Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258-3/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

STEVEN B. COLLINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

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

Defendants.

 /

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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE A NEW MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT UNTIL AFTER RESOLUTION

OF THEIR PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS,

BUT DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST

TO HOLD F&R AND ITS OBJECTION

PERIOD IN ABEYANCE

(Doc. 60)

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)). On January 30, 2006, the undersigned issued a

Findings and Recommendations (F&R) recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment be denied, but recommending that Defendants be granted leave to file another motion for

summary judgment. On January 31, 2006, Defendants filed a request to hold the F&R and parties’

obligations thereto in abeyance pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed on January

27, 2006. The basis of Defendants’ motion to dismiss is that Plaintiff’s claims have been rendered

moot by the recent 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).

///

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 62 Filed 02/07/06 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

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, if granted, would not render all of Plaintiff’s claims moot,

as in addition to an injunction prohibiting future application of the grooming regulation against

Plaintiff, Plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief and the expungement of the disciplinary actions from

his central file. The survival of these claims depends on whether or not the favorable termination

rule applies to RLUIPA. 

Pursuant to the F&R, Defendants will not be invited to file another motion for summary

judgment until the F&R has been considered by the district court. Defendants’ current request shall

be granted to the extent that the parties will not be required to expend any resources on a new motion

for summary judgment until the motion to dismiss is resolved. To that end, if the F&R is adopted

in full and Defendants are invited to file another motion for summary judgment, the deadline for

filing such a motion will not be set until after Defendants’ motion to dismiss is resolved. However,

because the motion to dismiss will not resolve the action in its entirety, Defendants’ motion to hold

the F&R, and the thirty day objection period, in abeyance shall be denied. If the parties wish to

object to the F&R filed on January 30, 2006, they must do so within the time period set forth in the

F&R.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for an extension of time,

filed January 31, 2006, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

1. Defendants’ request to avoid the expenditure of any resources on a subsequent

motion for summary judgment pending resolution of their motion to dismiss is

GRANTED; 

2. Should the F&R be adopted in full and Defendants be invited to file another motion

for summary judgment, the deadline for filing the new motion will not be set until

after the pending motion to dismiss is resolved;

3. Defendants’ motion to hold the F&R filed on January 30, 2006, in abeyance is

DENIED; and

///

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 62 Filed 02/07/06 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

4. The parties’ objections to the F&R, if any, are due within the period set forth in the

F&R.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 62 Filed 02/07/06 Page 3 of 3