Smith v. Ramirez

Background

Noel Ray Smith alleged that on April 17 and 18, 2017, two kosher Passover dinners remained on a food cart after prisoners who had ordered kosher meals were served. Smith, who was allegedly last in line, asked correctional officer Ramirez whether he could have one of the extra meals. Ramirez refused. Smith alleged that A. Steiber denied his grievance and that a memo written by K. Allison, identified as Director of the Division of Adult Services, was responsible for the refusal.

Smith asserted claims under the First Amendment’s protection for religious exercise, the Due Process Clause, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal statute protecting religious exercise by people in institutions.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). At that stage, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true but required enough facts to make a legally plausible claim.

For the First Amendment and RLUIPA claims, the court explained that prisoners have a right to food that satisfies their religion’s dietary laws. But Smith did not allege that he had ordered a kosher meal or was entitled to one as part of a religious diet. The court further ruled that, even assuming he was entitled to the meals, missing two kosher meals did not impose a burden serious enough to violate those rights. The First Amendment and RLUIPA claims were therefore dismissed without leave to amend.

For the due-process claim, the court ruled that Smith had not alleged a legitimate entitlement to the leftover meals. The court characterized the meals as extras remaining after prisoners who had ordered kosher meals were served. It dismissed the due-process claim with leave to amend and stated that an amended complaint would need facts showing Smith had a legitimate claim of entitlement to those meals.

Motion for appointed counsel

The court denied Smith’s second motion for appointment of counsel. It stated that the case was not legally or factually complex and that Smith’s filings, including the renewed motion, were clear and well-reasoned. The court therefore found that the record showed he was competent to litigate the case.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint concerning the due-process claim. Smith’s First Amendment and RLUIPA claims were dismissed without leave to amend. Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel was denied. The order also directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and required any amended complaint to replace the prior complaint and include all claims and defendants Smith wished to pursue.

The order gives inconsistent deadlines for amendment: the introduction says January 20, 2020, while the conclusion says January 21, 2020. The conclusion is the portion that states the final disposition, but the opinion does not explain the discrepancy.