John Miller v. S. Acosta
20-55879
| 9th Cir. | Feb 25, 2022Background
- John L. Miller, a California state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising from denial of Religious Meat Alternative (RMA) meals.
- Miller alleged a prison official, Acosta, refused to give RMA meals when Miller did not present a Religious Diet Card.
- The district court dismissed Miller’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and granted qualified immunity to Acosta on the free-exercise claim.
- The district court also dismissed Miller’s remaining free-exercise, retaliation, and equal-protection claims for failure to plead plausible facts showing a substantial burden, retaliation causation, or discriminatory animus.
- The court denied Miller’s motions to disqualify the magistrate judge and district judge for alleged bias; Miller filed a Rule 60(b) motion after filing his notice of appeal, which the district court could not consider for lack of jurisdiction.
- Miller appealed pro se; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for Acosta on free-exercise claim | Acosta violated Miller’s free-exercise rights by denying RMA meals without a Religious Diet Card | Acosta reasonably relied on absence of a Religious Diet Card; conduct not clearly unlawful | Affirmed: Acosta entitled to qualified immunity because law was not clearly established |
| Sufficiency of free-exercise allegations (substantial burden) | Miller’s RMA denial substantially burdened his religious practice | Miller failed to allege facts showing a substantial burden or lack of penological justification | Affirmed: pleadings insufficient to state a plausible free-exercise claim |
| First Amendment retaliation claim | Adverse actions were taken in retaliation for Miller’s protected conduct | Miller did not plausibly allege adverse action motivated by retaliation | Affirmed: retaliation claim inadequately pleaded |
| Motions to disqualify judges and Rule 60(b) jurisdiction | Judges were biased; district court should have ruled on Rule 60(b) motion | Miller failed to show extrajudicial bias; Rule 60(b) filed after notice of appeal — court lacked jurisdiction | Affirmed denial of disqualification; district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Rule 60(b) filed after appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (qualified-immunity standard; right must be clearly established)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings must still allege plausible claims under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2015) (prison free-exercise claim requires substantial-burden allegation and review of penological reasonableness)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (prison retaliation claim elements: adverse action and causation)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (equal-protection claim requires plausible allegation of discriminatory animus)
- United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for judicial disqualification and when recusal is required)
- Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567 (9th Cir. 2004) (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider Rule 60(b) after notice of appeal absent remand)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts do not consider issues not raised in opening brief)