Thomas v. Dubois

Background

Arthur C. Thomas, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Carl E. DuBois, identified in the opinion as the Sheriff of Orange County. Thomas brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows lawsuits against people who violate constitutional rights while acting under government authority. He alleged that, while incarcerated at the Orange County Correctional Facility from June 18, 2019, through August 8, 2019, he was denied the ability to worship because the facility offered no Rastafarian services or programs.

Thomas acknowledged that the facility had a general policy giving inmates access to religious services of their choice and providing for recruitment of a representative when needed. He alleged that the facility nevertheless had no services or programs for Rastafarians. He later filed a grievance requesting Rastafarian services and poultry meals; the grievance was denied on the merits. Thomas alleged mental, spiritual, and physical harm, including depression, and sought $1 million in damages and an order requiring the facility to honor his rights and religion.

Defendant’s motion

DuBois moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Among other arguments, DuBois asserted that Thomas did not adequately allege DuBois’s personal involvement, did not state a First Amendment or Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claim, did not establish municipal liability, and that DuBois was protected by qualified immunity. Thomas did not file a response to the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Thomas did not allege facts showing that DuBois was personally involved in the alleged denial of Rastafarian services. Thomas did not allege that DuBois participated in the conduct, knew about his request, failed to remedy it, created or continued an unconstitutional policy, negligently supervised subordinates, or deliberately failed to act on information about unconstitutional conduct. The complaint did not mention DuBois in its body; his name appeared in the caption. The court therefore dismissed the claims against DuBois in his individual capacity.

The court also considered any claim against DuBois in his official capacity as a claim against Orange County. It held that Thomas had not adequately alleged municipal liability. The facility’s stated policy supported access to religious services and recruitment of faith representatives, so Thomas’s allegations concerned a failure to follow that policy rather than an unconstitutional county policy or custom. The complaint also did not identify a policymaker or a municipal practice that caused the alleged violation. The court therefore dismissed any official-capacity claim.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted DuBois’s motion to dismiss. Because this was the first adjudication of Thomas’s claims, the dismissal was without prejudice. The court allowed Thomas to file an amended complaint within 30 days and instructed that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that if Thomas did not timely file an amended complaint, the claims may be dismissed with prejudice.