Marcus R. Ellington v. California Dept of Corr. and Rehab. et al

Filing 24

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall for Report and Recommendation 22 . The Court will issue separate orders regarding service of the following claims: (1) Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim against defendants John son and Lee in their official capacity for injunctive relief alleging 15 C.C.R. § 3054.5 discriminates against religious inmates, and (2) Plaintiff's First and Eighth Amendment claims pursuant to Section 1983 against defendants E. Lake, Ra bbi Lazar, and Does 1-10 in their individual capacity alleging they removed Plaintiff from the Kosher Diet Program with the intent of burdening Plaintiff's free exercise of his religion and preventing him from eating food that complies with the requirements of his religion. (see document for further details) (hr)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 MARCUS R. ELLINGTON, Plaintiff, 11 12 v. 13 CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF CORR. AND REHAB., ET AL., 14 Case No. CV 21-7364-CBM (KK) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendant(s). 15 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended 18 Complaint, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the 19 United States Magistrate Judge. No objections have been filed. The Court accepts 20 the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 22 (1) Plaintiff’s claim for violation of Article I, Section 4 of the California 23 24 25 26 Constitution is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend; and (2) the following claims are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend: (a) Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 27 1983”) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act, 42 U.S.C. § 28 2000cc et seq. (“RLUIPA”) against CDCR and defendants Johnson and Lee in 1 their official capacity to the extent Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from 2 defendants Johnson and Lee; 3 4 5 (b) Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim against the individual defendants in their individual capacity; (c) Plaintiff’s First Amendment Free Exercise and Eighth Amendment 6 claims for denial of Plaintiff’s administrative appeals against defendants 7 Johnson, Lee, Lewandowski, Ulstad, and Lake; 8 9 10 (d) Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims; and (e) Plaintiff’s claims for violation of Sections 5009(a), 636, 147 and 673 11 of the California Penal Code. 12 The Court will issue separate orders regarding service of the following claims: 13 (1) Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim against defendants Johnson and Lee in their 14 official capacity for injunctive relief alleging 15 C.C.R. § 3054.5 discriminates against 15 religious inmates, and 16 (2) Plaintiff’s First and Eighth Amendment claims pursuant to Section 1983 17 against defendants E. Lake, Rabbi Lazar, and Does 1-10 in their individual capacity 18 alleging they removed Plaintiff from the Kosher Diet Program with the intent of 19 burdening Plaintiff’s free exercise of his religion and preventing him from eating food 20 that complies with the requirements of his religion. 21 22 23 24 Dated: July 28, 2022 HON. HON CONSUELO B. B MARSHALL Senior United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?