Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06721/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06721-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMAVIS A. COMUNDOIWILLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M.S. EVANS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06721-LJO-SKO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Lamavis A. Comundoiwilla (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 23, 2010, the

Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint stated some cognizable

claims against certain Defendants. (Doc. #23.) The Court noted that Plaintiff failed to state any

other claims against any other Defendants. The Court ordered Plaintiff either to file an amended

complaint or to notify the Court that he wished to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. 

On March 22, 2010, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wishes to proceed only on the claims found

to be cognizable. Based on Plaintiff’s notice, these Findings and Recommendations now issue. See 1

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies

and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

In Plaintiff’s notice, Plaintiff also expressed an intent to amend his complaint later pursuant to Federal Rule

1

of Civil Procedure 15 to state claims against Defendant Liles. The Court will refrain from addressing the issue of

whether Plaintiff’s prospective amendment is appropriate until Plaintiff files his motion to amend.

1

Case 1:04-cv-06721-LJO -BAM Document 33 Filed 04/27/10 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

1. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, and

RLUIPA claims against Defendant Liles be dismissed; and 2

2. Defendant Liles 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)(1). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: April 26, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

2

2

Case 1:04-cv-06721-LJO -BAM Document 33 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 2