Khan v. Payton

Background

Muhammad Khan, a state prisoner housed at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officer M. Payton. He alleged that he was held at the Reception Center at San Quentin State Prison from March through June 2018 before being transferred to Avenal State Prison.

Khan alleged that he is Muslim, had a religious diet card authorizing halal meals, and signed up for Ramadan. He said that on June 8, 2018, he did not fast because he felt sick and told Payton that he had gone to dinner. On June 11, after fasting all day, he alleged that Payton refused to give him his meal, handcuffed him, forced him onto a bench or chair, and struck his chest several times. He alleged that Payton again denied his meal on June 12. Khan was transferred the next day. He later filed a grievance about the denial of his Ramadan meals and alleged that he was placed on an appeal restriction in retaliation.

Claims and screening analysis

Because Khan was a prisoner seeking relief from a government officer, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal right was violated by someone acting under state law.

Khan asserted four causes of action: denial of Ramadan meals and interference with religious practice under the First Amendment; pain and suffering under the Eighth Amendment based on the two-day food deprivation; retaliation and due-process violations related to his appeals; and state-law intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court concluded that Khan stated a cognizable religious-practice claim based on the alleged denial of his religious diet. It also concluded that he stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim based on the alleged deprivation of food for two days. The court said it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over a related state-law claim, over his intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.

The court found insufficient facts supporting the retaliation and due-process allegations. It stated that Khan did not adequately allege the required elements of a prison-retaliation claim, and that his allegations about denial of supervisory input and failure to forward an appeal form were conclusory. The court also found no facts connecting Payton to the appeal restriction imposed while Khan was housed at Avenal State Prison. It therefore dismissed the third cause of action with leave to amend.

Disposition

The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Khan was given 28 days from filing of the order to submit an amended complaint on the court’s form, with the required case caption and case number. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint and that claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action.

The court further ordered that failure to file an amended complaint as required would result in dismissal of the third cause of action for failure to state a claim. The action would proceed on the three cognizable claims identified by the court. The court separately denied Khan’s requests to reassign the case to a magistrate judge. His request to proceed without paying the filing fee was to be addressed in a separate order.