Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01940/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01940-27/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

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

Plaintiff Kajauna Kenyatta Irvin is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). The case 

was removed from state court on October 14, 2010. 

The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 8, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings 

and recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

cognizable claim be denied.1Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 

contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. (Doc. 136.) Plaintiff filed 

his objections on March 14, 2016. (Doc. 137.) Defendants filed no objections.

 

1

The findings and recommendations also recommended that a request for judicial notice brought by 

plaintiff be denied and that defendants’ motion to strike the declarations submitted by plaintiff in 

support of his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted.

KAJAUNA KENYATTA IRVIN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01940-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. Nos. 89, 109, 118, 120, 136)

Case 1:10-cv-01940-DAD-SAB Document 138 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 2
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de 

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s objections, the 

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on February 8, 2016, are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice is DENIED in part;

3. Defendants’ motion to strike the declarations submitted by plaintiff in support of his 

opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED; 

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01940-DAD-SAB Document 138 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 2