Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01624/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01624-14/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORIO FUNTANILLA, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROMAN R. WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-01624-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS BE 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN 

PART

(ECF Nos. 59 & 72)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Gregorio Funtanilla, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 9, 2010. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), filed on December 7, 2011, against 1) 

Defendants Williams, Manson, Lias, Gomez, Clark, Turner, Grannis, Santoro, and Ibarra for 

denial of Plaintiff’s ability to place a copy of the Ten Commandments above his door in violation 

of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and RLUIPA; 2) Defendants Grannis,

Romanello, R. Gomez, and Clark for not providing Plaintiff with the opportunity to bring extra to 

his cell before each Sabbath day, or not providing him food at his cell on each Sabbath day, in 

violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and RLUIPA; and 3) Defendant 

Adams, Baires, and Clark for refusing to allow Plaintiff to attend church worship services on 

Case 1:10-cv-01624-LJO-DLB Document 75 Filed 08/11/14 Page 1 of 4
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

Sabbath days in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and RLUIPA. (ECF 

Nos. 22 & 23.) 

Pending before the Court is Defendant K. Turner’s, M. Baires’, K. Clark’s, D. Ibarra’s, O. 

Ybarra’s, J. Lais’, Adams’, Grannis’ and Santoro’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss, filed 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on October 22, 2013. On May 23, 2014, the 

Court issued a findings and recommendations recommending granting Defendants’ motion in part 

and denying in part. (ECF No. 62.) Defendants filed objections on June 24, 2014. (ECF No. 73.) 

II. Discussion

A. Defendant Ybarra 

In their objections, Defendants first request clarification on the status of Defendant Ybarra. 

Defendants note that Defendant Ybarra does not appear in the factual allegations section of 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, but his name is listed in the Eighth Claim for Relief. 

(ECF No. 22 at 16.) In the screening order on the Second Amended Complaint, the Court states 

that there is a cognizable RLUIPA claim against Defendant Ybarra, but then does not list Ybarra 

in the conclusion. (Compare ECF No. 23 at 7:21-23 with 8:17-19.) Defendants argue that 

Defendant Ybarra’s inclusion in the service order may have been an oversight and request that he be 

formally dismissed from this lawsuit. 

Upon further review, it appears that Defendant Ybarra was properly served in this action and 

should not be dismissed. The confusion arises from the similarity of spelling in two defendants’ 

names, Defendant D. Ibarra and Defendant OA Ybarra. Although Defendants correctly note that 

Defendant Ybarra does not specifically appear in the factual allegations of the Second Amended 

Complaint, it appears to the Court that Plaintiff made a spelling error in the factual allegations related 

Case 1:10-cv-01624-LJO-DLB Document 75 Filed 08/11/14 Page 2 of 4
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 3

to Defendant Ybarra.1 The Court arrives at this conclusion based on Plaintiff mentioning Defendant 

Ybarra two separate times in the complaint, including the specific Eighth Claim for Relief, as well as 

Plaintiff separately serving both Defendants Ibarra and Ybarra. (See ECF Nos. 22, 28, 29.) The Court 

liberally construes Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that Defendant Ybarra should not be dismissed from 

this action. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (prisoners proceeding pro se in civil 

rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in 

their favor).

B. RLUIPA Claims

Defendants secondly request clarification on the RLUIPA claims based on a recent change 

in the law. On June 3, 2014, the Ninth Circuit held that individuals cannot be liable for money 

damages under RLUIPA. See Wood v. Yordy, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 2462575, at *4 (9th Cir. 

2014). The Court previously recommended in the findings and recommendations that “Plaintiff’s 

claims proceed only for injunctive relief to provide the religion accommodations Plaintiff seeks.” 

(ECF No. 72 at 12.) The Court now clarifies that in regards to the RLUIPA claims, Defendants are 

being sued in their official capacity for prospective injunctive relief only, and thus have no liability for 

money damages on these claims.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court modifies the findings and recommendations, filed on May 23, 

2014, as detailed above; and

///

///

///

 

1

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint refers instead to a “Defendant Ibarra” in relation the 2006 claims. ECF No. 

22 at 14.) 

Case 1:10-cv-01624-LJO-DLB Document 75 Filed 08/11/14 Page 3 of 4
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 4

2. Defendant Adams be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to comply 

with the statute of limitations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01624-LJO-DLB Document 75 Filed 08/11/14 Page 4 of 4