Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN B. COLLINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-6258-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, AND REFERRING MATTER

BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

(Docs. 49 and 57)

Plaintiff Steven B. Collins (“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 (RLUIPA)). The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On January 30, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an objection on

February 15, 2006.

The Magistrate Judge recommended Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied,

but Defendants be granted leave to file another motion addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s RLUIPA

claim and the applicability of the favorable termination rule to Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief

and expungement of the disciplinary violations. It is the recommendation that Defendants be granted

leave to file another motion that Plaintiff objects to.

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 66 Filed 03/07/06 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

Court finds the Findings andRecommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Plaintiff’s objection is noted. However, the Court deems it in the interest of justice to allow

Defendants one final opportunity to address the claims identified by the Magistrate Judge,

particularly in light of the fact that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d

989 (9th Cir. 2005) was issued after Defendants’ motion was filed. This matter shall be referred

back to the Magistrate Judge to address Defendants’ recently filed motion to dismiss as moot in light

of the emergency modification to the grooming regulations, and for the issuance of a further

scheduling order if necessary. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 30, 2006, is adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed May 19, 2005, is DENIED as

follows:

a. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on the ground that RLUIPA

is unconstitutional is DENIED;

b. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s claim that the

grooming policy violates RLUIPA is DENIED; and,

c. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on the ground that the

favorable termination rule bars Plaintiff’s claim is DENIED; and

3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings

consistent with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 66 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 2