Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00184/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00184-6/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

 On September 18, 2006, defendants Schwarzenegger, Woodford, and Hickman, and the State of California 1

and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to the extent plaintiff intended to name them as

defendants, were dismissed, and plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting enforcement of

the grooming regulation were dismissed. (Doc. 17.) 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAKLA JOSEPH,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00184-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REQUIRING

PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S

ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2006, WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

(Docs. 18 and 19)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SEND PLAINTIFF CONFORMED COPY OF

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 14)

Plaintiff Shakla Joseph (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”)). On September 21, 2006, the court issued an

order finding that plaintiff’s amended complaint stated cognizable claims for relief under RLUIPA

against defendants Daviega, Pursell, Hooker, Fulks, Anderson, Flore, and Adams, and directing

plaintiff to complete and return to the court summonses and USM-285 forms for each of the seven

defendants within thirty days. (Doc. 18.) On November 28, 2006, after more than thirty days 1

Case 1:05-cv-00184-LJO-SMS Document 21 Filed 01/25/07 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

passed and plaintiff failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the court’s order, the court

recommended that this action be dismissed. (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff filed objections on December 7,

2006. (Doc. 20.) 

Plaintiff states that he wrote a letter to the Clerk’s Office requesting clarification of the

court’s order and a conformed copy of his amended complaint. Plaintiff states that although it

appeared he failed to comply with the court’s order, he did contact the Clerk’s Office seeking

assistance.

Plaintiff is advised that he may not respond to court orders via a letter to the Clerk’s Office.

Any response to the court’s orders must be directed to the court to ensure that it is filed in the case.

The Clerk’s Office will be directed to send plaintiff a copy of his amended complaint, and the

Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of this action shall be vacated. Within

thirty days, plaintiff shall comply with the court’s order of September 21, 2006, by submitting (1)

the Notice of Submission of Documents form, (2) seven summonses (one for each defendant), (3)

seven UMS-285 forms (one for each defendant), and (4) eight copies of the amended complaint. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on November 28, 2006, is VACATED;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall comply

with the court’s order of September 21, 2006, by submitting to the court the Notice

of Submission of Documents form, seven completed summonses, seven completed

UMS-285 forms, and eight photocopies of his amended complaint; and

3. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a copy of his amended complaint, filed

December 7, 2005 (court document 14).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00184-LJO-SMS Document 21 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2