Huapaya v. Davey et al

Filing 25

ORDER adopting 23 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/5/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ENRIQUE HUAPAYA, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:17-cv-01441-DAD-SAB Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS D. DAVEY, et al., (Doc. No. 23) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Enrique Huapaya is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First and 19 Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as violations of the Bane Act, California Civil Code § 20 52.1, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.A. § 21 2000cc-1. (Doc. No. 21.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 22 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On December 4, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s initial complaint, 24 found plaintiff had failed to allege facts showing any defendant violated his rights, and granted 25 plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 8.) On March 14, 2018, the magistrate 26 judge screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint, and found plaintiff had failed to allege facts 27 supporting some of his claims but sufficiently pled facts supporting other claims. (Doc. No. 17.) 28 However, the magistrate judge also found plaintiff did not properly plead a demand for relief and, 1 1 therefore, granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. (Id.) On June 6, 2018, after 2 plaintiff filed his second amended complaint, the magistrate judge issued findings and 3 recommendations, recommending that the claims alleging violations of the Free Exercise Clause 4 of the First Amendment and RLUIPA be dismissed for a failure to state a cognizable claim for 5 relief. (Doc. No. 23.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 6 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) 7 On July 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a response to the findings and recommendations, indicating he did 8 not object to the findings and recommendations and that he wished to proceed only on the claims 9 the magistrate judge had found to be cognizable. (Doc. No. 24.) 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 11 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 12 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. 15 16 The findings and recommendations issued on June 6, 2018 (Doc. No. 23) are adopted in full; and 2. This action now proceeds only on: (1) plaintiff’s retaliation and Bane Act claims 17 against defendants Witt, Satterfield, Pauk, and Ratcliff; and (2) plaintiff’s equal 18 protection claims against defendants Pisciotta and Witt; and 19 20 21 22 3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 5, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?