Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00814/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00814-8/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

EDWARD T. FURNACE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00814-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO:

(1) GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS; AND

(2) GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

AMEND

(ECF No. 63)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO 

RESPOND TO THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case proceeded on Plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Gipson, Kimbrell, Swift, Allen, Robicheaux, 

Graves, and Sexton for violating the free exercise clause of the First Amendment by 

Case 1:14-cv-00814-LJO-MJS Document 64 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 3
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

denying Plaintiff’s requests for a religious name change and to purchase and possess 

religious property. (ECF No. 24.)

On February 26, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC on the 

grounds that Plaintiff’s complaint, which sought only injunctive relief, had been rendered 

moot by his transfer to a different institution. (ECF No. 51.) On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed a motion seeking leave to amend and lodged a proposed Third Amended Complaint 

(“TAC”) with the Court. (ECF Nos. 57 & 58.) Plaintiff’s proposed TAC was substantially 

similar to his SAC, with the addition of a prayer for monetary relief. 

On September 21, 2016, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued

findings and recommendations to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC. 

(ECF No. 63.) The Magistrate Judge also recommended granting Plaintiff’s motion for 

leave to amend and screened Plaintiff’s TAC, finding it stated cognizable First 

Amendment free exercise of religion claims against Defendants Gipson, Kimbrell, Swift, 

and Allen for their denial of Plaintiff’s name change request, and against Gipson, 

Robicheaux, Graves, and Sexton for their denial of Plaintiff’s religious property request. 

Id. The Magistrate Judge thus ordered that Plaintiff’s lodged TAC be filed. Id. The parties 

were granted fourteen days to file their objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 

recommendations. No objections were filed and the time for doing so has passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 

the 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.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 21, 2016 (ECF No. 

63) are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF 

No. 51) is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 57) 

Case 1:14-cv-00814-LJO-MJS Document 64 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 3
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

is GRANTED;

4. Plaintiff shall be permitted to proceed on his Third Amended Complaint’s

First Amendment free exercise of religion claims against Defendants 

Gipson, Kimbrell, Swift, and Allen for their denial of Plaintiff’s name change 

request, and against Gipson, Robicheaux, Graves, and Sexton for their 

denial of Plaintiff’s religious property request (ECF No. 58); 

5. The remaining non-cognizable claims in Plaintiff’s Third Amended 

Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice; and

6. The above-named Defendants are DIRECTED to file a responsive pleading 

or motion to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) 

days of this Court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00814-LJO-MJS Document 64 Filed 11/18/16 Page 3 of 3