Khan v. Payton
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-03086
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Khan v. Payton, Judge Freeman screened the claims, dismissed the retaliation claim, and ordered service on the remaining claims.
Muhammad Khan’s case continues on his First Amendment religious-exercise, Eighth Amendment food-deprivation, and state-law emotional-distress claims against M. Payton; the retaliation claim was dismissed and stricken.
What happened
Khan v. Payton concerns Muhammad Khan’s pro se civil-rights lawsuit against Correctional Officer M. Payton. Khan, a Muslim state prisoner, alleged that Payton denied him Ramadan meals at San Quentin State Prison and mistreated him when he complained.
The court found that Khan could proceed with claims that Payton violated his religious rights under the First Amendment, deprived him of food in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and intentionally caused emotional distress under state law. The court dismissed and struck the retaliation claim for failure to state a claim.
Judge Beth Freeman ordered the clerk to serve Payton and directed the defense to file a summary-judgment motion or another motion resolving the case within 91 days. The order also set deadlines for Khan’s response and the defense reply and allowed discovery.
The detailed version
- Khan v. Payton · No. 5:20-cv-03086
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 19, 2020
Background
Muhammad Khan filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer M. Payton. Khan alleged that events occurred while he was housed at San Quentin State Prison’s Reception Center from March through June 2018. He alleged that he is Muslim, had received permission to receive halal meals, and signed up to participate in Ramadan.
According to the allegations described in the order, Khan became ill on June 8, 2018, and did not fast that day. He told staff that he needed only the next morning’s breakfast meal. On June 11, after fasting all day, he went to the office to collect his meal. Khan alleged that Payton refused to give him the meal, handcuffed him, forced him onto a bench or chair, and struck his chest several times while saying that he would not receive the meal. Khan alleged that Payton again denied him a meal on June 12. He was transferred to Avenal State Prison on June 13.
Khan later filed a grievance about the denial of his Ramadan meals and alleged that he was placed on an appeal restriction in retaliation. The opinion states that the restriction limited him to one appeal every 30 calendar days and that his appeal was denied at the third level of review sometime in March 2019.
Screening and claims
The court conducted prisoner-complaint screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court identifies claims that are legally sufficient to proceed and dismisses claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek relief from an immune defendant. The court liberally construed Khan’s pro se allegations.
The court found cognizable claims that Payton:
- Denied Khan meals needed for the free exercise of his religion under the First Amendment;
- Violated the Eighth Amendment by depriving him of food for two days; and
- Was liable under state law for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law emotional-distress claim. It dismissed the retaliation claim for failure to state a claim and ordered that claim stricken from the complaint. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the claims that were allowed to proceed.
Order
The court ordered the clerk to mail Payton a notice of the lawsuit, a request to waive service, the complaint and attachments, and a copy of the order. The order directed the defense to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claims no later than 91 days after the order was filed, or to notify the court if the case could not be resolved through summary judgment.
The order gave Khan 28 days after any dispositive motion was filed to submit an opposition and required the defense to file any reply within 14 days after that opposition. It stated that no hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one. It also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and instructed Khan to serve copies of his court communications on the defense or its counsel.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.