Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06409/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06409-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

CARLTON K. HILLMON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 03-6409 REC DLB P 

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE FURTHER BRIEFING

[Doc 39]

Plaintiff Carlton Hillmon (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000). This action is proceeding against defendants Mitchell and

Rawers (“defendants”) on plaintiff’s claim that they violated his rights under RLUIPA by

substantially burdening his religious exercise. On September 29, 2005, the District Court adopted

the undersigned’s recommendation that plaintiff’s claims under the First Amendment and plaintiff’s

claim for damages be dismissed. This action therefore proceeds only plaintiff’s claim for injunctive

relief under RLUIPA. 

On January 27, 2006, defendants moved to dismiss this action on the ground that plaintiff’s

claims are moot based on the amendments to the CDCR regulations which now permit the wearing

Case 1:03-cv-06409-AWI -DLB Document 42 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

of long hair. Effective January 17, 2006, the Office of Administrative Law filed with the Secretary

of State, emergency changes to the grooming standards (Cal.Code Regs tit. 15, §§ 3000-3210) that

now permit inmates to wear their hair long and to wear beards as specified. 

Plaintiff argues his action his not moot since there are still disputes as to the remedies he

requested. Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to expungement of any disciplinary violations; court

filing fees; and compensation for lost wages. In their reply, defendants point out that plaintiff did not

seek expungement of his disciplinary record in his complaint and it is unclear whether plaintiff 

suffered disciplinary action. 

The Court requires further briefing on the issue of what, if any disciplinary action plaintiff

has suffered as a result of the regulation at issue. Accordingly, defendants are HEREBY ORDERED

to file supplemental briefing in support of their motion to dismiss within 30 days of this Order. 

Defendants shall specifically address what, if any, disciplinary action plaintiff has suffered as the

result of the regulation and defendants’ ability/willingness to expunge plaintiff’s record. Plaintiff

shall file a response to Defendants’ supplemental brief within 30 days of service. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 30, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06409-AWI -DLB Document 42 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2