Revels v. Santa Rita Jail

Background

Tyler Revels, an incarcerated person at Marin County Jail who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed that complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The amended complaint named Deputy White, Deputy Holly, Lieutenant T. Modeste, Lieutenant L. Diaz, Sergeant J. LaRosa, Sergeant E. Feamster, and Sergeant M. Caruso. Revels alleged that Holly and White denied him video-visit privileges because he was wearing an approved kufi. He alleged that Feamster, LaRosa, and Caruso denied his grievance, and that Diaz denied his appeal. The complaint did not clearly explain what Modeste recommended, although the court said Modeste may have recommended restoring Revels’s video visits.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the allegations against Holly and White, liberally construed, stated a cognizable First Amendment free-exercise claim. In other words, the allegations were sufficient at the screening stage to allow Revels to pursue a claim that the officials burdened his religious practice without a justification reasonably related to legitimate prison interests.

The court concluded that the complaint did not state a claim against Modeste and dismissed that claim with leave to amend. The court also concluded that the only alleged involvement of Feamster, LaRosa, Caruso, and Diaz was their participation in the grievance process. It stated that such participation generally does not create personal liability under § 1983 and that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to an effective grievance or appeal procedure. The court dismissed the First Amendment claims against those four defendants with prejudice and dismissed those defendants from the action.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court ordered that the claim against White and Holly could proceed and that the United States Marshal serve them without requiring advance payment of fees. Revels was permitted to file a second amended complaint addressing the deficiencies in the claim against Modeste. If he did not do so within the time allowed, the existing amended complaint would remain operative and the case would proceed only on the claim found cognizable against the defendants ordered served.

The court also directed defendants to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed, set deadlines for Revels’s opposition and defendants’ reply, permitted discovery, and gave instructions about serving documents and keeping the court informed of address changes. Judge Jon S. Tigar did not decide the ultimate merits of the claim against White and Holly.