Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02044/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02044-4/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

MARK S. SOKOLSKY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-02044 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 

WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ON 

COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

[ECF No. 15]

Plaintiff Mark S. Sokolsky (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on December 16, 2013.

On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). He named

the State of California, Christine Mativo, Rebecca Domrese, Audrey King, Alan Carlson, Brian 

Bowley, Marisa Bigot, Kamala Harris, and John/Jane Does 1 to 100 as Defendants. On July 27, 

2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s FAC and found that it stated the following claims: (1) 

violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion by Defendants Mativo, 

Domrese, King, Bowley, and Bigot; (2) violation of RLUIPA by Defendants Mativo, Domrese, 

King, Bowley, and Bigot; and (3) violation of Plaintiff’s substantive due process rights by 

Defendants King, Mativo, and Domrese for conditions of confinement. The Court ordered 

Case 1:13-cv-02044-LJO-GSA Document 16 Filed 08/18/15 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

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on 

these claims.

On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wanted to proceed only on the 

cognizable claims identified above.

1

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS the following:

1. This action be ORDERED to proceed on the following claims: (1) violation of 

Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion by Defendants Mativo, Domrese, 

King, Bowley, and Bigot; (2) violation of RLUIPA by Defendants Mativo, Domrese, King, 

Bowley, and Bigot; and (3) violation of Plaintiff’s substantive due process rights by Defendants 

King, Mativo, and Domrese for conditions of confinement; and

2. The remaining claims, as well as Defendants State of California, Alan Carlson, and 

Kamala Harris, be DISMISSED from this action.

These Findings and Recommendations are 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 fourteen 

(14) days after date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: August 18, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff also submitted an unsolicited brief concerning the law applicable to his case. The Court will not address 

Plaintiff’s various arguments since Plaintiff’s arguments are not relevant to any issue at this time, and because the 

Court is well aware of the law applicable in this case.

Case 1:13-cv-02044-LJO-GSA Document 16 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 2