Khan v. Payton

Background

Muhammad Khan, identified as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against an officer at San Quentin State Prison. The court had screened Khan’s amended complaint and previously allowed him to amend an equal-protection claim. Alternatively, the court gave him the option to proceed only on claims it had found legally cognizable and to remove the equal-protection claim. After two extensions, the deadline to respond was May 2, 2022. Khan filed no response.

Claims and Screening Ruling

Under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court stated that the amended complaint included cognizable claims involving denial of meals needed for the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, deprivation of food for two days under the Eighth Amendment, and the alleged arbitrary denial of Ramadan meals under the due-process provision. The court also stated that Khan adequately pleaded state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring, training, or supervision, and would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

The court had previously dismissed Khan’s claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, and his claim under California Government Code § 19572 for failure to state a claim. Because Khan did not amend the deficient allegations, the court dismissed his equal-protection claim for failure to state a cognizable claim. The order states that the action would proceed on the First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, due-process, and state-law claims against Payton and Healy. It dismissed all other claims for failure to state a claim and directed the clerk to terminate the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from the case because all claims against that entity had been dismissed.

Service and Case Schedule

Payton had already been served. The court directed that Correctional Officer Healy be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order established procedures for reporting whether service would be waived and, if necessary, for service by the United States Marshals Service.

The court ordered defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the claims found cognizable no later than 91 days after the order was filed. Khan’s opposition would be due 28 days after that motion, and defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The motion would be considered submitted when the reply was due, without a hearing unless the court later ordered one. The order also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and instructed Khan about service of court communications, keeping the court informed of address changes, prosecuting the case, and seeking extensions before deadlines with a showing of good cause.

Disposition

The court dismissed the non-cognizable claims, continued the action on the specified federal and state-law claims, dismissed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from the action, directed service on Healy, and set the case schedule. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the claims that remained.