Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02586/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02586-11/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON L. SCOTT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2586 LKK GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner who has been denied a request to change his name. He

brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause and under

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The matter was referred to

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order

No. 262. Both parties have moved for summary judgment. On August 23, 2006, the magistrate

judge recommended that plaintiff’s motion be denied and that defendant’s motion be granted. 

Upon review of the findings and recommendations, as well as plaintiff’s objections to the same,

the court adopts the recommendation to deny plaintiff’s motion but declines to adopt the

recommendation to grant defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment with respect to his First Amendment and RLUIPA

claims. However, he failed to meet his initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 68 Filed 09/28/06 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

2

genuine issue of material fact. Specifically, in order to establish a free exercise violation, a

plaintiff must show that the conduct barred by defendant is “mandated” by his faith. Freeman v.

Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 736 (9 Cir. 1997). Plaintiff only submitted his unsworn statement, th

contained in his motion, regarding this issue, rather than a sworn declaration. Moreover, the

statement was ambiguous and stated that “a change of name accompanies a change in character”

but did not indicate whether a name change was required in this circumstance. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED.

Nevertheless, defendant did not move for summary judgment with respect to the issue of

whether plaintiff’s faith mandated a name change. Rather, defendant only moved for summary

judgment on grounds of mootness, which should be denied. Merely because plaintiff failed to

meet his initial burden on summary judgment of demonstrating that his faith mandated a name

change does not mean that defendant would have prevailed in a cross-motion on the same issue. 

Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED.

The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 28, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 68 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2