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)
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?