Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00595/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00595-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN L. FIELDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

W.T. VOSS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00595-AWI-GSA (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

(Docs. 25 & 29)

Plaintiff Allen L. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

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

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, hereinafter “the RLUIPA”). This action is proceeding against

Defendants W.T. Voss, Patrick Daley, Mae O’Brien, Linda Clark, and CindyMaynard on Plaintiff’s

claim that they violated his rights under the RLUIPA by substantially burdening his religious

exercise. (Doc. 13.) 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 February 4, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

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

filed within thirty days. No objections have been filed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00595-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 03/22/10 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 4, 2010, is adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity from

Plaintiff’s claims against them in their official capacities for violations of the 

RLUIPA is DENIED; 

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s damages claims against them in their

official capacities on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds is GRANTED; 

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted under the RLUIPA is DENIED as to Defendants

Daley, O’Brien, and Maynard;

5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted under the RLUIPA is GRANTED with leave to

amend as to Defendants Clark and Voss; and

6. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants Clark and Voss is dismissed, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. sect 1997e(a) without prejudice;

7. Any amended complaint that contains RLUIPA claims as to Defendants Clark and

Voss, as explained in the Findings andRecommendations, SHALLBE FILED within

thirty days of this order’s date of service; and 

8. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-00595-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 2