Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02374/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02374-1/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

 The California Department of Corrections is now known as the California Department 1

of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONON ALSTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2374 DFL JFM P

vs.

M. SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants are violating his rights under the Religious

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by enforcing against him grooming

regulations promulgated and implemented by the California Department of Corrections (CDC)

1

in 1997. On July 29, 2005, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On the same day,

the Court of Appeals decided Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9 Cir. 2005) in which it th

held that the CDC had failed to meet its burden under RLUIPA of showing that the grooming

regulations were the “least restrictive alternative” for achieving the compelling state interest 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02374-DFL -JFM Document 30 Filed 12/21/05 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 Warsoldier involved an appeal from the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction. 2

2

advanced in defense of the regulations, and, therefore, that the plaintiff in Warsoldier had shown

a likelihood of success on the merits of his RLUIPA claim. See Warsoldier, at 998-1002. 

2

Good cause appearing, defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be denied

without prejudice to its renewal, as appropriate, in light of the decision in Warsoldier. The

parties will be given one additional period of forty-five days in which to file dispositive motions. 

No extensions of time will be granted, and this matter will be reset for pretrial conference and

trial at the end of the thirty day period set in this order if no dispositive motion is filed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ July 29, 2005 motion for summary judgment is denied without

prejudice; and 

2. The parties are granted one period of forty-five days in which to file dispositive

motions. No extensions of this time limit will be granted. 

DATED: December 20, 2005.

12

alst2374.msj1

Case 2:04-cv-02374-DFL -JFM Document 30 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 2