Shakanasa v. Contreras

Background

Asar Tauf Shakanasa, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against C. Contreras. The court had dismissed the original complaint while allowing an amended complaint, which Shakanasa then filed.

Shakanasa alleged that he practices the Black African religion of Shetaut Neter and participated in a religious diet program. He alleged that on September 17, 2020, Contreras discarded his religious diet tray in retaliation for Shakanasa's failure to keep his light on during a prisoner count. He also alleged that Contreras made a derogatory comment in Spanish and issued a disciplinary report concerning the unlit cell. Shakanasa characterized these actions as retaliation and discrimination based on race and religious belief.

Screening standard

Because Shakanasa was a prisoner suing a governmental officer, the court conducted the preliminary review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That review requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint contain enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible rather than merely speculative.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by federal law or the Constitution and conduct by a person acting under state authority.

Court's analysis

The court discussed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which protects a confined person's religious practice from a substantial burden unless the government satisfies a demanding justification test. The court noted that RLUIPA does not authorize money damages. It also discussed the First Amendment religious-exercise standard, under which a prisoner must show that the defendant burdened religious practice without a justification reasonably related to legitimate prison interests. For a retaliation claim, the prisoner must allege adverse action because of protected conduct, a chilling effect on the exercise of constitutional rights, and the absence of a legitimate correctional purpose. For an equal-protection claim based on race or another protected classification, the prisoner must allege intentional discrimination or facts supporting an inference of discriminatory intent.

The court identified several problems with the amended complaint. First, Shakanasa sought money damages for the incident, which the court said were unavailable under RLUIPA. Second, the allegations did not plausibly show that the discarded meal substantially burdened his religious practice or that Contreras discarded it because of Shakanasa's religious beliefs. The court said the allegations related more to Contreras's frustration about the unlit cell than to religious or racial bias. The court also said that the amended complaint described only one incident, whereas a substantial burden on religious practice requires more than an isolated or short-term occurrence.

The court further found that Shakanasa had not alleged that similarly situated prisoners were treated differently. It also stated that, even if Contreras had called Shakanasa a derogatory name, verbal harassment and abuse alone would not state a claim under § 1983.

Disposition

The court concluded that the amended complaint repeated the allegations in the original complaint and did not cure the previously identified problems. Because Shakanasa had already been given leave to amend, the court declined to allow another amended pleading. The case was dismissed without leave to amend with prejudice, and the Clerk was requested to close the case. Judge James Donato signed the order.