Ellawendy v. Benal
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-05475
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ellawendy v. Benal, Judge Alsup dismissed the religious-practice lawsuit because the requested jail injunction could no longer affect Ellawendy.
The dismissal ended Abel Fatah Ellawendy’s case seeking an injunction concerning religious meals and services at Monterey County Jail; the named jail officials were no longer subject to that request in this case.
What happened
Ellawendy v. Benal involved a complaint by Abel Fatah Ellawendy, who had previously been held at Monterey County Jail. He sued jail officials under a federal civil-rights law, saying he was denied meals and services needed to practice his religion.
Ellawendy requested only an order requiring jail officials to provide those meals and services. Because he was no longer at the jail, the court determined that an order changing jail practices would not affect him or his religious-practice rights. He did not request money damages.
Judge William Alsup dismissed the case because the complaint did not present a claim the court could grant, and the clerk was ordered to close the case. The court separately granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Ellawendy v. Benal · No. 3:19-cv-05475
- William Alsup
- Nov. 5, 2019
Background
Abel Fatah Ellawendy filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. The complaint named officials at the Monterey County Jail, where Ellawendy had formerly been incarcerated.
Ellawendy alleged that, while at the jail, he was not given meals or the opportunity to participate in services required to properly practice his religion. He sought injunctive relief—an order requiring jail officials to provide inmates with the meals and services necessary to observe their religion. He did not seek damages.
Court’s Analysis
Because Ellawendy sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. At this stage, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by someone acting under state law.
The court did not reach the underlying question whether Ellawendy was denied meals or religious services unlawfully. Instead, it held that his request for an injunction was moot because he was no longer at the jail. An injunction changing jail practices would not affect him or his constitutional right to practice his religion.
Disposition
Judge William Alsup dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. The court ordered the clerk to enter judgment and close the file. The court separately granted Ellawendy permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.