Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258-5/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

1

 On September 22, 2004, plaintiff’s First Amendment free exercise claim was dismissed and plaintiff’s

RLUIPA claim for damages was dismissed. (Doc. 38.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN B. COLLINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-6258-REC-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS BE GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART

(Doc. 56)

I. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Action as Moot

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Steven B. Collins (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”)). This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s

complaint filed August 25, 2003, against defendants Alameida, Jr. and Rawers (“defendants”).

Plaintiff’s surviving claims for relief in this action are requests for a declaratory judgment, an

injunction prohibiting defendants from enforcing the grooming standards by punishing orthreatening

to punish plaintiff, and the expungement from plaintiff’s central file of all the disciplinary reports

relating to non-compliance with the grooming standards.1 On January 27, 2006, defendants filed a

motion to dismiss. (Doc. 56.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 15, 2006, and defendants

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 67 Filed 05/08/06 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

 Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment by the

court in an order filed on February 6, 2004. Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). (Doc. 23.)

2

filed a reply on February 23, 2005.2 (Docs. 63, 65.)

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that a central tenet of his religion mandates growth of locks

and prohibits cutting of the hair. Plaintiff alleges that the inmate grooming standards implemented

by the California Department of Corrections, which require inmates keep their hair length three

inches or less, burden the exercise of his religion. Plaintiff alleges that he was subject to progressive

discipline, culminating in the issuance of a CDC-115 Rules Violation Report on April 29, 2003. On

May 5, 2003, plaintiff was found guilty of the rules violation and assessed twenty hours extra duty

as punishment. On July 22, 2003, plaintiff appeared before the Board of Prison Terms and was

denied parole. Plaintiff alleges that the rules violation report was a factor used in denying plaintiff

parole. Plaintiff alleges that the inmate grooming standard policy violates his rights under RLUIPA,

and that defendant Alameida is responsible for the policies of the California Department of

Corrections, and defendant Rawers has the authority to exempt plaintiff from the policy.

C. Discussion

Defendants move to dismiss this action on the ground that plaintiff’s claims have been

rendered moot by the emergency modification to the grooming regulation, which now permits

inmates to wear their hair as long as they want to as long as the face is not obscured. Cal. Code

Regs., tit. 15 § 3062(e) (2006). Plaintiff opposes the motion on the ground that the modification

does not render moot all of his claims for relief.

Plaintiff’s claim for an injunction prohibiting defendants from enforcing the grooming

standards by punishing or threatening to punish plaintiff is moot in light of the modification which

now permits plaintiff to wear his hair long, and plaintiff sets forth no argument to the contrary.

However, the modification does not render moot plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief and an

injunction mandating the expungement from plaintiff’s central file of all the disciplinary reports

relating to non-compliance with the grooming, and defendants have set forth no argument to the

contrary.

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 67 Filed 05/08/06 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

D. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed

January 27, 2006, be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for an injunction prohibiting

defendants from enforcing the grooming standards by punishing or threatening to

punish plaintiff be GRANTED on the ground that the claim is moot in light of the

emergency modification to the grooming regulation; and

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief and an

injunction mandating the expungement from plaintiff’s central file of all the

disciplinary reports relating to non-compliance with the grooming is DENIED on the

ground that the claims are not rendered moot by the emergency modification to the

grooming regulation.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 67 Filed 05/08/06 Page 3 of 3