by February 2, 2026.
Judge Richard Seeborg issued an amended service order rather than deciding the ultimate truth of the allegations. The order also allowed discovery and set procedures for responding to any motion for summary judgment.
The detailed version
- Scott v. Nunez · No. 3:25-cv-03826
- Richard Seeborg
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
Christopher D. Scott filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. He 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.
Screening and Claims
Because the complaint sought relief from a governmental officer, the court reviewed it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that filings by people without lawyers must be read liberally.
The court held that, when read liberally, Scott’s allegations stated a claim that his First Amendment right to freely practice his religion was violated. The court dismissed all other claims and defendants. The Clerk was directed to terminate every defendant except A. Nunez.
Orders for Further Proceedings
The Clerk was directed to issue a summons, and the United States Marshal was directed to serve Nunez without requiring prepayment of fees. Nunez was ordered to file an answer and, by February 2, 2026, a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the claim found legally sufficient. If Nunez seeks dismissal for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, the court directed that request to be made through a summary-judgment motion.
The order set deadlines for Scott’s opposition and Nunez’s reply and stated that no hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one. The parties could conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also warned that Scott must keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders, and that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Effect of the Order
This was a screening and service order, not a final decision on whether Scott will ultimately prevail. It allowed the religious-exercise claim against Nunez to continue and dismissed the remaining claims and defendants.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.