Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00900/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00900-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barry A. Bausman
Plaintiff
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

BARRY A. BAUSMAN,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION,

 Defendant.

1:14-cv-00900-DAD-EPG-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION

PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT

CDCR ON PLAINTIFF’S RLUIPA CLAIM 

AND RELATED STATE CLAIMS, AND 

THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 20 DAYS

Barry A. Bausman (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 and The Religious Land Use 

and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. ' 2000cc-1. The case now 

proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on February 13, 2015. (ECF 

No. 31.) The First Amended Complaint names sole defendant California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and alleges RLUIPA claims, First Amendment free 

exercise claims, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims, and state law claims.

The Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

' 1915A and found that it states a cognizable RLUIPA claim against defendant CDCR, but no 

other claims. (ECF No. 15.) On May 4, 2016, Plaintiff was granted leave to either file a

Second Amended Complaint or notify the Court that he is willing to proceed only on the claims

found cognizable by the Court. (Id.) On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the 

Case 1:14-cv-00900-DAD-EPG Document 18 Filed 05/19/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Court that he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable RLUIPA claim and related state law 

claims against defendant CDCR. (ECF No. 16.)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed only against defendant CDCR, on Plaintiff’s claim under 

RLUIPA and related state law claims;

2. All remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action; and

3. Plaintiff’s First Amendment free exercise claims and Fourteenth Amendment 

equal protection claims be dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure 

to state a claim.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within 

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00900-DAD-EPG Document 18 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 2