Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05365/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05365-0/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

)

MANGO WATTS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 03 CV F- 5365 OWW DLB P 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR SECOND

EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING

ORDER 

Document #40

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT’S

TO PROVIDE RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Plaintiff alleges that the California Department of Correction’s

hair length grooming standards, Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3062, violate the Free Exercise of

Religion Clause of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et. seq., and

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

On January 28, 2005, the Court granted Defendants’ request for an extension of the

Scheduling Order based on the United States Supreme Court’s granting a petition for writ of

certiorari in Cutler v. Wilkinson, 125 S.Ct 308 (October 12, 2004), to resolve a conflict between the

Case 1:03-cv-05365-OWW -DLB Document 42 Filed 06/01/05 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

Ninth Circuit and the Sixth Circuit regarding the constitutionality of RLUIPA. Defendants have

requested a second extension based on the unsettled nature of the law. However, on May 31, 2005,

the Supreme Court issued its decision in Cutler v. Wilkinson finding that Section 3 of RLUIPA, on

its face, qualifies as a permissible accommodation that is not barred by the Establishment Clause. 

Accordingly, good cause no longer exists for a second extension of the scheduling order and

Defendants’ request is DENIED. However, in light of the timing of the Supreme Court’s decision,

the Court will modify the schedule in this case as follows: 

1. Defendants are ordered to provide further briefing in support of their opposition to

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in light of Cutler v. Wilkinson, within 20

days of this Order; Plaintiff may file a reply within 10 days of Defendants’

supplemental opposition;

2. The non-dispositive motion filing deadline is extended to July 15, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05365-OWW -DLB Document 42 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 2