Young v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 02/14/18 VACATING 29 Motion for Summary Judgment. Discovery is re-opened and the parties may conduct discovery until 4/17/18. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before 8/24/18. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANNY GEROME YOUNG, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-2604 GEB CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is defendants’ fully briefed motion for summary 19 judgment. (ECF No. 29.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will vacate the motion for 20 summary judgment and briefly re-open discovery. 21 In screening the first amended complaint, the court simply held that it stated a cognizable 22 claim and cited to the screening of the original complaint. (ECF No. 10.) The screening order for 23 the original complaint stated that plaintiff had “implicate[d] the free exercise clause.” (ECF No. 5 24 at 4.) It appears that defendants have accordingly treated plaintiff’s first amended complaint as 25 containing only a First Amendment claim. (See ECF No. 29.) However, the first amended 26 complaint also clearly implicated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 27 (RLUIPA) and the Fourteenth Amendment because plaintiff explicitly invoked RLUIPA and 28 stated that he was treated differently from inmates of other religions who are permitted to wear 1 1 their religious head coverings without special permission. (ECF No. 9 at 3, 6-9.) Neither of these 2 claims is addressed in defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which appears to seek 3 dismissal of the entire case. (ECF No. 29.) Because the screening order did not make clear that 4 plaintiff also had cognizable equal protection and RLUIPA1 claims, the court will vacate the 5 pending motion for summary judgment and briefly re-open discovery to allow additional 6 discovery related to those claims. Upon the close of discovery, the parties will have the 7 opportunity to file dispositive motions. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 29) is vacated. 10 2. Discovery is re-opened and the parties may conduct discovery until April 17, 2018. 11 Any motions necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by April 17, 2018. All requests for 12 discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 31 (deposition by written question), 33 13 (interrogatories), 34 (production of documents), or 36 (admissions) shall be served no later than 14 March 2, 2018. Responses to written discovery requests shall be due thirty days after the 15 request is served. 16 3. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before 17 August 24, 2018. 18 Dated: February 14, 2018 19 20 13:youn2604.vacate _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The court notes that plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim is likely moot since he has been transferred to another prison and the complaint appears to challenge how the policy was enforced at California Health Care Facility rather than the policy itself. See Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015) (RLUIPA does not authorize monetary damages against state officials in either their individual or official capacities (citing Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277, 284-85 (2011); Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 903-04 (9th Cir. 2014)); Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[W]hen a prisoner is moved from a prison, his action will usually become moot as to conditions at that particular facility” (citing Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995))); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (claims for injunctive relief related to conditions of confinement were moot where prisoner was transferred to another facility and “demonstrated no reasonable expectation of returning to [the original facility].” (citing Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1986))). 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?