Brunskill v. Santa Cruz County Jail Administration

Background

Dylan Richey Brunskill, identified as a pretrial detainee at the Santa Cruz County Jail, filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Santa Cruz County Jail Administration officials refused to provide a religious “Buddhist vegetarian” diet because he was on a medical “gluten free” diet and the diets could not be combined. He also alleged that the diet decision was retaliation for reporting assault and sexual misconduct by a peace officer while he was under the jail’s care. He sought damages and an order requiring relief.

Screening and claims

Because Brunskill sought relief from a governmental entity, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that could proceed or dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law.

The court stated that prisoners have a right to food sufficient to maintain good health that complies with their religious dietary requirements. It found that, read generously, Brunskill’s allegations appeared to state an arguably cognizable § 1983 claim for denial of religious practices and beliefs. But to proceed, he had to name the individual defendants in both the caption and the complaint and provide specific facts linking each person to the alleged deprivation.

The court also described the elements of a prison-retaliation claim: a state actor took adverse action against the inmate because of protected conduct, the action chilled the inmate’s exercise of constitutional rights, and the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate institutional goal. The court gave Brunskill an opportunity to amend if he could state such a claim, again requiring him to identify the individual defendants and explain each person’s role.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within 28 days. The amended pleading had to be simple and concise, use the case caption and civil case number, and be labeled “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court warned that failure to file a proper amended complaint within the deadline would result in dismissal of the action. The order did not decide whether Brunskill ultimately would prevail on the religious-diet or retaliation claims. Judge Sallie Kim signed the order.