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