Rhoden v. Department of State Hospitals et al
Filing
60
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Second 59 Motion to Supplement the Complaint with Legal Authority, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/30/19. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LAWTIS DONALD RHODEN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS,
et al.,
Defendants.
16
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT
WITH LEGAL AUTHORITY
[ECF No. 59]
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to file supplemental legal
19
20
Case No.: 1:18-cv-00101-LJO-SAB (PC)
Plaintiff Lawtis Donald Rhoden is a civil detainee appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
authority in support of his complaint, filed April 29, 2019.
On January 22, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add
21
22
Defendant Stefanie Heggen as a Defendant and to add a fourth cause of action for a violation of his
23
right to practice his religion in violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and
24
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000, which was enacted in response to the constitutional
25
flaws with Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 identified in City of Boerne v. P.F. Flores, 521
26
U.S. 507 (1997).
27
///
28
///
1
1
Plaintiff’s request to provide supplemental legal authority in support of his claims is not
2
necessary. Plaintiff’s factual allegations are accepted at true and need not be bolstered by legal
3
authority at the pleading stage. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second motion to supplement the fifth
4
amended complaint with additional legal authority is denied.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated:
8
April 30, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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?