(PC) Carter v. California Correctional Institution et al
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KEITH REAGAN CARTER,
INSTITUTION, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-00358-DAD-JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
(Doc. No. 25)
Plaintiff Keith Reagan Carter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 29, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
finding that plaintiff had failed to allege any facts that would state a cognizable civil rights claim
and recommending dismissal of plaintiff’s second amended complaint without further leave to
amend. (Doc. No. 25.) In particular, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff had not sufficiently
alleged a claim that an impermissible burden had been placed on his religious exercise in
violation of the First Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc–2000cc-5. (Id. at 8.) The pending findings and
recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to
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
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
under the Eleventh Amendment and largely repeats his allegations that defendants violated his
rights under the Constitution and RLUIPA, submitting numerous exhibits to establish his attempts
to obtain his authorized “religious package.” (Id.) Plaintiff indicates that he prays five times
daily, and the prayer rug “is not only a central tenet of Islamic religious traditions, it would have
provided comfort for longer periods of prayer had plaintiff been allowed receipt of his pre-
approved religious package.” (Id. at 5.) Such statements support the magistrate judge’s
conclusions that plaintiff’s free exercise rights were not impinged by the denial of the prayer rug
from a specific vendor.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s
objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
The findings and recommendations issued on June 29, 2021 (Doc. No. 25) are
adopted in full;
This action is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim; and
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 7, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?