Harris v. Broomfield

Background

Maurice Lydell Harris, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Harris alleged that he practices Soka Gakkai International Nichiren Buddhism and had been permitted to participate in San Quentin’s Religious Meat Alternate Program because the prison did not offer a Buddhist diet.

Harris alleged that the prison sometimes served vegetarian meals instead of approved meat alternatives and sometimes provided unidentified substitute meat. He claimed these practices affected his religious observance, nutrition, and health. He also alleged that chaplains K. Fasish and Jackson issued him religious-diet violations for eating ramen soups purchased from the prison canteen, even though he said the soups were consistent with his Buddhist beliefs and that the program agreement allowed such food when the specified diet was not provided.

Harris asserted claims involving the First Amendment’s free-exercise and Establishment Clauses, the Eighth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the Ex Post Facto Clause, and unspecified state and federal common law.

Claims the Court Dismissed

The court dismissed defendants J. Carlton, N. Walker, Ballein, the Office of Appeals, Trent Allen, Ron Davis, and Ron Broomfield with prejudice. The court held that the complaint described only their participation in reviewing or denying grievances. It explained that denying a prisoner’s grievance generally does not make an official personally liable for the underlying constitutional violation and that prisoners have no constitutional right to an effective grievance or appeal process. The court concluded that amendment would be futile.

The court dismissed claims against Roy Maerse and A. Gary with leave to amend. As to Maerse, the complaint alleged that Harris asked questions or made complaints about the diet, but did not explain how Maerse’s response violated constitutional rights or federal law. As to Gary, the complaint alleged that he provided information in response to Harris’s inquiries and interviewed him during the grievance process. The court found those allegations insufficient but determined that the deficiencies might be correctable.

The court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice to Harris seeking leave to amend after learning their identities. It stated that Harris, rather than the court, had the burden of identifying the unnamed defendants.

The court dismissed Harris’s Ex Post Facto Clause claim with prejudice because his purchase and consumption of ramen soups was not criminalized. The court also stated that the allegations about violations of state and federal common law were too vague and conclusory because Harris did not identify the specific laws or explain how each defendant violated them.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court found cognizable claims against K. Fasish, also referred to as Cleric Muhammad, and Jackson for alleged violations of the First Amendment’s free-exercise and Establishment Clauses, the Eighth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and RLUIPA. The court understood Harris to allege that these defendants failed to provide a religiously consistent diet adequate for his nutritional and health needs and conditioned his participation in the religious-diet program on following Islamic laws despite his Buddhist faith.

A claim is “cognizable” at this stage when the complaint alleges enough to proceed past preliminary screening; the court did not make a final determination that Harris would prevail. The court ordered that these two defendants be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service process for prisoner civil-rights cases.

Further Proceedings and Disposition

Harris was given 28 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies in his claims against Maerse and Gary. The order stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and must include all claims and defendants Harris wished to pursue. If he did not file an amended complaint, the original complaint would remain operative and the case would proceed against K. Fasish and Jackson on the claims the court found cognizable.

The order therefore provided for partial service, dismissed certain defendants and claims with prejudice, dismissed other defendants with leave to amend, dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice to a later amendment request, and allowed the claims against K. Fasish and Jackson to proceed.