Misch v. Alameda County Sheriff's Office

Background

David Misch, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by persons acting under state law. The court screened his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires an early review of a prisoner's claims against governmental entities or employees.

Misch alleged that he follows the Wicca faith and requires clean, holy, and sanctified meals. He claimed that Aramark Corporation provided his kosher/halal meals at Santa Rita Jail with missing food items, inadequate portions and nutrition, dirty trays, possible cross-contamination from shared utensils, and broken seals. He also alleged that he lost weight, contracted food poisoning, and sometimes went hungry. Misch alleged violations of the First Amendment's protection for religious exercise, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Screening Rulings

The court held that, when liberally construed, Misch's allegations that the meals were contaminated with non-kosher/halal items and nutritionally insufficient, together with his allegation that Yesenia Sanchez did nothing to address the problems, stated a cognizable First Amendment claim. The claim was allowed to proceed against the Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Aramark Corporation, and Sheriff-elect Yesenia Sanchez. This was a screening determination that the claim could proceed, not a final decision on whether Misch would ultimately prevail.

The court dismissed the Equal Protection claim with leave to amend. It explained that Misch would need to allege facts supporting an inference that a state actor intentionally discriminated against him because of his membership in a protected class.

The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim without leave to amend because it duplicated claims brought by Misch and other class members in an earlier related proceeding. The opinion described that earlier proceeding but, because the current case uses a minimized party name, this summary does not repeat the earlier proceeding's caption.

Other Motions and Filings

The court denied Misch's requests for appointment of counsel because he had not shown exceptional circumstances. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel in the future if circumstances required it. The court also denied his request for an order requiring jail officials to provide specified writing materials, law-library access, postage, copying, telephone access, and related assistance, finding that the alleged shortcomings had not prevented him from pursuing his claims.

The court denied the request for an ex parte temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction without prejudice to refiling after defendants appeared. Misch had not explained why defendants should not receive notice before the requested relief was considered. The court denied his request to inspect the Aramark kitchen because the request was a discovery request that should be sent to defendants rather than filed with the court. It also denied his request for entry of default because no defendant had been served.

The court stated that prematurely filed evidence would not be considered and that discovery requests should not be filed with the court unless used in a court proceeding. It granted Misch's request for judicial review of his amended complaint. It denied Keith Washington's request for reconsideration as moot because Washington was no longer a party and had filed a separate action.

Next Steps and Disposition

The court ordered the clerk to issue summons and the United States Marshal to serve the operative complaint and order on the Alameda County Sheriff's Office and Yesenia Sanchez without prepayment of fees. Misch had 28 days to provide enough information to locate Aramark for service. The court set an expedited schedule requiring defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days of the order, followed by deadlines for Misch's opposition and defendants' reply.

The court ordered that the action proceed on the cognizable First Amendment claim. Misch could file a second amended complaint within 28 days to attempt to replead the Equal Protection claim. The order did not reach the merits of the First Amendment claim.