Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01583/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01583-6/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. VIRGA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-1583 TLN AC

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 June 12, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 12, 2013, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 14 and 22) are denied with prejudice on the 

ground that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations;

Case 2:12-cv-01583-TLN-AC Document 43 Filed 09/16/13 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

3. Defendant’s Virga’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 14) is 

granted, but plaintiff is granted leave to amend within twenty-eight days;

4. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to state a claim under the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, also within twentyeight days of the filing date of this order;

5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity is denied but without 

prejudice;

6. Plaintiff’s claims for prospective injunctive relief as to both defendants is dismissed as 

moot; and

7. This matter proceeds only on plaintiff’s claim for damages.

Dated: September 13, 2013

/alle1583.801

Case 2:12-cv-01583-TLN-AC Document 43 Filed 09/16/13 Page 2 of 2