United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Middle Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
STACI G. CORNELIUS, Magistrate Judge.
Rafael Alberto Llovera Linares, proceeding pro se, filed an amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging state officials violated his First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion during his detention in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") at Etowah County Jail in Gadsden, Alabama. (Doc. 22). The plaintiff names as defendants the "Director... of the Nutritional Services in the Etowah County Jail (John Doe 1), " the "Officer in Charge of the Programs and Services in the Etowah County Jail (John Doe 2), " the "Chaplain of the Etowah County Jail (John Doe 3), " and Scott Hassell, the administrator of the jail. ( Id. at 7-9). The plaintiff demands monetary damages and injunctive relief. ( Id. at 10-11). In accordance with the usual practices of this court and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the amended complaint was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for a preliminary report and recommendation. See McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136 (1991).
I. Standard of Review
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 804, 110 Stat. 1321, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, requires a court to screen complaints filed by prisoners against officers or employees of governmental entities and dismiss complaints or portions of complaints it determines are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. Where practicable, a court may sua sponte dismiss a prisoner's complaint prior to service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
A dismissal pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim is governed by the same standards as a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff must assert "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not" suffice. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Nonetheless, because "[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys[, ]" they are liberally construed. Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006).
II. Factual Allegations
The plaintiff is a Sephardic Orthodox Jew. (Doc. 22 at 1). He arrived at Etowah County Jail on March 16, 2014. ( Id. at 2). The next day, he requested the jail serve him a kosher diet. ( Id. ). However, he came to learn the purported kosher meals served at the jail were not prepared or served in accordance with kosher laws or the regulations of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (the "BOP"). ( Id. at 2-3). A Jewish detainee informed the plaintiff the purported kosher meals served at the jail were not always, in fact, kosher. ( Id. at 4).
On or about March 19, 2014, the plaintiff expressed to John Doe 3, the jail's chaplain his concerns regarding the preparation and service of kosher meals at the jail. ( Id. at 3). He also asked the chaplain about accommodations for Sabbath services and the observance of Jewish holy days, as well as whether the jail could provide access to a rabbi at least once per month. ( Id. ).
On March 22, 2014, the plaintiff filed a grievance in which he complained the purported kosher meals served at the jail were not prepared or served in accordance with kosher laws or BOP regulations and he could not practice his religion at the jail because it offered no Jewish services. ( Id. ). He demanded to receive proper kosher meals, as well as a weekly visit from a rabbi. ( Id. at 3-4).
On March 27, 2014 and April 7, 2014, the plaintiff filed additional grievances in which he repeated the complaints and requests made in his grievance dated March 22, 2014. ( Id. at 4-5). In his grievance dated April 7, 2014, the plaintiff also requested specific meals for Passover. ( Id. at 5).
The plaintiff alleges that as of September 4, 2014, the day he signed his amended complaint, the jail was not serving him kosher meals prepared in accordance with kosher laws and BOP regulation, nor had he received any response to his grievances. ( Id. ). Rather, according to the plaintiff, the jail was serving him the same meals served to the jail's general population. ( Id. at 5-7). The plaintiff also alleges the jail lacks accommodations for Sabbath services and Jewish holy days. ( Id. at 6). Finally, the plaintiff alleges the jail does not provide access to a rabbi or religious materials such as the Torah. ( Id. ).
A. Claims on Behalf of All Jewish Detainees
The plaintiff purports to bring the claims asserted in this action on behalf of himself and all other Jewish detainees held in ICE custody at the Etowah County Jail presently or in the future. ( Id. at 1-2). A plaintiff "has standing to seek redress for injuries done to him, but may not seek redress or injuries done to others." Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163, 166 (1972). Moreover, it would be clear error to allow the plaintiff to bring this suit on behalf of other detainees. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) ("While a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, [he] has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.'")). The plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing he has standing to bring claims on behalf of other Jewish detainees held in ICE custody at the jail ...