Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00814/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00814-4/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

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

EDWARD T. FURNACE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00814-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO:

1) PROCEED WITH SERVICE OF FIRST 

AMENDMENT CLAIMS; AND 

2) DISMISS REMAINING CLAIMS WITH 

PREJUDICE

3) DIRECT PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT 

SERVICE DOCUMENTS

(ECF No. 26)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Edward Terran Furnace, a.k.a. Asar Tauf Shakanasa, is a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On June 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations to 

proceed with service of Plaintiff’s cognizable First Amendment claims and to dismiss all 

Case 1:14-cv-00814-LJO-MJS Document 28 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 4
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

other claims with prejudice. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff filed objections on June 19, 2015. 

(ECF No. 27.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by 

proper analysis, except that the Court makes the following modification in light of 

Plaintiff’s objections to the recommended dismissal of his RLUIPA claims with prejudice:

The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had not demonstrated entitlement to 

injunctive relief under RLUIPA because he had been transferred from Corcoran SHU, 

where his claims arose, and had not shown a reasonable likelihood of returning there. In 

his objections, Plaintiff asserts that the ICC recently recommended transferring him to

Pelican Bay SHU, with an alternate of Corcoran SHU, and that Plaintiff will be housed at 

one of the two institutions as of August 16, 2015. (ECF No. 27.) Because Plaintiff’s 

objections raise the possibility that Plaintiff will return to Corcoran SHU, the Court will 

dismiss Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims without prejudice. If Plaintiff is in fact transferred back 

to Corcoran, he may amend his complaint to reassert his RLUIPA claims.

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed June 4, 2015 

(ECF No. 26) in part;

2. Plaintiff should proceed on the Second Amended Complaint’s First 

Amendment claims against Defendants Gipson, Kimbrell, Swift, Allen, 

Robicheaux, Graves, and Sexton for denial of the name change and 

religious property request;

3. Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims for denial of the name change and religious 

Case 1:14-cv-00814-LJO-MJS Document 28 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

property request are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

4. All other claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint and all other 

named Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

5. Service should be initiated on the following Defendants:

(1) Connie Gipson, former warden, Corcoran; (2) Kimbrell, Litigation 

Coordinator, Corcoran; (3) Swift, Chief Deputy Warden-Administration, 

Corcoran; (4) Allen, Appeals Examiner; (5) Robicheaux, Correctional 

Lieutenant; (6) Graves, CRM(A); and (7) Sexton, Chief Deputy WardenOperations, Corcoran.

6. The Clerk of Court should send Plaintiff seven (7) USM-285 forms, (7)

summonses, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction 

sheet, and a copy of the Second Amended complaint, filed May 13, 2015

(ECF No. 24);

7. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff should 

complete and return to the Court the notice of submission of documents 

along with the following documents:

i. Seven (7) completed summonses,

ii. Seven (7) completed USM-285 forms for each Defendant listed 

above,

iii. Eight (8) copies of the endorsed Second Amended Complaint filed 

May 13, 2015; and

8. Plaintiff need not attempt service on the defendants and need not request 

waiver of service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the 

Court should direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named 

Case 1:14-cv-00814-LJO-MJS Document 28 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 

of costs.

The failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00814-LJO-MJS Document 28 Filed 07/16/15 Page 4 of 4