Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Jesus Gallegos, a state prisoner at Valley State Prison proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against S. Spencer, the Education Principal. Gallegos alleged that Spencer denied him Excused Time Off (ETO) from his Masonry Vocational Program to attend Wiccan/Pagan religious services on Tuesdays from 12:00 pm to 2:00 pm.
According to the first amended complaint, Spencer rejected multiple GA-22 requests, stating that vocational assignments were more important than Wiccan beliefs and that inmates could no longer attend religious services Monday through Friday because the classes take up to four years to complete. Gallegos filed a CDCR 602 grievance on January 11, 2026. He asserted claims for violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The court previously screened the initial complaint and granted leave to amend; the first amended complaint was then screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The operative document is a federal trial-court order. The distinction between a final order and a magistrate judge’s recommendation matters: The magistrate judge recommends dismissal for failure to state a claim after amendment. No final dismissal has yet occurred; Gallegos has 14 days after service to object, and the recommendation will go to an assigned district judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge concluded that the first amended complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under § 1983 and recommended dismissal with prejudice. On the Free Exercise claim, the court found Gallegos failed to allege facts showing that attending Tuesday services was a sincerely held religious requirement or that the denial substantially burdened his practice, noting he did not allege he was precluded from practicing by alternative means. The court found Spencer’s requirement to attend the time-intensive masonry program was rationally related to the legitimate penological interest of vocational training for release. On the RLUIPA claim, the court held that money damages are unavailable against state officials in their individual or official capacities under Sossamon v.
Texas and Wood v. Yordy, and Gallegos sued Spencer in her individual capacity. On the Equal Protection claim, the court found Gallegos’s allegations that other faiths were accommodated were conclusory and failed to show those groups were similarly situated or that Spencer acted with discriminatory intent. The court also held that violations of Title 15 regulations do not create a private right of action under § 1983. The clerk was directed to randomly assign a district judge, and Gallegos was given 14 days to file objections.
The magistrate judge recommends dismissal for failure to state a claim after amendment. No final dismissal has yet occurred; Gallegos has 14 days after service to object, and the recommendation will go to an assigned district judge.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner’s Free Exercise claim requires plausible allegations that a prison policy substantially burdens a sincerely held religious belief and is not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests; mere preference for a specific worship time during mandatory programming is insufficient.
- RLUIPA does not authorize money damages against state officials in their individual capacities, and claims for damages under RLUIPA against state defendants are not cognizable.
- Equal Protection claims require factual allegations showing intentional discrimination against a protected class or that similarly situated individuals were treated differently without rational basis; conclusory assertions that other religions were accommodated are inadequate.
- Violations of California Code of Regulations Title 15 do not give rise to a private cause of action under § 1983.
- Where a plaintiff has been granted leave to amend and fails to cure pleading deficiencies, further amendment is not warranted and dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.
Why It Matters
This screening decision illustrates the stringent pleading standards applied to prisoner civil rights cases at the § 1915A stage. It reinforces Ninth Circuit precedent that vocational training constitutes a legitimate penological interest justifying restrictions on religious service attendance during class hours, and that RLUIPA’s heightened ‘substantial burden’ standard does not overcome the bar on individual-capacity damages claims.
The ruling also underscores that prior inconsistent pleadings may be used as admissions against a plaintiff, and that regulatory violations alone cannot sustain a § 1983 action. The case remains pending before a district judge for adoption, modification, or rejection of the findings and recommendations.
For practitioners, the immediate lesson is to track both the legal standard and the precise procedural remedy. Deadlines, notice requirements, burdens of proof, and whether relief is recommended or already operative can determine the next filing and the client’s present custody or litigation status.