Sokolsky v. State of California et al

Filing 16

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE CLAIMS re 15 signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/18/2015. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 9/4/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

MARK S. SOKOLSKY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-02044 LJO DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF
WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ON
COGNIZABLE CLAIMS
[ECF No. 15]

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff Mark S. Sokolsky (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on December 16, 2013.
On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). He named
the State of California, Christine Mativo, Rebecca Domrese, Audrey King, Alan Carlson, Brian
Bowley, Marisa Bigot, Kamala Harris, and John/Jane Does 1 to 100 as Defendants. On July 27,
2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s FAC and found that it stated the following claims: (1)
violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion by Defendants Mativo,

24
25
26
27

Domrese, King, Bowley, and Bigot; (2) violation of RLUIPA by Defendants Mativo, Domrese,
King, Bowley, and Bigot; and (3) violation of Plaintiff’s substantive due process rights by
Defendants King, Mativo, and Domrese for conditions of confinement. The Court ordered

28
1

1
2

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on
these claims.

3
4

On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wanted to proceed only on the
cognizable claims identified above.1

5

RECOMMENDATION
6

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS the following:

7

1. This action be ORDERED to proceed on the following claims: (1) violation of

8
9
10

Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion by Defendants Mativo, Domrese,
King, Bowley, and Bigot; (2) violation of RLUIPA by Defendants Mativo, Domrese, King,

11

Bowley, and Bigot; and (3) violation of Plaintiff’s substantive due process rights by Defendants

12

King, Mativo, and Domrese for conditions of confinement; and
2. The remaining claims, as well as Defendants State of California, Alan Carlson, and

13
14

Kamala Harris, be DISMISSED from this action.

15

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

16

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

17

(14) days after date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

18

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

19

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

20
21

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

25

August 18, 2015

/s/ Dennis

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff also submitted an unsolicited brief concerning the law applicable to his case. The Court will not address
Plaintiff’s various arguments since Plaintiff’s arguments are not relevant to any issue at this time, and because the
Court is well aware of the law applicable in this case.
2