Garrison Johnson v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 84

ORDER SETTING New Deadline for Exhaustion Motion Filing and Extending All Other Deadlines Set Forth in Discovery and Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/3/2014. Exhaustion Motion due by 8/28/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
CDCR, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

[ECF Nos. 80, 83]

On March 7, 2014, Defendant Bostanjian filed an answer to the second amended complaint.
On April 28, 2014, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order.
On July 2, 2014, Defendants Foston, Ozaeta, Biter, Grisson, Cate, and California Department

21
22

ORDER SETTING NEW DEADLINE FOR
EXHAUSTION MOTION FILING AND
EXTENDING ALL OTHER DEADLINES SET
FORTH IN DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING
ORDER

U.S.C. § 1983.

19
20

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00582-AWI-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed an answer to the second amended complaint.
In light of Defendants’ answer, the Court will amend the discovery and scheduling order to

23
24

extend the deadline to file an exhaustion motion from July 28, 2014, to August 28, 2014. This

25

amended deadline extends to Defendant Bostanjian as well as all other defendants. All other

26

provisions and deadlines remain in full force and effect.

27

///

28

///
1

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

The discovery and scheduling order is AMENDED to extend the deadline to file an To state a
claim for violation of RLUIPA, Plaintiff must allege facts plausibly showing that the challenged
policy and the practices it engenders impose a substantial burden on the exercise of his religious
beliefs; Plaintiff bears the initial burden of persuasion on this issue. Hartmann v. California Dep’t of
Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted).
“Courts are expected to apply RLUIPA’s standard with due deference to the experience and
expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to
maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and limited
resources.” Hartmann v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2013)
(citing Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 723, 125 S.Ct. 2325 (2003)) (internal quotation marks

14

omitted).
1.

15

2.

exhaustion motion from July 28, 2014, to August 28, 2014; and
All other provisions and deadlines set forth in the Court’s discovery and scheduling
order issued April 28, 2014, remains in full force and effect.

16
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 3, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2