Vaughn, Sr. v. Wegman et al
ORDER ADOPTING 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; referred to the Magistrate Judge for Service of Process, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 06/1/17. (Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RAY LEE VAUGHN, Sr.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01902-LJO-JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
WEGMAN, et al.,
Plaintiff, Ray Lee Vaughn, Sr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 2, 2017, the Magistrate Judge screened the First Amended Complaint and filed a
Findings and Recommendation that Plaintiff proceed on his religion claims against Defendants
Wegman and Chaplain Bowman, and to dismiss Defendant Imam Howard since not linked to
Plaintiff’s factual allegations. (Doc. 13.) The Findings and Recommendation was served on
Plaintiff and contained notice that objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be
filed within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff’s objections were filed on May 23, 2017. (Doc. 14.)
Plaintiff objects to dismissal of Defendant Howard and contends that he filed the inmate
appeal which is attached as an exhibit to the First Amended Complaint against Defendants
Wegman, Chaplain Bowman, and Imam Howard. (Doc. 14, p. 2.) Plaintiff was warned in the
order that screened his original Complaint and granted him leave to file the First Amended
Complaint that his allegations must show he suffered a specific injury and the causal relationship
between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered. (Doc. 11, p. 3, (citing Rizzo v. Goode,
423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976)).) Merely attaching an exhibit to a pleading does not suffice.
Further, Plaintiff filed the inmate appeal which he attached to the First Amended
Complaint solely against Defendants Wegman and Chaplain Bowman -- Plaintiff did not mention
Imam Howard. (See Doc. 12, pp. 11.) Though Imam Howard is mentioned in the Third Level
Decision as the person who interviewed Plaintiff at the First and Second Levels, Plaintiff does not
complain of Imam Howard’s conduct at all in the inmate appeal. (Id.) Likewise, according to the
Third Level Decision, Imam Howard’s interview of Plaintiff at the Second Level Review resulted
in Plaintiff’s appeal being partially granted as his “Religious Diet Request would be forwarded to
Jewish Rabbi P. Shleffar for consideration.” (Id., p. 6.) Thus, the inmate appeal that Plaintiff
points to does not show that Imam Howard infringed on Plaintiff’s exercise of his sincerely held
religious beliefs. Further leave to amend would be futile. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-
13 (9th Cir. 2012).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The Findings and Recommendations, that issued on May 2, 2017, is adopted in
This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, against
Defendants Wegman and Chaplain Bowman for deprivation of Plaintiff’s religious
rights under the First Amendment, RLUIPA, and the Equal Protection Clause by
prohibiting his access to Kosher meals and Jewish services; and
Defendant Imam Howard and all claims against him are dismissed with prejudice.
The action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
June 1, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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?