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)
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?