Bulandr v. Robertson

Background

Ian Anthony Bulandr, a state prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. He sued prison officials and employees. His request to proceed without paying the filing fee was to be addressed in a separate order.

Bulandr alleged that he is Jewish and had participated in the prison's Special Religious Diet Program since November 4, 2014. After he was moved from general population to administrative segregation on February 9, 2018, he told staff that he needed kosher meals. He alleged that he did not receive a kosher meal from February 10 through March 5, 2018—a period of 23 days—despite notifying several defendants.

Bulandr also alleged that he requested Jewish religious materials, including the Torah, Talmud, and Tanakh, while confined in restricted housing. He said officials told him those materials were unavailable, but he later found a shelf of Jewish religious literature in the chapel that was accessible to general-population inmates. He alleged that Jewish inmates in administrative segregation and the security housing unit were denied equivalent access while Protestant, Catholic, and Muslim inmates received religious materials.

Screening and claims

Because a prisoner sued governmental officials, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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. The court was required to read a self-represented person's allegations liberally.

The court found a cognizable § 1983 claim based on the alleged failure to provide Bulandr with a kosher diet for 23 days, concluding that the allegations implicated his ability to practice his religion. The court also found cognizable § 1983 claims based on the alleged failure to provide available Jewish religious materials upon request and the alleged denial of equal access to religious materials.

Unnamed defendants

Bulandr also sued food-service employees identified as “John Doe.” The court dismissed those defendants without prejudice. It explained that although unnamed defendants are generally disfavored, a plaintiff may sometimes need discovery to learn their identities. After the named defendants were served, Bulandr could potentially seek their identities through discovery and move to add them to the case.

Order

The court ordered the Clerk to send the complaint and service-waiver materials to Warden Jim Robertson, Chaplain Gary Abdullah, Robert Losaco, Correctional Officers Galarza, D. Martinez, and Kinney. It directed the defendants, within 91 days after the order was filed, to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the claims found cognizable. It set deadlines for Bulandr's opposition and the defendants' reply, authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and provided other case-management instructions.

This was a screening and case-management order, not a final decision on whether Bulandr proved his claims or whether the defendants violated his rights.