Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01003/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01003-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY TODD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01003 DAD DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO CHANGE NAME OF DEFENDANT 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Document 35)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO DECLARE CREATIVITY A RELIGION

(Document 36)

Plaintiff Michael Anthony Todd (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On August 27, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this Court’s order 

dismissing the action in part and remanded the action. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit determined 

that this Court prematurely dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amendment, Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act, Establishment Clause and equal protection claims because his 

allegations, liberally construed, were sufficient to warrant a response from certain Defendants.

Therefore, on September 23, 2015, the Court vacated the judgment and ordered Plaintiff to 

return service documents for eight Defendants. On December 4, 2015, the Court directed the United 

States Marshal to serve these Defendants.

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-01003-DAD-BAM Document 37 Filed 12/22/15 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

2

Upon further review, the Court has determined that a new screening order is necessary to 

clearly establish which Defendants should be served. By separate order, the Court has vacated the 

December 4, 2015, order directing service and recalled the service documents from the United States 

Marshal. 

Accordingly, the Court will re-screen the First Amended Complaint consistent with the Ninth 

Circuit’s remand. As the Court has not determined which Defendants should be served, Plaintiff’s 

December 18, 2015, motion to change the name of Defendant T. Cano to T. Campbell is DENIED 

without prejudice.

On December 18, 2015, Plaintiff also filed a motion “for immediate recognition of creativity 

as a religion” for First Amendment and RLUIPA purposes. However, the Court will not make such 

a determination that this early stage in the proceedings. When the Ninth Circuit remanded this 

action, it determined that at the screening stage, Plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to warrant a 

response on certain claims. The Ninth Circuit specifically noted that it “express[ed] no opinion as to 

whether Creativity constitutes a religion.” Such a determination is not proper at this stage of the 

proceedings, and Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01003-DAD-BAM Document 37 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 2