(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)

Download PDF
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

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?