United States District Court, D. Arizona
Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Aziz Klalid Bin Talal Al Saud, Plaintiff,
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants.
Honorable Steven P. Logan United States District Judge
Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Aziz Klalid Bin Talal Al Saud, who is
currently confined in Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman,
brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (Doc. 21.) Defendants move for summary judgment, and
Plaintiff did not file a response. (Docs. 85.) The Court
subsequently ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute (Doc. 91)
and Plaintiff did not respond.
Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff relevantly alleged as
follows. On September 29, 2016, Plaintiff was taken into the
custody of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO)
and incarcerated in the Fourth Avenue Jail. (Doc. 21 at 4.)
On his arrival, Plaintiff submitted a dietary request to
Defendant Millard, the Commander of Religious Services,
requesting an Islamic-Halal diet due to Plaintiff religious
beliefs that requires him to eat Halal food prepared in the
name of Allah and to not eat “unhealthy unclean
foods” not prepared in the name of Allah. (Id.
at 4-7.) Plaintiff told Millard and Defendants Ogar and
Herrera that the MSCO's vegetarian diet did not meet his
needs because it was not prepared in the name of Allah.
(Id.) There were also “rotten spoil [sic]
maggots moldy bread and fruit items” that
“don't meet [Plaintiff's] dietary laws.”
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court
determined that Plaintiff stated a First Amendment free
exercise claim, a claim pursuant to the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and a Fourteenth
Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against Defendants
Millard, Herrera, and Ogar. (Doc. 25.) The Court dismissed
the remaining claims and Defendants. (Id.) Defendant
Millard was subsequently dismissed pursuant to a Stipulation.
Failure to Prosecute
has failed to comply with the Court's Order to show
cause. Although Plaintiff has filed notices indicating that
he is not receiving some legal paperwork from certain Arizona
Department of Corrections (ADC) officials, Plaintiff has
repeatedly violated the Court's orders regarding seeking
appropriate relief regarding his problems with legal
paperwork. (See Docs. 92-95.) Moreover,
Plaintiff's allegations regarding not receiving his legal
paperwork are generally conclusory, Plaintiff has failed to
provide any evidence that he has grieved any issue regarding
failure to obtain legal paperwork as this Court previously
instructed, and this Court does not have jurisdiction over
the ADC or any ADC officials in this action.
Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's orders
and failure to show cause for his failure to do so compels
the conclusion that this action should be dismissed for
failure to prosecute. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779
F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (In determining whether
Plaintiff's failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of
the case, the Court must weigh the following five factors:
“(1) the public's interest in expeditious
resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage
its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4)
the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
the Court will address the merits of Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment.
Summary Judgment Standard
must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The movant bears
the initial responsibility of presenting the basis for its
motion and identifying those portions of the record, together
with affidavits, if any, that it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
movant fails to carry its initial burden of production, the
nonmovant need not produce anything. Nissan Fire &
Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Co.,
Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2000). But if
the movant meets its initial responsibility, the burden
shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate the existence of a
factual dispute and that the fact in contention is material,
i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under
the governing law, and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 250 (1986);
see Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d
1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). The nonmovant need not establish
a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor, First
Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S.
253, 288-89 (1968); however, it must “come forward with
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)
(internal citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
summary judgment, the judge's function is not to weigh
the evidence and determine the truth but to determine whether
there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477
U.S. at 249. In its analysis, the court must believe the
nonmovant's evidence and draw all inferences in the
nonmovant's favor. Id. at 255. The court need
consider only the cited materials, but it may consider any
other materials in the record. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3).
was in the custody of the MCSO between September 29, 2016 and
April 20, 2017, and was again booked into MSCO custody on
October 12, 2017. (Doc. 86 ¶¶ 1, 2.) Plaintiff
believes he may only consume foods prepared by sincere
Muslims in the name of God and he must consume Halal meat.
(Id. ¶ 3.) According to Plaintiff, for food to