Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE B. COLLINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-03-6258 REC SMS P

NOTICE TO PARTIES THAT THIS ACTION

IS PROCEEDING ONLY ON PLAINTIFF’S

RLUIPA CLAIM, AND DIRECTING

PLAINTIFF NOT TO ADDRESS THE

ARGUMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELATING TO

THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREE EXERCISE

CLAIM

(Doc. 38.)

Plaintiff Steven B. Collins (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA)). On May 19, 2005, defendants Alameida and

Rawers (“defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 49.) In the motion, defendants

argue they are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s RLUIPA and First Amendment free

exercise claims. 

The parties are reminded that pursuant to the Court’s order of September 22, 2004, the only

claim left in this action is plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim for injunctive relief. (Doc. 38.) Therefore, the

///

///

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 50 Filed 05/20/05 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

 Additionally, the Court notes that defendants argue they are entitled to summary adjudication on the First

Amendment claim because the grooming policy withstands scrutiny under the “reasonableness” test set forth in

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987). If plaintiff’s claim had not been previously dismissed, the Turner

analysis would still be misplaced given that the Ninth Circuit found CDC’s grooming policy is constitutional. 

Henderson v. Terhune, 379 F.3d 709, 715-16 (9th Cir. 2004).

2

Court will not consider defendants’ argument with respect to the First Amendment free exercise

claim and in opposing the motion, plaintiff should not address this argument.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 50 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2