Mitchell v. Pena, et al.
Filing
26
ORDER ADOPTING In Full the 23 Findings and Recommendations DENYING Defendant Sumaya's 20 Motion to Dismiss; ORDER for Defendant Sumaya to Answer OR Otherwise Respond to the Complaint Within 21 Days, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/5/2013. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
PENA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:11-cv-01205 – LJO – JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDING
AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING
DEFENDANT SUMAYA’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(Docs. 20 and 23)
ORDER FOR DEFENDANT SUMAYA TO
ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE
COMPLAINT WITHIN 21 DAYS
Plaintiff John Edward Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in a prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 12, 2013, the
20
Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations denying Defendant Sumaya’s Motion to
21
Dismiss. (Doc. 23). At present, the Court conducts a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s
22
23
24
25
26
27
Findings and Recommendations and, for the reasons set forth below, ADOPTS the Findings and
Recommendations IN FULL.
///
///
///
///
28
1
1
As a preliminary matter, the Magistrate Judge explicitly advised the parties that they must file
2
their objections – if any – within 14 days of service of the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 23 at
3
8-9). The parties have failed to timely object or otherwise respond.
4
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Magistrate Judge addressed Defendant Sumaya’s
5
argument that 15 Cal. Code. Reg. § 3054.4(a) is reasonable and therefore exonerates him from liability
6
under the First Amendment and the RLUIPA. (Doc. 23 at 4-5). First, the Magistrate Judge found that
7
15 Cal. Code. Reg. § 3054.4(a) was a rule of general applicability and therefore applied to the
8
Defendant. Id. at 3-4.
9
identified his religious diet as the religious exercise substantially infringed upon by Defendant Sumaya
10
actions. Id. at 4-6. Thus, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim pursuant
11
to RLUIPA and the First Amendment. Id. at 6.
Second, the Magistrate Judge determined that the Plaintiff appropriately
12
The Magistrate Judge also considered Defendant Sumaya’s argument that Plaintiff failed to
13
exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not named Defendant Sumaya in his administrative
14
grievance. Id. at 6-8. The Magistrate Judge, however, noted that the prison’s grievance procedure
15
determined the level of detail required to exhaust an inmate’s claim. Id. at 6-7.
16
controlling statute at the time Plaintiff filed his grievance – 15 Cal Code Regs. § 2084.2 – merely
17
required inmates to “describe the problem and action requested.” Id. at 7.
Notably, the
18
Next, the Magistrate Judge considered that Plaintiff filed a grievance dated November 9, 2010,
19
in which he describes prison personnel’s denial of his religious diet. (Doc. 23 at 7). Specifically,
20
Plaintiff complained that prison personnel continued to ignore his religious diet and he requested relief
21
from their actions. Id. at 8. The Magistrate Judge considered that this was the same problem and relief
22
Plaintiff presently seeks against Defendant Sumaya. Id. at 8.
23
recommended that Defendant Sumaya’s motion to dismiss be denied. Id. at 8.
Thus, the Magistrate Judge
24
Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi
25
Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo
26
review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and
27
Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
28
///
2
ORDER
1
2
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:
3
1. The Finding and Recommendation denying Defendant Sumaya’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
4
5
6
23) is ADOPTED IN FULL; and
2. Defendant Sumaya SHALL file an answer or responsive pleading within 21 days of the date
of this Order.
7
8
9
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
August 5, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
b9ed48bb
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?