Prasad v. County of San Mateo
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-02720
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Prasad v. County of San Mateo, Judge Tigar denied requests to pause litigation, amend the complaint, appoint counsel, and obtain a temporary restraining order.
Kevin B. Prasad and the defendants in his federal civil-rights action. Prasad was not appointed counsel, was not granted permission to amend his complaint on this request, and did not obtain an order stopping San Mateo County from serving the identified gravy product.
What happened
Kevin B. Prasad, an inmate proceeding without a lawyer, sued San Mateo County and others under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that he was served pork products despite his religious objection to eating pork. The order addressed four requests by Prasad: pausing the case, amending his complaint, appointing counsel, and stopping the County from serving a particular gravy product.
The court denied the request to pause the case as moot because Prasad said he wanted to withdraw it. It denied leave to amend because he did not submit a complete proposed amended complaint, but stated that he could file a new request with one. It denied appointed counsel because he had not shown exceptional circumstances. It also denied the temporary restraining order because his evidence did not clearly show that he was likely to succeed, including because the source of an inmate’s information about the gravy was unknown and the statement was hearsay.
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied all four requests and terminated the four related docket entries. The order did not decide the underlying claim about pork products and religious freedom.
The detailed version
- Prasad v. County of San Mateo · No. 4:22-cv-02720
- Jon Tigar
- Feb. 6, 2024
Background
Kevin B. Prasad, an inmate housed at Maple Street Correctional Center, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that San Mateo County served him pork products despite knowing that eating pork violated the requirements of his religion, violating his First Amendment right to freely practice his religion. The order addressed four pending requests: to pause the litigation, to amend the complaint, to appoint counsel, and to issue a temporary restraining order.
Request to Pause the Litigation
The court denied the request to pause the litigation as moot. Prasad had informed the court that he wished to withdraw that request.
Request to Amend the Complaint
Prasad sought permission to file an amended complaint. He identified proposed changes that included adding Denise Chu and Anna Miraramon as defendants, addressing other defendants who had been replaced, and adding claims under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
The court denied the request because Prasad did not file a proposed amended complaint. Northern District of California Local Rule 10-1 requires a party seeking to amend a pleading to reproduce the entire proposed pleading rather than incorporate the earlier pleading by reference. The court stated that the denial was without prejudice to a new request accompanied by a complete proposed amended complaint listing all defendants and claims.
Request for Appointment of Counsel
Prasad requested appointed counsel, citing his inability to afford a lawyer, imprisonment, limited access to legal materials and technology, the complexity of the case, anticipated conflicting testimony, difficulty preparing declarations, and alleged problems receiving and sending court communications.
The court denied the request for failure to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. It explained that appointment of counsel in a civil case is discretionary and generally requires consideration of the plaintiff’s likelihood of success and ability to present his claims without a lawyer in light of the legal issues’ complexity. The court found that Prasad had been able to explain his claims and file numerous pleadings despite his incarceration and jail restrictions. The likelihood of success was unclear because a pending summary-judgment motion could resolve the case. The court denied the request without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances required it.
Request for a Temporary Restraining Order
Prasad asked the court to prohibit San Mateo County from serving him food containing “Custom Culinary Mix Gravy Country Pan Roast Instant.” The court treated his one-page filing as a motion for a temporary restraining order.
A temporary restraining order is emergency relief. To obtain one, a plaintiff must make a clear showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of equities favors him, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. The court also noted that the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits prospective relief in cases involving prison conditions.
The court denied the request because Prasad had not clearly shown that he was likely to succeed. His asserted evidence included a statement by an unidentified former inmate kitchen worker that the gravy contained beef and a nutrition label stating that the gravy contained pork-sausage flavors derived from natural flavors. The court found that the basis for the former kitchen worker’s knowledge was unknown, that a natural flavor source was not necessarily pork, and that the statement was hearsay. The court concluded that this evidence was insufficient to carry Prasad’s burden.
Disposition
The court denied Prasad’s motion to pause litigation, denied his request for leave to file an amended complaint, denied his request for appointment of counsel, and denied his request for a temporary restraining order. The order terminated the docket entries associated with those four requests. It did not resolve the merits of Prasad’s underlying religious-freedom claim.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.