1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KEITH HARRY WASHINGTON, Case No. 22-cv-06122-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

9 v.

10 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee housed at Santa Rita County Jail, has filed a pro se action 14 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is now before the Court for review 15 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a 16 separate order. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. Standard of Review 19 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 22 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 24 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 25 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 1 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 2 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 3 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 4 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 5 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. 6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 7 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 8 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 9 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 10 B. Complaint 11 The amended complaint names as defendants the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 12 (“ACSO”), which operates Santa Rita Jail; Aramark Corporation (“Aramark”), which provides all 13 the meals to inmates; and Alameda County sheriff-elect Yesenia Sanchez. 14 The complaint makes the following allegations. Upon his arrival at Santa Rita Jail on 15 March 21, 2022, Plaintiff requested a kosher/halal diet, which he alleges is his “religious diet.” 16 The meals provided by Santa Rita Jail are prepared by defendant Aramark and served by Alameda 17 County Sheriff’s deputies. On or around July 19, 2022, Plaintiff received his first kosher/halal 18 meal. The kosher/halal meals are delivered in unclean trays which introduce non-kosher/halal 19 items into Plaintiff’s meals, thus violating Plaintiff’s religious tenets. In addition, the kosher/halal 20 meals are lacking in portion size. Plaintiff must therefore choose between adequate nutrition and 21 following his faith. Plaintiff has filed grievances regarding the problems with the kosher/halal 22 meals and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office has furthered the constitutional violation by 23 failing to resolve the issues. See generally Dkt. No. 1. 24 C. Dismissal with Leave to Amend 25 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend because Plaintiff has not alleged a 26 violation of either the federal constitution or federal law, or referenced the federal constitution or 27 federal law. The complaint also does not identify what religion Plaintiff observes that requires the 1 Plaintiff states that he is a Sunni Muslim and that he believes that the kosher/halal meals served 2 him constitute a substantial burden on his religious practice under both the First Amendment and 3 the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. See Dkt. No. 4 at 1, 5. However, the 4 Court cannot piece together legal causes of actions from other pleadings. Plaintiff can easily 5 remedy the above-identified deficiencies, and may do so by filing an amended complaint that, in 6 the amended complaint, specifies the legal causes of action that Plaintiff wishes to bring and 7 identifying the federal constitutional provisions or laws violated by Defendants’ actions or 8 inactions. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court should grant 9 leave to amend unless pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts). 10 D. Ex Parte Request for Emergency Preliminary Injunction 11 Plaintiff has filed a request seeking an emergency preliminary injunction ex parte, Dkt. 12 No. 4, which consists of a proposed order to show cause, Dkt. No. 4 at 1-2, and a memorandum of 13 law in support of the request, Dkt. No. 4 at 3-10. 14 The memorandum of law alleges that Defendants have placed a substantial burden on 15 Plaintiff’s ability to practice by providing kosher/halal meals, which meet the tenets of Plaintiff’s 16 Sunni Muslim faith, that are inadequate in portion size and are served on dirty trays which cause 17 the meals to be cross-contaminated with non-kosher/halal items. Plaintiff seeks an emergency 18 preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to (1) deliver kosher/halal meals that are in full 19 compliance with the Alameda County Religious meals menu provided by sub-contractor Aramark 20 Corporation; (2) serve these meals either on clean disposable trays or on trays designated for 21 kosher/halal foods and visibly distinct from trays used for non-kosher/halal meals; and (3) seal 22 religious meals in plastic and deliver the meals to inmates sealed. See generally Dkt. No. 4. 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) provides that a temporary restraining order may be granted without 24 written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s attorney only if: (1) it clearly appears 25 from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable 26 injury, loss or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or the party’s attorney 27 can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies in writing the efforts, if any, 1 be required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Plaintiff's emergency preliminary injunction request fails 2 || to provide reasons why notice need not be given to Defendants prior to issuing an emergency 3 preliminary injunction. The Court DENIES the request for an ex parte emergency preliminary 4 || injunction without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing such a request after there is an operative 5 complaint and Defendants have appeared in the case. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows. 8 1. The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's ex parte request for an emergency 9 || preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 4. 10 2. The Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight 11 (28) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that addresses the 12 || deficiencies identified above. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case 5 13 || number used in this order, Case No. C 22-06122 HSG (PR) and the words “AMENDED 14 || COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the 3 15 questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. An amended complaint completely 16 || replaces the previous complaints. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 3 17 2012). Accordingly, Plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes to 18 || present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue, and may not incorporate material from the prior 19 complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order in the 20 || time provided will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. The Clerk 21 shall include two copies of the court’s complaint form with a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 22 This order terminates Dkt. No. 4. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: 7/10/2023 Absurd 5 Mbt) 6 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 27 28