(PC) J'Weial v. Barge
2:17-cv-01937-MCE-AC
| E.D. Cal. | Mar 31, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Xavier Lumar J’Weial, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, sued Amador County and several prison staff alleging denial of Passover religious meals from April 10–18, 2017 and resulting physical and emotional harm.
- He alleges defendants intentionally singled him out (others in the same program received meals) and that some defendants retaliated against him for filing a grievance.
- Plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First and Eighth Amendments.
- Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application was granted and the court assessed the initial partial filing fee under § 1915(b).
- Under the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court found the complaint deficient for failing to allege the personal involvement of each named defendant or a constitutionally deficient policy by the County.
- The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim but plaintiff was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint within 30 days with specific instructions about what factual allegations are required.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free Exercise — denial of religious meals | Plaintiff says he was intentionally denied Passover meals, burdening his Messianic Jewish practice | Defendants implicitly deny a policy or personal role; no facts showing who denied meals or why | Dismissed for failure to state a claim—pleading lacks specific facts tying each defendant to the deprivation or showing a justified burden absent legitimate penological interest |
| Eighth Amendment — deliberate indifference | Plaintiff alleges physical harm from missed meals | Defendants not shown to have known of or disregarded a serious risk; no facts about who knew what when | Dismissed—no plausible allegation that any defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to health or safety |
| Retaliation (First Amendment) | Plaintiff claims denial of religious meals was retaliation for filing a grievance | No facts alleging when grievance was filed, how defendants learned of it, or causation between grievance and denials | Dismissed—retaliation claim lacks timing, knowledge, causation, and adverse action details |
| Municipal/supervisory liability | Plaintiff alleges a County custom/policy of not allowing religious exercise and names supervisors | County liability improper for state prison conditions; supervisors not shown to have personally participated, directed, or had causal connection | Dismissed as pleaded—no allegation that County created/implemented a constitutionally deficient policy or that supervisors were personally involved |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolousness standard for in forma pauperis screening)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility and factual specificity required)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (retaliation claim elements for prisoners)
- Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (free exercise test in prisons)
- Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (need for personal involvement under § 1983)
- Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967 (supervisory liability requires causal connection)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (link between complained-of conduct and constitutional deprivation)