Misch v. Alameda County Sheriff's Office

Background

David Misch and Keith H. Washington, inmates at Santa Rita Jail, filed a lawsuit without lawyers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Their complaint named the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Aramark Corporation, Alameda County Sheriff Greg Ahearn, and Alameda County commander and sheriff-elect Yessica Sanchez.

The complaint alleged that Alameda County and Aramark provided kosher and halal meals with inadequate nutrition and calories and served them on unclean trays. It asserted violations of the Eighth Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the First Amendment’s protection for religious exercise, and the Equal Protection Clause. The complaint also alleged that the jail refused to process grievances, that Misch faced retaliation for seeking court access and filing grievances, and that two unnamed deputies used excessive force against him on June 15, 2022.

Screening and dismissal

Because the plaintiffs were prisoners suing governmental entities and officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that this screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. It also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law.

The court ruled that the action could not proceed with both Misch and Washington as unrepresented co-plaintiffs. It dismissed Washington from this action without prejudice to filing a separate action and directed the Clerk to send him two complaint forms. Washington’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied as moot.

The court also identified possible duplication between Misch’s claims and claims in a prior related proceeding, docket number 19-cv-07423. The court stated that if the claims were duplicative, they would have to be dismissed. In addition, the court ruled that the alleged June 15 assault and the claims about kosher and halal meals did not arise from the same occurrence or share common legal or factual questions. Misch therefore had to choose which group of claims to pursue in this action and could bring the other group in a separate action.

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because it believed the identified problems might be corrected. Only Misch could proceed in the action. He was given 28 days to file an amended complaint containing all claims and defendants he wished to pursue. The amended complaint would replace the earlier complaint, and failure to file it as ordered would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.

Temporary restraining order

The plaintiffs also requested an emergency temporary restraining order without notifying the defendants. Their filings addressed different issues, including the meals, tray sanitation, alleged retaliation, and the June 15 assault.

The court denied the request. It held that the filings did not satisfy Rule 65(b)’s requirements for an order issued without notice because they offered only conclusory statements about irreparable harm and did not provide specific facts showing likely immediate and irreparable injury. The court also found no specific facts showing that Washington had faced retaliation or that the assault was part of ongoing retaliation against either plaintiff.

Disposition

The court dismissed Washington from the action without prejudice to filing a separate action; denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot; dismissed the complaint with leave to amend; and denied the plaintiffs’ ex parte request for a temporary restraining order. The order was entered by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.