Washington v. Alameda County Sheriff Office

Background

Keith Harry Washington, a pretrial detainee housed at Santa Rita County Jail, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Washington had separately been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The complaint named the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, which operates Santa Rita Jail; Aramark Corporation, which provides meals to inmates; and Alameda County sheriff-elect Yesenia Sanchez. Washington alleged that he requested a kosher/halal diet when he arrived at the jail on March 21, 2022. He alleged that the meals he later received were served in unclean trays, allowing non-kosher or non-halal items to contaminate them, and that the meals were too small to provide adequate nutrition. He also alleged that he filed grievances and that the Sheriff’s Office failed to resolve the problems.

Screening and dismissal

The court explained that prisoner complaints against governmental entities or their personnel must be screened. Claims must be dismissed if they are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court also stated that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It found that Washington had not alleged or identified a violation of the federal Constitution or federal law and had not identified the religion requiring the diet. The court acknowledged that Washington stated in a separate filing that he is a Sunni Muslim and that he believes the kosher/halal meals substantially burden his religious practice under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. But the court said it could not construct legal claims from other pleadings. It directed Washington to specify in an amended complaint the legal claims he wished to bring and the federal constitutional provisions or laws allegedly violated.

Emergency injunction request

Washington also sought an emergency preliminary injunction without advance notice to the defendants. He asked the court to require meals complying with the county’s religious-meals menu, clean or specially designated trays, and sealed delivery of the meals.

The court denied the ex parte emergency preliminary-injunction request without prejudice. It found that the request did not explain why notice should not be given to the defendants before an emergency injunction issued. The court stated that Washington could refile such a request after there was an operative complaint and the defendants had appeared.

Disposition and amendment instructions

The court ordered Washington to file an amended complaint within 28 days. The amended complaint had to use the caption and case number specified in the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. It would replace the earlier complaint, so Washington had to include all claims and defendants he wished to pursue and could not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference. The court stated that failure to file a proper amended complaint within the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. The order terminated the docket entry concerning the injunction request.