(PC) Carter v. California Correctional Institution et al

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING 25 Findings and Recommendations; ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/7/2021. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

Case 1:19-cv-00358-DAD-JLT Document 29 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEITH REAGAN CARTER,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION, et al.,

15

No. 1:19-cv-00358-DAD-JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
ACTION
(Doc. No. 25)

Defendants.
16
17

Plaintiff Keith Reagan Carter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On June 29, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

21

finding that plaintiff had failed to allege any facts that would state a cognizable civil rights claim

22

and recommending dismissal of plaintiff’s second amended complaint without further leave to

23

amend. (Doc. No. 25.) In particular, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff had not sufficiently

24

alleged a claim that an impermissible burden had been placed on his religious exercise in

25

violation of the First Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of

26

2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc–2000cc-5. (Id. at 8.) The pending findings and

27

recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to

28

be filed within fourteen days of the date of service. (Id. at 11.) After receiving an extension of

Case 1:19-cv-00358-DAD-JLT Document 29 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 2

1
2

time to do so, plaintiff filed timely objections. (Doc. No. 28.)
In those objections, plaintiff asserts that the CDCR and CCI are not entitled to immunity

3

under the Eleventh Amendment and largely repeats his allegations that defendants violated his

4

rights under the Constitution and RLUIPA, submitting numerous exhibits to establish his attempts

5

to obtain his authorized “religious package.” (Id.) Plaintiff indicates that he prays five times

6

daily, and the prayer rug “is not only a central tenet of Islamic religious traditions, it would have

7

provided comfort for longer periods of prayer had plaintiff been allowed receipt of his pre-

8

approved religious package.” (Id. at 5.) Such statements support the magistrate judge’s

9

conclusions that plaintiff’s free exercise rights were not impinged by the denial of the prayer rug

10
11

from a specific vendor.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

12

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s

13

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

14

proper analysis.

15

Accordingly,

16

1.

The findings and recommendations issued on June 29, 2021 (Doc. No. 25) are
adopted in full;

17
18

2.

This action is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim; and

19

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 7, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2